Thread 17988799

Many here use this term as an ethnic designation for Europeans or Indo-Europeans, but it turns out that the same linguists trying to reconstruct it have come to unpleasant conclusions. This word is present not only in Semitic languages, such as Aramaic, Egyptian, and even Hebrew—which is ironic, very ironic—but also in the languages of the indigenous peoples of Kamchatka Krai in the Russian Far East, such as the Koranics (disgusting Chukoto languages). I think treating this term as a European identifier is not only flawed but humiliating. Theories can become schizophrenic now. There is no evidence of Indo-European migration throughout the Levant, much less in useless areas like the frozen deserts of Russia. So, whatever the answer, the word has lost its exclusivity and meaning. If even a Hebrew or a Koranic could use this term, if everyone can be Aryan, then no one is Aryan.

>>17988799 (OP)
I already said before that the term is polysemic and useless, you are going to make an Indo-Uralic-Semitic (IUS) connection because linguisgas are insecure and sad creatures

>>17988799 (OP)
It's funny how easily a person can jump to strange conclusions when presented with technical data of a sort which he is very unfamiliar with.

>I think treating this term as a European identifier is not only flawed
There is no flaw. This is a failure to understand on your part. Allow me to explain:
There are MANY roots held in common between Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European. The recognition of this does not mean the Indo-European language is no longer uniquely Indo-European. What you are looking at between Afro-Asiatic (AA) and Indo-European (IE) is a common root *ħar-. This root can be reconstructed because of the formal and semantic compatibilities between the AA version of the root (*ħar-) and the IE version of the root (*h2er- [h2ar-]).

To nobody's surprise each language family has taken the root to construct different words with different suffixes and meanings. *h2ér-yos is not present in AA. AA has no word referring to the Aryan ethnicity. This is because PIEs innovated a word referring to themselves ethnically within their own community. They did not inherit this word or its ethnic meaning from somewhere else.

The standalone root must be absurdly ancient. The only genetics that connects the Russian far east, IEs, and AAs are ANEs despite being heavily diluted south of the Caucasus. I think one of the only ways to make sense of this if presented with numerous roots with such extreme geographic distribution is that ANE descendants spread ANE words far and wide.

It's easier to understand when you recognize AA is not an African language that spread into Eurasia but rather the result of Eurasiatic speech spreading into Africa. Wherever AA is spoken, some West Eurasian admixture is present, even as far away as Chad. Even if the only thing easily observable is a Y-DNA haplogroup, language can still be transmitted by a chain of fathers alone.

Maybe the word predates the tower of Babel

>>17988893
Ancient Egyptian offers an interesting clue on the basic meaning of the root *ħar-.
ḥry 'chief, master, overseer, superior'
ḥr 'on, upon, over'
ḥrw 'upper part, top'
(Ancient Egyptian words are written without vowels, but vowels were pronounced in the spoken language.)

In Ancient Egyptian this hints at the basic meaning of the root being something like 'above (physically)', so when the root was applied to a word describing a person you were saying he is 'above (socially)', in other words 'a superior'. This leads to meanings like 'noble, free-born'.

One theory on what PIEs thought when they referred to themselves as Aryans is that they were calling themselves 'freemen', and this became a part of their ethnic identity in contrast to the other peoples they encountered. This makes sense when you realized they, as nomadic pastoralists, were quite literally free compared to settled peoples.

>>17988799 (OP)
H2eryós sisters? Our answer?
>>17988893
if it's not you talking to yourself to sound smart, the footnotes are clear, supposedly this word has a common root, so you have few choices my friend either you create an autistic connection or assume that maybe h2er can be a case of Lallwort

>>17989071
This guy is problematic, he has already created connections with ANE.... don't waste your time man.

>>17988893
>some West Eurasian admixture is present, even as far away as Chad.
Semitic
>Even if the only thing easily observable is a Y-DNA haplogroup
Not even IE, but EEF (or even WHG)
>The only genetics that connects the Russian far east
it is a recent mixture, no more than the Iberians have Iberomaurusian, false equivalence

The term aryan means noble or noble ones. And as an aryan there is nothing more noble than keeping up the ancient aryan tradition of keeping feminine Jews under heel lol ^_^

>>17989071
no, the OP is talking nonsense, they are not words that share the same root, there is no connection between Semitic and Siberian languages, unadapted borrowing, see the word mother in PIE, derives from babble

>>17989081
Yes, Jews, Ethiopians (half African), Arabs and Siberians used the term
one race, the Aryan race ^_^

>>17988926
>One theory on what PIEs thought when they referred to themselves as Aryans is
Dead theory

>>17988799 (OP)
>>17988926
In any case, I am Egyptian, I will consider myself an Aryan like my ancestors.
an Egyptian, son of an Egyptian, an ħar of ħar stock ;)

>>17989087
If even Ethiopians used it, what's the problem with Dravidians using it? None. Everyone is Aryan and is welcome to use the term. Aryan is inclusive. We win, multiculturalist sisters, again.

Where are all the holy places in the Bible? Mountain (Har) tops.

Who comes down from the mountains? Warriors, Messengers, Angels, God himself.

Who lives on the mountain? the Lord, his priests, his messengers, angels

Isnt heaven a high place?

What words do we have that use Har?

Harjaz - Warrior/ Army
Harbinger - Messenger / Prophet
Harbor - Shelter for war ships
Hargrove - Mountain Grove? Holy grove?
Harold - Ruler / powerful in war.

>>17988799 (OP)
>There is no evidence of Indo-European migration throughout the Levant

>>17988799 (OP)
>much less in useless areas like the frozen deserts of Russia
The Scythians went to the far east as the Saka, Ara is a little known language remnant of old Aryan treated as an isolate and probably represents the earliest phase of that pre-Iranic language. Of course, the Scythians also ruled parts of the Levant.

>>17989087
The middle east is an Iranic backwater.

>>17989102
The OT never happened.

>>17989108

Scythopolis was the Hellenistic-Roman name for the ancient city of Beit She'an in northern Israel, meaning "City of Scythians".

It sat at the entrance to the Jezreal valley where many royal, elite israelis lived at the time.

Beith Shan means "house of ease," "house of security," or "house of rest" in Hebrew.

Which tribe of Israel recieved / dwelled in Beith Shan?

Issachar meaning meaning man of hire

>>17989118
>Beit She'an
That's a much later name. Scythopolis is used first, by the Greeks.
>Hebrew
I have terrible news for you.

>>17989113
naive take.

It obviously is a combination of various of historical events with a layer of religious, administrative, kingly influences.

-Riven is a league of legends character.
- Lots of people use him to win.
-People write the meta after Riven is victorious: Riven is the God of League of Legends.

>>Riven was never a God therefore it never happened.

>>17989123
I don't play that game. Back to history: no, two superpowers named Judah and Israel did NOT appear during the height of the Bronze Age Collapse, when every other power in the region was failing. There was no Davidian golden age. In fact, there was no David.

>>17989127
Im not that kind of Christian, ive heard all this before.

Super literal and naive take of the bible. You have never read any of it.

>>17989132
You're not actually arguing at this point. If you seriously believed what you claimed then you would state the best reasons for why you believe it's real history. You won't because you know they will get torn down in short order.

>>17988799 (OP)
Who outside of fringe groups uses Aryan as designator for Europeans or PIE speakers ? Linguistic usage of term Aryan is specifically for Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers and indeed it was their decendants (Iranians and Indo-Aryans) who used Aryan as group identifier or even somekind of semi-ethonym.

What comes to Middle-East there was a group there, who used term Aryan as self-identifier and they were ofcource Mitanni. Or more specifically upper echelon, aristocracy, of Mitanni society. They spoke language that was closer to Sansksrit than Indo-Iranian.

Mitanni Empire was conviniently located between What is now Egypt and Turkey.

>>17989113
>>17989102
Off topic, you stupid tard

>>17989145
It's literally in the OP. The thread post actually says that Hebrew and eastern languages have references to the root word, so if Scythians who spoke Iranic were in the Levant, which contradicts the OT anti-history, then yes it's very much the core of the topic. Can't believe that had to be explained.

>>17989139
Eh this format is confusing because you didnt really make a point you just pulled out a screenshot from wikipedia and Scythopolis.

I think thats proof enough that there was IE migration to the levant.

Which is when I started posting. So you are probably confusing me with a different persons posts.

Anyways. Yeah the bible didnt happen as described its a confluence of a variety of tricks for kings, historical meta narratives and theres been tons of obfuscation.

Personally I think a lot of the early biblical sources were Egyptian but they changed up the names and information.

>>you would state the best reasons for why you believe it's real history

Just because some name from the Bible can be used as evidence doesnt mean I believe the rest of it to be historical.

>>17989144
>Who outside of fringe groups uses Aryan as designator for Europeans or PIE speakers
IE is just Iranic, and Iran means Aryan. You're just triggered for political reasons, blinded by your own supremacist fantasies most likely.

Mitanni are a mystery box- we don't know enough about them to put them anywhere in the continuum. Of all of the major Iranic speaking peoples, they're the least useful for ascertaining the origins of that family.

>>17989152
>you didnt really make a point
If Scythians are in the Levant then Hebrew which came much later would have adopted the word. Hebrew adopts tons of words from Aramaic, which adopted words from Phoenician, which adopted IE words. We had another thread about this awhile ago where it was revealed that the word QRN comes from Aryan roots.

The entire OT is plagiarized from foreign sources, so you're right that it robbed from Egyptian tradition as well.

>>17989071
>H2eryós sisters? Our answer?
>if it's not you talking to yourself to sound smart, the footnotes are clear, supposedly this word has a common root, so you have few choices my friend either you create an autistic connection or assume that maybe h2er can be a case of Lallwort
Lallwort is baby talk. I assume you mean wanderwort. The fact that you are reaching for the wanderwort explanation despite it being inappropriate means you don't understand what you're looking at.
*ħar- is a root.
*h2ér-yos is a word.

When words are loaned from one language family to another, they are usually loaned wholesale because the morphology of one language isn't understood by speakers of another language family. So what I am saying is the general rule is words can be loaned. Roots tend to be inherited. Wanderworts are most frequently trade items. There is no trade item under discussion here. The wanderwort hypothesis is a very poor fit for the data. Rather we should by default expect that all three language families inherited the root from a common source.

There is no issue here for the Aryan identity of Indo-Europeans. They are the only ones who have used the root to make unique words to create ethnonyms. The data does not support ethnic Aryans in AA or Chukchi-Kamchatkan (CK). They did not use the root in the same way as Indo-Europeans.

>>17989075
The only thing problematic is your failure to grasp the implications of the data. If a root is held in common between IE, AA, and CK, the only way I know of to explain this is through ANE gene flow. IEs were not in the Russian far east. Neither were AAs. However everyone knows R1b and ANE admixture is widespread even if diluted in some places. Do you actually think it's impossible for people to transmit language across generations?

>>17989159
Ok and you have read those foreign sources? No dumbass.

The bible is the best version of those foreign sources we have, especially if you can see through the obfuscation.

no instead the moment I quote a hebrew word you start yapping about Davids kingdom and Judah and Israel. Excellent derailing

I garuntee you have never read any significant portion of the bible because you only can approach it form a anti christian perspective.

>>17989172
>IEs were not in the Russian far east
Saddest bait I've ever seen. See:>>17989111

>>17989172
>IEs were not in the Russian far east
So how did Runic end up being the first Turkic script?

>>17989173
>Ok and you have read those foreign sources
Yes. Every single one. Nobody mentions them explicitly and you have to play phonology games to fit them in anywhere. Even the word Assyria is transliterated by rabbinicalists to be Israel.

>>17989154
They were pre-Vedic Aryans in Levant, 14th century BC. These guys are also likely the reason why there are some really old R1a-Z93 lineages in modern Arabs.

>>17989185
>They were pre-Vedic
When do you date the Vedas? I'm just curious. Haven't settled on a definite century myself. Hindus put them as far back as 3300 BC or earlier, but they do that with everything and often arbitrarily.

>>17989192
3300BC is completely out of question. Thats too old even for early Proto-Indo-European. 1000BC give and take few centuries. So a little bit younger than Mitanni Aryans at Levant but in the same epoch widely speaking.

>>17989183
Ok, but just because Assyria was replaced with Israel in some places doesnt mean we cant decode what happened.

Theres an obvious migration from the north happening. It wasnt a long one, and likely very few or none of the people in the early BIble were speaking Hebrew

Hebrew language came into play when Jethro the Midianite High Priest (100% semite) came into power by killing off the tribal elders of the original tribe.

>>17989080
>Semitic
Yes, "West Eurasian" includes Semitic. "West Eurasian" is not equivalent to "European".

>Not even IE
I never said it was IE. Objectively, R1b is an ANE haplogroup. Even if you insist it must be mediated by EEFs this is still the case although it seems doubtful that R1b transmission was *exclusively* mediated by EEFs into AA speakers. It doesn't matter how indirect the gene flow was though. Language is capable of being transmitted regardless.

>It was recent
I can't agree with that. R1b is too widespread for the gene flow to be attributed to a recent event.

>>17989089
Cope

>>17989096
Your ancestors didn't call themselves Aryans. They had a word for a superior or leader that was unrelated to an ethnic identity.


For any Christian identity schizos visiting the thread: there's nothing here of value to you in this thread. Go away.

>>17989207
>Hebrew language came into play
Jethro never existed and Hebrew would necessarily have to come after the Aramaic period of the 5th century BC developmentally because the earliest Hebrew borrows from words after this period. Since everything we know about the OT comes from the Greeks writing it down in the 3rd century and the Greeks don't mention any Israel or Judah or Jews prior to this, it means the entire identity had to be formed after the 3rd century but prior to the Maccabean revolt, or indeed in order to initiate the Maccabean revolt.

>>17989209
>Your ancestors didn't call themselves Aryans
Whoops lol

>>17989172
>The only thing problematic is your failure to grasp the implications of the data.
Why are you so angry? PMS?
>If a root is held in common between IE, AA, and CK, the only way I know of to explain this is through ANE gene flow.
No, it isn't. This explanation doesn't make sense for several reasons. One of them is:
1. We don't know what language the "ANE" spoke. There were no attempts to reconstruct a language with Amerindian morphology and IE or any such nonsense.
2. "ANE" didn't migrate to the Middle East. We have some basal ancestry in populations of the Zagros-N, but we don't even know if it's "ANE." Furthermore, there was no influx into Egypt or the Middle East in general. Your ignorance of genetics leads you to spout a lot of nonsense. Don't get involved in this debate; it's better for you.
3. "ANE" is a basal branch. We're talking about a population that existed long before the formation of the components that would become EHG and CHG. What I mean is that forcing a connection with "ANE" through the term "noble" is so crazy that it ignores all the nuances of this argument. 4. I think others have already drawn your attention to this, but PIE (berezehnovka+kotias) was not formed until 4000 BC, at the MOST. Forcing ANE is quite ridiculous, find another explanation or don't think that genetics should be allied with linguistic delusions.


IEs were not in the Russian far east. Neither were AAs. However everyone knows R1b and ANE admixture is widespread even if diluted in some places. Do you actually think it's impossible for people to transmit language across generations?

>>17989178
>>17989180
Look at this map. There is no IE influence here. What we are discussing is the result of ANE.

>>17989215
They codified various sources, they did not just write it out of thin air though. You made that point previously.

You cant say Jethro didnt exist. At best you can say, Jethro was not the real name.

To say Jethro didnt exist you are basically making the claim that there were no Mountain Top High Priests in the levant. You dont know who the fuck Jethro really was.

I think the fact that the story of Moses + Jethro all the way to the "promised land" is so sloppy and incompetent, shows that there was obfuscation of the original story but its clear what happened.

>>17989225
>IEs were not in the Russian far east
Why do you insist on oofing this point?

>>17988799 (OP)
Semites also have ary meaning "kinsman"

>>17989225
2/2
>IEs were not in the Russian far east.
irrelevant
>Neither were AAs.
Irrelevant
>However everyone knows R1b and ANE admixture is widespread even if diluted in some places.
comp said... you've entered a field you know nothing about, friend. Haplogroups are quite useless because they don't even represent 10% of the base genome, and they influence any type of genotype very much; they're mere lineages. Scandinavians and Finno-Africans have high amounts of autosomal steppe, but they have haplotypes beyond the r1b muh. Do you consider them less EI because of that? Haplogroups are useful for tracing migrations, and that's it. Since you brought up the r1b subject, PIE had non-ANE clades and even haplogroups like I2 and even J. Does this mean they had some direct Caucasian connection (besides the ancestry measured by CHG women), or would this I2 prove some deep connection with HG groups? No, because haplogroups don't define that. If you'd like, I can explain your idea in detail.

>>17989230
We can take this to Japan, baby.

>>17989230
>>17989242

>>17989230
>>17989242
>>17989243

>>17989209
He is correct. This r1b in these areas is not IE, so his premise is wrong because it still clings to "r1b" as something relevant beyond migratory lineages.
You are talking about the R-V88 clade. Based on a detailed phylogenetic analysis, we know that R1b-V88 originated in Europe about 12,000 years ago and crossed into North Africa between 8,000 and 7,000 years ago, during the 'Green Sahara' period, with no connection to IE

>>17989215
What is an example of the earliest hebrew words that are borrow from after.

I mean I dont know my timelines super well.
But im open to the fact that Greek versions existed before the Hebrew

However I dont think that means the Greek versions are the original source for all the stories.

>>17989215
Off topic
Out

>>17989254
>This r1b in these areas is not IE
All R1b speakers tie directly back to cultures speaking IE.
>Based on a detailed phylogenetic analysis, we know that R1b-V88 originated in Europe about 12,000 years ago
Where did you get this from exactly?

>>17989259
Again, see the OP. This is a main part of the core argument presented by the OP. I get that you don't want to discuss these things, but that being the case you can start another thread that excludes criticisms you don't like. The OT's lack of historicity is directly related to the topics parameters.

>>17989262
>All R1b speakers tie directly back to cultures speaking IE.
Why don't you keep debating etymology? You're better off lunatic, aren't you? R1b-M269, R1b-L51, and other IE are no older than the late Eneolithic; these branches in Africa date back to 12,000 BC, and PIE didn't even exist.
See D'Atanasio et al.

>>17989268
we are talking about the term Aryan here, you are debating irrelevant things, off topic and spamming

>>17989277
>You're better off lunatic, aren't you
Rewrite this.
>these branches in Africa date back to 12,000 BC, and PIE didn't even exist.
Citations on both claims please, particularly the first.
>name drop random author
Not quite good enough. Honestly the whole haplogroup thing may just be a waste of time anyways, I'm just curious why you're insisting on the 12k BC starting point.

>>17989281
Everything is on topic and original. You're just lying and hoping no one will notice and it's blatantly obvious and ironically you're posting things that are therefore off topic. So let me help you get back on topic: The OP says that Hebrew has a root for Aryan, but this would be because it's a late stage constructed-language borrowing from Aramaic, an actual organic language. This is because IE speaking Iranic Scythians conquered the area at some point in the distant past, but such a conquest would rail against the OT's historical veracity, which means that both Hebrew language and the OT must necessarily be discarded when challenged by actual historical sources.

>>17989209
>Yes, "West Eurasian" includes Semitic. "West Eurasian" is not equivalent to "European".
Did someone say it was? I'm just educating you that Euraisan ancestry in Africa was mediated by Semites, not ANE, illiterate
>I can't agree with that.
You can disagree as much as you want, but it is not IE or related to them, there is no ANE in Africa, ANE existed 24,000, these haplogroups are not of ANE origin, much less IE
>Christian identity schizos
What does this have to do with anything? Retarded? Someone mentioned this where exactly? You postulate ANE in Africa and you can't call anyone schizophrenic

>>17989295
>Euraisan ancestry in Africa was mediated by Semites
What's your evidence for this claim?

>>17989283
>muh blue eyes
>muh
I don't read your nonsense, it's already been refuted here 3 times, this r1b is NOT IE or ANE.
R1b-V1589, the main subclade within R1b-V88, underwent further expansion about 6,500 years ago and is not accompanied by steppe_EBA

>>17989301
What do you think ANE is? Because IE is actually a proven ethno-cultural language group with a racial consciousness, and ANE seems to be this God-of-the-Gaps filler for whatever you feel like arguing at the particular moment. This is the second thread you've insisted on their relevance for a counter point without really making sense of it.

Citations on those dates?

>>17989289
Im new to this forum and my writing is sloppy. Im not the person saying this is offtopic.

I dont disagree with anything you are saying here however

OT must be discarded is a step too far, because like we said, a lot of it is borrowed from other sources.

Obfuscations like Issachar being a person, when in reality Issachar had been dead for 400+ years by the time of the Exodus, so its describing a Tribe that settled in the area of Scythopolis.

The OT is an obfuscated version of that migration you describe.

>>17989305
I've already answered this and this will be my last time talking about it.
IE was formed much, much later than ANE and had CHG and EHG. It wasn't even directly ANE. In fact, even using EHG is delayed. We know that the CLV cline formed PIE, not directly EHG.>>17989225

>>17989306
You're clearly pretending to be two different posters and I'm not sure why. I guess you were having fun pretending to be a Christian, like it's your kink or something. Nobody cares about that. And yes, the OT has to be discarded necessarily in order to make sense out of Egyptian, Greek, and Persian histories. It's every other history against the supposed Jewish one. The others basically line up.
>a lot of it is borrowed from other sources
This just exposes the OT as a forgery.
>so its describing a Tribe that settled in the area of Scythopolis.
The Scythians settled in Scythopolis and the Greeks conquered the region twice, once in the BAC and again under Alexander.

>>17989312
You have no idea what ANE is supposed to mean in this context, and you have no reference point for comparison. You also lacked the proper citations for your dating, or even logic behind it. You are dismissed.

>>17989295
Is the guy still insisting on the ANE explanation of his idiotic theory?

>>17989219
>Say something to an Egyptian
>Get response about Celtic
Huh?

>>17989225
>No, it isn't. This explanation doesn't make sense for several reasons. One of them is:
>1. We don't know what language the "ANE" spoke.
They spoke language(s). What does it matter?

>2. "ANE" didn't migrate to the Middle East. We have some basal ancestry in populations of the Zagros-N, but we don't even know if it's "ANE." Furthermore, there was no influx into Egypt or the Middle East in general. Your ignorance of genetics leads you to spout a lot of nonsense. Don't get involved in this debate; it's better for you.
There is ANE gene flow into Africa and the Middle East. There are at least three routes by which ANE words can be mediated:
1. R1b in general. This is very good for the hypothesis seeing how it's widespread.
2. The Caucasus
3. Iran

>3. "ANE" is a basal branch. We're talking about a population that existed long before the formation of the components that would become EHG and CHG. What I mean is that forcing a connection with "ANE" through the term "noble" is so crazy that it ignores all the nuances of this argument.
The root very likely has a basic physical meaning 'above' which is also applied socially to mean 'superior'.

>4. I think others have already drawn your attention to this, but PIE (berezehnovka+kotias) was not formed until 4000 BC, at the MOST. Forcing ANE is quite ridiculous, find another explanation or don't think that genetics should be allied with linguistic delusions.
As I have already stated, some well known mainstream linguists are currently interested in the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. Indo-Uralic would heavily imply ultimate EHG and ANE origins for PIE.

I'm going to try to find pictures of some stuff for you. I think it would be better if we weren't looking at just one root.

>>17989322
>>Say something to an Egyptian
>>Get response about Celtic
>Huh?
Ohhh, I thought you knew that the word was explicitly defined as a racial term. He can speak any language, IE or not, and it wouldn't matter.

>>17989321
Yes, they are. I'm tired of explaining, first the guy wanted to get into a linguistics discussion, which I didn't even postulate in the first place, and then he was saying that the most plausible explanation for this similarity would be "ANE", he didn't even question how accurate these linguistic delusions are. They (actually it's the same guy being sameflag) don't want to understand that r1b is not exclusive to IE and what clades are

>>17989322
>There is ANE gene flow into Africa and the Middle East
Ah... The rise of the blonde Nordic Aryans from the Altai...

>>17989315
no im not. These are my posts:

>>17989102 >>17989118 >17989132 >17989152 >17989173 >17989207 >17989233 >17989255 >17989306 (had to delete links because it thought its spam.

Anyways the way this forum is set up poorly and you think its going to produce some sort of functional conversation its literally a forum for retards to just get caught in mudslinging

Thats why you have to have to say a bunch of bullshit about Kinks or whatever when im just a dude participating based on what I know.

Even if the Bible is a "forgery" its still a compilation of sources that are incomplete or missing at this point in our history. So no it wont be discarded even if there is some Christian bias associated with it.

Now the term Har is part of the forgery or some other source but why would they bring in such an important word for Aryans into the mix and it just happens to be associated with "holiness" and high places etc and thats the argument being made here.

Theres a lot better preservation of what the term Aryan means within that than there is in the other sources because it has both literal, religious, artistic, and social definitions that are being carried by the word.

however i fully expect some dumb base level response that will not really enhance the conversation because this forum is trash.

>>17989322
>They spoke language(s). What does it matter?
we don't know what languages they spoke.
>There is ANE gene flow into Africa and the Middle East.
ANE populations migrated westward into Europe and intermingled with groups related to Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG) to form the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG).
there is no ANE in Egypt or the Middle East.
>R1b in general
This word is not used in archaeogenics; the clades are not the same. His argument was R1b-V88, which, as already explained, is neither ANE nor Indo-European, but WHG. Furthermore, R1b is not the oldest. Haplogroup R1, or R-M173, is a Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. A primary subclade of haplogroup R (R-M207) is defined by the SNP M173. The other primary subclade of haplogroup R is haplogroup R2 (R-M479).
Do you realize that ANE had P-M45 and its subclades R and Q?!?!?! The ANE explanation is not realistic.
>The root very likely has a basic physical meaning 'above' which is also applied socially to mean 'superior'.
Irrelevant, i m not talking about linguistic
See above.
>Indo-Uralic
It is not taken seriously and in the other thread, the guys refuted you saying that you ran away

>>17989342
>These are my posts
I already said nobody cares.
>its still a compilation of sources that are incomplete or missing at this point in our history
The reverse actually- we have agreeing sources and the OT manages to fumble and discombulate them. It actively makes studying history worse, in some cases impossible, until you throw it out. It is not just ahistorical but anti-historical.

>>17989348
>It is not taken seriously and in the other thread, the guys refuted you saying that you ran away
lmfao, typical!!!

>>17989351
The bible still influenced a significant portion of history, enough to not be discarded.

In fact the Bible is the tool that kings use actively to destroy history. So maybe that should tell you something about the PIE culture rather than the Bible itself.

>>17989328
>They (actually it's the same guy being sameflag) don't want to understand that r1b is not exclusive to IE and what clades are
Slander. It's like you can't even read or something. I have been clear from the beginning that R1b is not exclusive to IEs.

>>17989322
Uh oh. We are looking at Eskimo languages now. How did this happen ANE-denier sisters?

>>17989330
The gene flow I am talking about is only a useful marker to correlate the transmission of words. I am not interested in schizophrenic Nordicism.

>>17989348
>the guys refuted you saying that you ran away
There was no refutation. I was referred to some paper which disagrees with Indo-Uralic but it doesn't even acknowledge the recent book "The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European" so all I see are scholars talking past each other.

>R1b-V88, which, as already explained, is neither ANE nor Indo-European, but WHG
WHGs received an ANE haplogroup. What exactly is not computing?

>>17989433
Uralic and AA but no IE? How could this happen ANE-denier sisters?

>>17989450
Sumerian too? ANE-denier sisters? Our response?

>>17989453
ANE-denier sisters what is the meaning of a regular sound correspondence?

They had telephones and television back then to transmit loan words right?

Yes, a general word for Indo-Europeans is something it is not. This is common knowledge.

>>17989493
>>17989461
Didn't mean to reply to this post: >>17989482

>>17989295
>Christian identity schizos
>What does this have to do with anything? Retarded? Someone mentioned this where exactly?

This picture is spammed by Christian Identity schizos: >>17989108
Bible post: >>17989102
Tower of Babel: >>17988898
That's why I said that.

The spread of R1b is actually kind of ridiculous. It's easy to suggest EEFs spread it over northwest Africa but the way it covers northeast Africa and the Arabian peninsula suggests it entered the middle east and Africa through multiple entry points.

>>17989241
>comp said... you've entered a field you know nothing about, friend. Haplogroups are quite useless because they don't even represent 10% of the base genome, and they influence any type of genotype very much; they're mere lineages.
The fact that they are lineages is precisely what is helpful. We do not need heavy autosomal replacement in order to transmit language. Haplogroups are very useful for proving the direction of gene flow. The evidence is right here and it is undeniable: >>17989838
Genes flowed from North Eurasia into Africa and the Middle East. Frankly, it would require a conspiracy theory to suggest people could not transmit words along with their genes. How do you explain comparisons between words in Proto-Eskimo and words in Proto-Afro-Asiatic?

>Scandinavians and Finno-Africans have high amounts of autosomal steppe, but they have haplotypes beyond the r1b muh. Do you consider them less EI because of that?
I have never suggested haplogroups = race.

>>17988799 (OP)
>Many here use this term as an ethnic designation for Europeans or Indo-Europeans, but it turns out that the same linguists trying to reconstruct it have come to unpleasant conclusions

Neither are correct.

The people and language that created the word "Aryan" were Persians that used it as an ethnic designation for themselves and other Iranian peoples neighboring them like the Sogdians. No one else used the term.

There were somewhat similar words like harra and eira in other languages, but these have different meanings and are different words.

>>17989925
>The people and language that created the word "Aryan" were Persians
Wrong.

>>17989951
Not an argument, retard.

>>17989957
You are wrong and your knowledge about the world is from Reddit.

>>17989960
Projection.

>>17989965
>The people and language that created the word "Aryan" were Persians
Your opinion is literally inferior to Wiktionary.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/aryos

A dictionary project supported by Leiden University disagrees with you.
https://archive.org/details/EtymologicalDictionaryOfProtoCeltic/page/n47/

You didn't even research basic facts about this subject before settling on an opinion.

>>17989951
Very correct. I'm glad someone around here is fact checking.

>>17989980
>>17989982
Aryan is not the same word as "aryos" you retard.

This word is NOT an ethnic identifier, it's part of a caste system where most Europeans were slaves owned by "noble" tyrants.

>*aryos m[1]
>freeman, noble

>>17990002
Eurasians are noble because those bordering on the southern crescent are not noble. :)

And yes, etymology is a thing and not just when it's convenient.

>>17990002
>Aryan is not the same word as "aryos" you retard.
"Aryan" is an English term. *aryos corresponds to the Proto-Celtic version of a word which comes from Proto-Indo-European. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European word is *h2éryos. It was probably pronounced *[ħár.jos] (in IPA).

>This word is NOT an ethnic identifier,
It is.

>it's part of a caste system
There was also a caste system in addition to the usage as an ethnonym.

>>17990031
>Eurasians are noble
You're not only low IQ but also definitely schizophrenic considering this and your attempt at samefagging earlier.

This arise term refers to the nobility that ruled over masses of slaves that made up European societies in Western Europe. It's a class identifier, not an ethnic identifier, unlike Aryan which was an ethnic identifier for Persians and neighboring peoples.

>>17990057
Seek help. You are not well.
>It's a class identifier, not an ethnic identifier
You have no reason to think this, and it's not only ethnic but actually explicitly racial. See here:>>17989326
It's a racial term for Eurasians. You're clearly attempting to use a Marxist class division where it doesn't exist, and got smacked with a racial distinction/identity.

>>17990046
>"Aryan"
Already proven to be an Iranian ethnic identifier, while no such equivalent term ever existed among Europeans. At best there was aforementioned class identifier over the people that ruled over the masses of European slaves, which is quite pathetic.

>*aryos corresponds to the Proto-Celtic version of a word which comes from Proto-Indo-European
In both cases this is a class term for the noble caste which made up a small percentage over the masses of European slaves. It never an ethnic identifier.

>There was also a caste system in addition to the usage as an ethnonym.
Nope, it wasn't used as an ethnonym. If it was, where did the Gauls and Britons and other ancient Celts use this as an ethnonym? They obviously didn't and considered themselves as Gauls and Britons.

>>17990064
>>It's a class identifier, not an ethnic identifier
>You have no reason to think this
It literally refers to the noble caste that ruled over masses of European slaves. There is no reason to consider it anything but a class identifier.

>and it's not only ethnic but actually explicitly racial. See here:>>17989326
Yes it's not only for ethnic Persians, but the wider Iranid race.

>>17990068
The reason we know it was a Proto-Indo-European ethnonym is because of its usage in the names of European tribes, not just Indo-Iranians. It also had a prominent use as a personal name of individuals which may refer to ethnic affiliation.

>>17990073
>The reason we know it was a Proto-Indo-European ethnonym
It's not a Proto-Indo-European ethnonym in any way, retard. It's not Indo-Iranian either, since the Indics didn't use it as an ethnic identifier.

>its usage in the names of European tribes
"Aryan" was never used as an ethnic identifier outside of Persia and you haven't been able to form a rebuttal to any of my points, let alone >>17990068 If it was, where did the Gauls and Britons and other ancient Celts use this as an ethnonym? You can't answer this.

>It also had a prominent use as a personal name of individuals which may refer to ethnic affiliation.
It really wasn't and nobody uses an ethnonym as their personal name.

>>17990080
>It's not a Proto-Indo-European ethnonym in any way, retard.
It is.

>its usage in the names of European tribes
>"Aryan" was never used as an ethnic identifier outside of Persia
It was. Say please if you want examples.

>It also had a prominent use as a personal name of individuals which may refer to ethnic affiliation.
>It really wasn't
It was.

>and nobody uses an ethnonym as their personal name.
They do.
Hungarian: Among the most frequent surnames are those of ethnonymic origin, including Tóth (meaning "Slavic" or "Slovak"), Horváth ("Croat"), and Németh ("German").
Eastern Europe: Surnames like Litwin ("Lithuanian"), Čigonas ("Gypsy"), and Vokietis ("German") are found in Lithuania. In Bulgaria, the patronymic surname Arnaudov ("son of an Albanian") is derived from an ethnonym.
Scotland and Zulu Clans: Some scholars argue that traditional clan names, like the Scottish MacDonald or Zulu Dlamini, are a form of ethnonym used as a surname. They represent a broader descent group rather than a single family and indicate a person's tribal affiliation.

>>17990070
>It literally refers to the noble caste
Except it doesn't, and the times it's used it specifically refers to stock/race. "Freeman" is a classist interpretation not supported by the actual evidence. In fact the evidence directly refutes that loose interpretation to begin with.
>Yes it's not only for ethnic Persians, but the wider Iranid race
We know that's not true because the Persians using it all say that they are ethnically Persian and racially Aryan.

You're obviously desperate to avoid the obvious facts that Aryan was used a racial term historically.

>>17988799 (OP)
The “aryan” myth is a misunderstanding of history pushed by the Nazis. It is a false claim based on false information. On top of that, Tacitus only ever praised the Germanic tribes because he was trying to critique Roman culture at the time.

>>17990113
>It is a false claim based on false information
The tombs of Persian emperors is "false"?

>>17990113
>muh Nazis

A quick review of some evidence for the use of *h2ér-(yo-s) as an ethnonym outside of Indo-Iranian:

1. Anatolian. Here the root *h2er- is used but not the stem *h2ér-yo-
• Hittite arā- ‘member of one’s own group; peer; friend’.
• Carian Κᾱ́ρ (Kā́r) 'a Carian'. In the Carian language, /k/ reflects PIE *h2

2. Germanic
• Germanic tribe named Eruli. Pre-Proto-Germanic *aryo-lós > *er(u)l- 'earl' > Eruli ‘(autonym) an east Germanic tribe who lived around the northern coast of the Black Sea’. Here the stem *h2ér-yo- is used as the self-designation of a Germanic tribe. In other words, they called themselves Aryans.

3. Celtic
• Celtiberian araiokum ‘a Celtiberian family name’
• Celtiberian inscription located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C3%B1alba_de_Villastar
>To the mountaineer and..., to Lugus of the Aryan peoples/tribes, in rural procession we came. For the mountaineer and the equestrian, for Lugo, the chief of the community raised a roof/covering, (also) a roof for the thiasus
• Celtic tribe named Aresaces. Like the Eruli, the stem *h2ér-yo- is also used. Here are the sound changes involved:
Gaulish Arius */ar.i̯os/ > (epenthesis) Ariios */a.ri.i̯os/ > */a.re.i̯os/ > Areos */a.re.os/ > (syncope) Ares- */a.res-/ >> (suffixation) Ares-ac- */a.re.sā.k-/
(Each step has an attested spelling so you can follow the evolution of the word *aryos as it becomes Ares. There are also parallels in other Gaulish words.)

4. Honorable mention to the Germanic tribe called the Harii, also connected to the Charini (probably based on the same name). Most have interpreted this tribe name as Proto-Germanic *harjaz 'warrior', but it's actually more complicated than that. It's also spelled Arii, and Latin spellings of Germanic tribes can vary between H-, Ch-, and O- (nothing) which indicates Latin writers often gave inconsistent or false spellings because they didn't actually know how a Germanic tribe's name was pronounced.

>>17990232
>O- (nothing)
should say 'nothing'

>>17988799 (OP)
It also probably wasn't used as an identifying term for their own people by the PIE speakers, it's only found in that sense in Indo-Iranian.

>>17988799 (OP)
>Proto-Nostratic

>>17990373
>it's only found in that sense in Indo-Iranian.
Wrong. It was used as an ethnonym in Europe. See: >>17990232

If it was used as an ethnonym in Indo-Iranian AND Europe, then it only makes sense to reconstruct that sense for PIE.

>>17989111
>Iranic
no such word exists. That's Iranian.

Turkish/Turkic classification makes sense, because the ethnic Turkish and the ethnic Turkic are the different stuffs.
The ethnic Iranians and the ethnic ""Iranics"" are the same thing on the other hand.
>B... but, Iranians in Islamic republic of Iran are only a part of the Iranics
They have never made up an ethnicity "Iranian" to distinguish Iranians inside and outside of historical Persia.
Sogdians, Khwarazmians, and Scythians are all Iranians.

Is there enough proof that all PIE/WSH called themselves Aryans?
The Aryans could also just be an offshoot that went to Asia.

>>17990232
Interesting, but it doesn't seem like enough evidence to overturn the current consensus.

>>17990232
none of this information was consistent with the use of an ethnonym, and the case of Celtiberi was not even discovered by you, but by another schizophrenic anon, which was refuted in the other thread and your theory was thrown in the trash, or you are the same sameflag
I glanced at the thread, it's true, but why were you flooding the thread with things about ANE and haploautism that you barely know about?

>>17991092
>it doesn't seem like enough evidence to overturn the current consensus.
The "consensus" isn't useful when most academics won't touch this subject this subject with a ten foot pole. It's considered "Nazi coded" to suggest Indo-Europeans were called Aryans. To complicate matters, a number of false etymologies were proposed in the past which did not survive the development of more rigorous understandings of regular sound changes. The result is many scholars probably assume there's not much data worth considering and don't bother with the subject because of past controversies.

If scholars won't give this subject the treatment it deserves, then it is appropriate for independent research to pick up the slack. I was attracted to the topic because I sensed a cloud of political ignorance had cast shadows on the truth. Academics had become allergic to the word Aryan because of a mentality that promoted language policing in order to distance themselves from Nazism and Aryanism. I had to find out for myself whether they were right or wrong, but it was clear to me they were putting their foot down insisting that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were not called Aryans without actually having done their due diligence. They doth protest too much.

>>17991139
>none of this information was consistent with the use of an ethnonym,
When a tribe or people refer to themselves with a word, the usage of that word is consistent with that of an ethnonym. When it is explained to you that European tribes had referred to themselves with the stem *h2éryo-, are you seriously suggesting that *h2éryo- is not an ethnonym?

>and the case of Celtiberi was not even discovered by you,
I am not claiming credit.

>which was refuted in the other thread and your theory was thrown in the trash,
Nothing in the post you are responding to has been refuted. This is your headcanon. If you are rejecting things out of hand, you are at fault for your own ignorance and stubbornness.

>I glanced at the thread, it's true, but why were you flooding the thread with things about ANE and haploautism that you barely know about?
Please keep in mind that not every post in this thread is mine. I have had to respond to some mistaken ideas about long range comparisons between words in Indo-European (IE) and Afro-Asiatic (AA). For example, by showing them the exact same sources which claim AA and IE words are cognate also claim AA words are cognate with words in Eskimo languages, I hoped they would realize they didn't understand the implications of the data they were looking at.

>>17991200
>Afro-Asiatic
That's shemcel.

>>17991139
>none of this information was consistent with the use of an ethnonym, and the case of Celtiberi was not even discovered by you, but by another schizophrenic anon
You again?
Why do people on this forum have to be so malicious and provocative? Is it just trolling, or is it something more personal? Isn't it possible to have a human discussion? I'm sorry, but I'm not that guy.
He>>17991178 uses tripcode and I don't. The only reason you keep accusing me of being him is because we simply talk about similar things, which is dangerous because it could be a sign of persecution mania. Anyway, people can use photos, information, links, arguments, and whatever they want, whether from my own or anyone else's. Do you know why? It's an anonymous forum, and at no time did I have copyright over anything. You're welcome to use "my" discoveries.

And I ask the same thing I asked in the other thread;
present well-founded and corroborated objections as to why the cognate found in Galician is not plausible as "h2er." The argument arar/plow has been explained, including by Koch, who you conveniently cited as refuting it. Everyone can access the thread.

>>17991230
and I want to make it clear that I do not necessarily agree with everything that is being said in this thread, there is a lot of misinterpretation of genetics and haplogroup here, as well as Paleolithic migratory groups, my argument is based solely on archaeology and etymology, do not confuse me, I just got here, my posts here are>>17991230

>>17991230
>>17991242
Its you
>h2éryo-, are you seriously suggesting that *h2éryo- is not an ethnonym?
There is no substantial evidence other than reconstructed words. If you show me that the Celts used the term like the Persians, I can agree in part. But so far, you've shown that there was a Gaulish term. But that doesn't prove it was of PIE origin because they left it written down, and the only argument is that if it exists in Celtic and Persian, it must exist in PIE. This argument is weak.
Furthermore, you mentioned the Goths; they were so influenced by the Sarmatians and Alans that it's quite possible that's the origin of the term. The names of Germanic kings with the supposed "Aria" originate from the century of the great migrations and are of Iranian influence.
Stop ruining European individuality with the only eskimo and semitic diseases or any disease you read about on xiiter, my friend. Each people is unique. You don't need to create a magic root that unites all of Euro-Africa like a mule with two tits.

>>17991200
>I hoped they would realize they didn't understand the implications of the data they were looking at.
not him, but certainly, it does not derive from a common ancestral language.

>>17991357
It's true that if you find a cognate root in language family A and B, A and B do not necessarily descend from parent language C. But there still has to be an ultimate source for the root. In which case, one way to avoid positing a common parent language is to say A has parent language X. B has parent language Y. At some point in the prehistory of A, they absorbed speakers of Y, and words and roots from Y were absorbed into A as a substrate. Now A and B have cognates without a common parent language. So of course we don't have to recognize a common parent language for IE and AA just because some researchers have discovered many plausible cognates between the two language families.

Another thing I wish to address is the skepticism some people have regarding the historical transfer of language without a singular mass migration in one generation or the transfer of significant autosomal ancestry. There are already precedents for low autosomal transfer. In IE studies, Mycenaeans are one example, but usually more genes are transferred in IE migrations. One key difference between IE migrations and the Nostratic phenomena under discussion is that Nostratic language transfers had to have happened over an absurdly long period of time which is much more ancient than IEs. It cannot be attributed to a small set of peoples or generations, unlike IEs.

We already know why this *can* work in theory: genes are not language. In support of this, we should look at Chadic speakers. Chadic speakers are mostly black autosomally, but they speak AA. Why? Because of their West Eurasian lineages. They have R1b. But can a few drops of blood really be the reason? Yeah, why not? They were just AA speakers who became fully black by absorbing black genes while imposing their language on the people they absorbed.

>>17991408
So if someone tells me their are cognates between AA, IE, and Eskimo languages, the only common genetic threads I currently know about between these distant groups are ANE genes. There doesn't need to be a linguistic super family from which these languages descend, but some sort of explanation should be proposed. Chadic speakers show that not a lot of ANE genes would be required for words to be transferred across generations.

In general, the reason words can be cognate in distant language families is simply that people wander and mingle. There's a fair amount of evidence for people migrating south into Africa and the Levant, so it shouldn't be so surprising if some words appear in AA that have their origins further north.

>>17991408
>>17991414
At no point is it postulated that this is a Genetics thread, you are the one who was arguing here about ANE, Eskimo or Semitic, I am just saying that there is no common ancestor between Semitic or Eskimo languages

>>17991428
oh, why are you quoting ANE?

>>17991414
I'm sorry but you are retarded. Forget the rest of your idiot claims. Let's focus on migrations.

>There's a fair amount of evidence for people migrating south into Africa and the Levant
Completely wrong. In the Paleolithic the migration waves were south to north. In fact the direction was usually south to north during the Mesolithic and Neolithic.

Populations from Northern Africa were migrating north into the Levant which formed the Natufian culture in the Mesolithic and later the PPNB.

The Levantine populations did move to Africa during the Neolithic after they had already come from Africa, but they also spread to the north.

>>17988799 (OP)
>schizophrenic
Reddit is this way, go back and never return, disgusting faggot.

>>17991432
>The Levantine populations did move to Africa during the Neolithic after they had already come from Africa, but they also spread to the north
The Levant isn't a source area for genetics or culture, it's a crossroads. Its geographic liability means that it will always echo foreign cultures which gestated in harboring zones.

>>17988799 (OP)
In berber, the root ḥry also means to lead or conduct (cattle).

>>17991437
Except it was the source area for Afroasiatic and farming.

Your poorly made arguments can be easily dismissed.

>>17991461
>Except it was the source area
The Turks are saying it was Turkey. Growing up, I was told it was Sumeria. You haven't even made your argument, you've just made a claim, therefore you are dismissed.

>>17991463
You've confused different claims for the same thing.

Sumeria îs the source of civilization, not the source of farming.

Levant is the source of farming, not the source of civilization.

>>17991468
>You've confused different claims
Not at all. I distinctly remember multiple teachers claiming that farming existed based on irrigation and the earliest possible irrigation was found in Sumeria. Is there any extant irrigation in the Levant?

This is what I was raised with.

>>17991428
There may not be a common ancestor but everyone visiting the thread needs to know that the same source of the picture in the OP which proposes cognates between IE and AA also proposes linguistic super families that include Eskimo languages and AA.

I do not know how to address the absurdity of distant connections between AAs and Eskimos without appealing to genetics, ancient migrations and gene flow. Keep in mind I am not the one proposing these distant linguistic connections. The Nostraticists are. This thread was started by someone who was probably surprised by Nostratic linguistic data because he had never heard of this stuff before.

I am fine staying in my own little corner of IE linguistics without ever opening the lid on fringe Nostratic theories. It is almost completely uncharted territory, especially on the genetics side. I do not think anyone on earth is capable of giving satisfactory and rigorous explanations for this phenomena.

>>17991432
>Completely wrong.
I certainly cannot completely wrong if R1b is in Africa and the Levant. Maybe you are just focused on certain details and fail to see it. Or are you now going to tell me there's actually AA genetics in Eskimos?

Oldest irrigation in the Levant? Built by Nabataeans, which may just as well be a Euphemism for Roman culture copied in the east.

Anon given your track record I'm going to need you to respond to the allegations that the Levant developed agriculture anywhere near first or second or tenth when it's so easily disproven and your strong tendency to wake up the next day and post absolute dogwater supremacist drivel.

>>17991473
>R1b is in Africa
This again? Non_IE and isn't "ANE"
Please, stop

>>17991469
You are not only confusing multiple claims. You are making up claims.

>>17991471
This AI slop is talking about "oldest irrigation system in the Levant". It's not making the claim that farming is from Sumeria. You somehow misread very easy to read words. You are dumber than a half-baked primitive LLM.

>>17991473
>I certainly cannot completely wrong
You're admitting you are somewhat wrong, but it's time for you to admit you are completely wrong.

>I certainly cannot completely wrong if R1b is in Africa and the Levant.
The entry of R1b into Africa and the Levant is thousands of years after the migrations of Afroasiatic into Northern and sub-Saharan Africa.

>>17991508
>You are making up claims
I'm raising claims. Everyone knows that Mesopotamia is held to have the oldest irrigation systems, particularly that of Sumeria. That is essential to an organized agricultural system. You actually require civilization in order to protect farmer's crops and establish order, otherwise they will get pillaged by whoever is the stronger. The Levant had no such protections until much later.
>It's not making the claim that farming is from Sumeria
That's common knowledge and has been the academic consensus for nearly a century now. Do you have older Levantine irrigation systems? No? Didn't think so. Even the government of Israel which is already leading the world in forged artifacts has not attempted such a daring bold fabrication of evidence.

>>17991508
>The entry of R1b into Africa and the Levant is thousands of years after the migrations of Afroasiatic into Northern and sub-Saharan Africa
This, i said this for him several times, but he cannot accept it..

>>17991473
>certainly cannot completely wrong if R1b is in Africa and the Levant.
You are

>>17991518
>migrations of Afroasiatic into Northern and sub-Saharan Africa
What do we know about those people, other than this:>>17989108

>>17991511
>I'm raising claims
No, you are easily confused and cannot read properly which results in making up claims. You are dumber than a half-baked primitive LLM.

>Everyone knows that Mesopotamia is held to have the oldest irrigation systems, particularly that of Sumeria. That is essential to an organized agricultural system.
Irrigation is not required for farming. Mesopotamia required irrigation because it was a swamp.

>You actually require civilization in order to protect farmer's crops and establish order, otherwise they will get pillaged by whoever is the stronger.
No, that's done by any level of agricultural society.

>That's common knowledge and has been the academic consensus for nearly a century now.
Is that why you pulled up AI slop that didn't even make that claim as your proof? Right.

>Even the government of Israel which is already leading the world in forged artifacts has not attempted such a daring bold fabrication of evidence.
Schizo rambling.

You are more retarded than >>17991473 who himself is a moron.

>>17991506
>Non_IE
We aren't discussing IE R1b to begin with. Please pay attention.

>and isn't "ANE"
Would anyone like to tell me what exactly is the problem with referring to R1b as an ANE haplogroup? I know WHGs received this haplogroup. What is the problem with referring to an ultimate origin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian
>Ancient North Eurasian-associated Y-chromosome haplogroups are P-M45, and its subclades R and Q.

>Please, stop
No.

>>17991508
>I certainly cannot completely wrong
>You're admitting you are somewhat wrong,
I'm not.

>but it's time for you to admit you are completely wrong.
Good argument.

>The entry of R1b into Africa and the Levant is thousands of years after the migrations of Afroasiatic into Northern and sub-Saharan Africa.
It's irrelevant. The data we have on attested words is thousands of years after that too. So you're telling me these R1b carriers who lived before IEs existed could not have contributed to the AA lexicon? I do not see why they need to be present during the genesis of Proto-AA to have contributed to the lexicon of AA languages. Offhand I'm not even sure why their presence is necessarily after the formation of Proto-AA either since it seems like the dating of that language is debatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Afroasiatic_language
>There is no consensus as to when Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken.[3] The absolute latest date for when Proto-Afroasiatic could have been extant is c.4000 BC

Why does it read like nobody fucking knows when this language was spoken?

>>17991542
>you are easily confused
There is nothing confusing about this. Multiple countries are claiming they hold the secrets to ancient seed shattering proving they (presumably their specific race and ethnicity existed in pre-history, but no matter) developed agriculture first. The problem is that very few have any agricultural infrastructure whatsoever. Again, the Levant doesn't get agriculture until Persians, Greeks, and Romans bring it in. The Akkadians seemed to have had no hand to play in the matter, only extending themselves to Syria at the closest.

>>17991542
> >>17991473 who himself is a moron.
If you are so smart what exactly is your proposal for explaining connections between Eskimo languages and AA languages? I may not know a lot about genetics but you aren't even courageous enough to throw theories on the wall and see what sticks. If nobody has a better suggestion than ANE and haplogroups, I'm sorry but the hypothesis you think is retarded is in the lead.

You're obviously projecting about making up claims because you know you cannot actually hold your belief in agro-Levantine supremacy, which by the way, the distantly ancient Levantines were not even Semitic. That would be the Akkadians, who came well after the Sumerians and have recently been pushed up earlier several centuries (about six centuries).

>Irrigation is not required for farming
Nonsense. Irrigation is the marker of organized farming. Without that infrastructure, there is simply no evidence for the organized cultivation of crops en mass. Evidence for such exists in India going back to the 4th millennium and across the steppe in the 3rd millennium. The Levant does not have any evidence of such until the 1st millennium BC. Very late stage. Practically barbaric by global standards. I half expect Levantines to be running around in wash rags with bone piercings in their noses shouting "ooga-booga!".

>Mesopotamia required irrigation because it was a swamp
It oscillated over time. The areas of irrigation cover the mud flats to the south closer to the coats up to the near desertified areas of Iraq and Syria.

>that's done by any level of agricultural society
There is no evidence of advanced civilization nor organization of Levantine society prior to their domestication by the Persian empire.

>Is that why you pulled up AI slop
That is to show you a quick reference. Notably, the picture mistook millennium for century, bot otherwise was mostly correct. It was to give a general idea of what most people see so you would know, and everyone else would know, that you were attempting to gaslight the idea as if it were new knowledge that the Soomies invented agriculture. Everyone knows there was no irrigation and therefore no organized agriculture in the Levant prior to the Soomies or Akkadians. You're just a blind, dumb supremacist without any evidence to promote your insane narrative of world history.

>implying Israel doesn't forge artifacts constantly
No one in world history has a worse record.

>>17991558
>you aren't even courageous enough to throw theories on the wall and see what sticks.
That's his gimimck: accuse others of lying while he himself lies and does not provide ANY evidence whatsoever. Whenever challenged he does the Tel-Aviv shart all over his keyboard and makes his stupidity everyone else's problem.

>>17991550
>I'm not.
You admitted you were wrong, but not completely wrong.

>It's irrelevant
It's relevant since you are a retard that believes in the nonsensical Nostrastic language family and you are tying it to ANE which doesn't make any sense.

>So you're telling me these R1b carriers who lived before IEs existed could not have contributed to the AA lexicon?
It's not possible and I'm not going to let you lie about it again. The R1b carriers you're talking about have to be Indo-Europeans, but the EEF R1b in Chadic is completely non-Indo-European and even predate the Indo-European conquest of Europe.

>I do not see why they need to be present during the genesis of Proto-AA to have contributed to the lexicon of AA languages
If all Afroasiatic branches are somehow being influenced by these magical time traveling R1b people then it would have to be at the PAA stage.

>Offhand I'm not even sure why their presence is necessarily after the formation of Proto-AA either since it seems like the dating of that language is debatable.
Again, you are a retard.

>There is no consensus as to when Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken.[3] The absolute latest date for when Proto-Afroasiatic could have been extant is c.4000 BC
This is an absolute latest date, not the actual estimate. The absolute latest date for Proto-Indo-European would be 1500 BC, but that's not the actual estimate. The real estimates are some time around the Mesolithic.

>Though estimates vary widely, it is believed by scholars to have been spoken as a single language around 12,000 to 18,000 years ago (12 to 18 kya),
At this point in time IE or any R1 haplogroup is nowhere near the Afroasiatics.

>Why does it read like nobody fucking knows when this language was spoken?
Afroasiatic is extremely old unlike most language families.

>>17991569
>Afroasiatic is extremely old
Which is it? West Asian semitic, which began with the Akkadians, or the African, which has even later origination points?

>>17991589
>West Asian semitic, which began with the Akkadians
Semitic is a branch of Afroasiatic. Akkadians were part of an extinct branch because of how old Semitic was in 3000 BC.

>or the African, which has even later origination points
There's no such thing as the "African" branch and it's origination points, retard.

>>17991596
>Akkadians were part of an extinct branch because of how old Semitic was in 3000 BC.
There's literally no evidence for that. In fact, recent research over the last decade has pushed the Semitic branch six hundred years the younger.

>There's no such thing as the "African" branch and it's origination points
Semitic language did not become relevant in Africa until the Islamic invasions, retard. Jesus Christ, what are you doing on this board if you didn't even know *that*? You're so ignorant it's starting to give me an actual headache. That's before we even discuss your sheer stupidity.

>nb4 muh Amharic
>"Amharic has been the official working language of Ethiopia, language of the courts, the language of trade and everyday communications and of the military since the late 12th century."

>>17991605
>There's literally no evidence for that. In fact, recent research over the last decade has pushed the Semitic branch six hundred years the younger.
Schizo rambling without evidence.

>Semitic language did not become relevant in Africa until the Islamic invasions
Semitic produced the only African rival to Rome which was Carthage before the Arab conquests, retard.

Semitic was more relevant than any other language in North Africa and then Latin was replaced by Arabic.

>>17991608
Amharic is a modern language. Semitic was in East Africa before that and the Arab conquests. There was Sabean, Ge'ez, and other Semitic languages spoken in Axum and Ethiopia. You are completely retarded.

>>17991569
>I'm not.
>You admitted you were wrong,
Are you ESL?

>It's relevant since you are a retard that believes in the nonsensical Nostrastic language family
Not once have I said this. I am responding to the implications of long range comparisons. I am not ready to endorse linguistic super families, but if OP wants to consider long distance cognates, I insist that he cannot just pick and choose arbitrarily the language families he wants to compare. If the Nostraticists say both AA and Eskimo comparanda are in the mix, then we should try to make sense of both without excluding one or another.

>and you are tying it to ANE which doesn't make any sense.
What exactly is the common thread between IEs, Uralics, and Eskimos if not something like ANEs? Now add AAs to that list. What's the common thread?

>So you're telling me these R1b carriers who lived before IEs existed could not have contributed to the AA lexicon?
>It's not possible
Why is it not possible? These R1b carriers speak AA right now. You think it's impossible that their ancestors brought words with them? I don't believe you are thinking clearly.

>and I'm not going to let you lie about it again.
Lying??

>The R1b carriers you're talking about have to be Indo-Europeans,
This is so painful to read when I have never given any indication I was talking about IEs in relation to this haplogroup and I have stated repeatedly that I am not talking about IEs.

>I do not see why they need to be present during the genesis of Proto-AA to have contributed to the lexicon of AA languages
>If all Afroasiatic branches are somehow being influenced by these magical time traveling R1b people
Are they though? I didn't say all branches. Right now we are only looking at a handful of words.
Regardless, R1b is absurdly widespread even if it's a minority haplogroup.

>>17991609
>Schizo rambling without evidence.
See:>>17991559
You were supposed to respond to this. Modern datings are pushing Akkadians closer to 1700 BC based on material evidence and progressive lab testing. Traditional folkloric methods put them between 2300-2100 BC. For some reason, you argue 3000 BC with NO evidence. Nadda. Zip. Nil.

And your evidence of irrigation? Well, you've given up on that too.

>Semitic produced the only African rival to Rome which was Carthage
Dido was a Greek and Carthage used Hellenic culturalisms. In fact, there's been a series of rows over whether the Semitic findings were forged in the first place because every year new materials surface and they consistently turn up Greek. What were once thought to be Semitic names are now being reexamined, and the extent of Punic language may have reflected a trade minority along with a religious class in the city.
>Semitic was more relevant than any other language in North Africa
This is simply not the case. There not enough material evidence for you to make this claim and you know it.

Your game runs something like this: Cry foul, make another outlandish often insane claim, then ignore providing your own evidence or external reference. Rinse and repeat.

See here:>>17989298

>people getting confused about horseniggers referring to themselves as "noble" (Aryan)
Horseniggers often swept up other horseniggers into their business despite being radically racially different. They really liked fucking shit up and who can blame them

>Offhand I'm not even sure why their presence is necessarily after the formation of Proto-AA either since it seems like the dating of that language is debatable.
>Again, you are a retard.
What is the source of your confidence in the dating of PAA? When I try to look it up I am confronted with this:
>The estimations offered by scholars as to when Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken vary widely, ranging from 18,000 BC to 8,000 BC.[3]
What better way is there to admit nobody knows than an enormous range of 10,000 years?

>Though estimates vary widely, it is believed by scholars to have been spoken as a single language around 12,000 to 18,000 years ago (12 to 18 kya),
I see. I see. You have your heart set on a personal preference for the dating, but since nobody can come to a consensus and AA linguistics hasn't advanced very far these numbers are very flexible and easily yield to new insights like the Nostratic connections under discussion in this thread.

>At this point in time IE or any R1 haplogroup is nowhere near the Afroasiatics.
I find it very mysterious how you are referring to IEs in the context of AAs.

>Why does it read like nobody fucking knows when this language was spoken?
>Afroasiatic is extremely old unlike most language families.
You don't know how old either. Your dogmatic attitude is unwarranted.

>>17988799 (OP)
The term Aryan is NOT an ethnic term, but rather a religious one, as defined by the Sassanids themselves, who were THE Aryan empire. There is no Aryan except those who worship Ahura Mazda, the one true God of knowledge and all that is good.
Quite literally an Aryan was a Zoroastrian and a Zoroastrian was Aryan. Hence non-Iranian ethnicities can and were also classified as Aryan when, back in the day, they were Zoroastrian. Armenians for example were considered Aryan.

That being said, modern Iran cannot be Aryan by this understanding as overwhelming majority are muzzies and around 10% considered themselves "culturally" Zoroastrian, and about 1% religiously Zoroastrian. For the record only about 5-20k natal Zoroastrians live in Iran and conversion is punishable by death

>>17991643
>The term Aryan is NOT an ethnic term,
Wrong.

>>17991643
>The term Aryan is NOT an ethnic term
It's racial.

>>17991540
Shut up, this is irrelevant, it's news, not a real study, and it has no relation to what we are talking about.
>>17991550
>Would anyone like to tell me what exactly is the problem
It's been explained 10 times with this, see here>>17989348

>>17991615
if there is a relationship with Eskimos, Semites and IE, whatever it may be, it cannot be explained by ANE or by r1b, it's over

>>17991779
>It's been explained 10 times with this, see here>>17989348
>ANE had haplogroup R
Yeah, that's my point entirely and why I call R1b an ANE haplogroup. Of course the relevant subclades have to split off from R:
R > R1 > R1b, etc

Actually this seems like basic knowledge. I have no idea why you are so adamant against calling it an ANE haplogroup. I understand it split off from ANEs a while back and later became associated with WHGs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian
>Western Hunter-Gatherers of the Villabruna cluster also carried the Y-haplogroup R1b, derived from the Ancient North Eurasian haplogroup R*, indicating "an early link between Europe and the western edge of the Steppe Belt of Eurasia."[67]

>>17991782
How do you want to explain it?
AA genes flowing to North America?

>it's over
What is?

>>17991178
Fair enough, I don't mind if they really did all call themselves Aryans. I'm just not convinced.

>>17991779
>not a real study
You're claiming the news isn't based on a study?

>>17989102
Havamal. using the genitive for of the word har. Saying of the High One aka Odin.

>>17991799
Are you willfully ignorant or trolling? What exactly does your spamming this thread with pages from a linguistics article prove? Indo-Uralic hasn't been proven, and I'll try to explain it calmly so you understand:

Your "R1b" argument doesn't make sense for several reasons. If you don't respond to this post here, I'll have to assume you have no idea what you're talking about. The supposed similarities CANNOT be explained by an "ANE" unit, for a reason already mentioned: there was no ANE genetic influx into Egypt or the Middle East. It's not "denialism," it's factual disputes. Likewise, just because you're throwing around random shared words doesn't necessarily imply that the term OP is referring to results from ANE inheritance. There's no evidence for that. But I'm glad you backtracked and conceded that the "R1b argument" is not only flawed, but ignorant.

>>17991886
>>17991799
and to spit in the face:
Haplogroups are useful for proving the direction of gene flow, but they're not determined by race and are susceptible to founder effects and bottlenecks.
>Genes flowed from North Eurasia into Africa and the Middle East.
>We don't need heavy autosomal substitution to transmit language. >Haplogroups are very useful for proving the direction of gene flow. Haplogroups are not necessarily determined by race and are susceptible to everything from founder effects to bottlenecks. There are non-IE haplogroups in Paleobalkan populations, but this doesn't imply that Illyrians, Thracians, and Dacians are not IE. Haplogroups don't determine much. You're ignorant, and your dated map hasn't proven anything.
Anyway, this does not imply that ANE is an explanation for all these connections of the term that the OP is talking about. Period.

>How do you explain comparisons between words in Proto-Eskimo and words in Proto-Afro-Asiatic?
It's not my burden, that's not what I'm refuting, it's you who should explain, but as already proven 7 times, there is no ANE influence in MENA, my argument is for your imbecile, stupid, ordinary, schizophrenic and idiotic theory of ANE being the explanation, without genetic correlation

>>17991886
>>17991799
Grebenyuk et al. argue that the "Ancient North Eurasians" were "Early Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherer tribes" and were linked to similar groups associated with archaeological sites in southern Siberia. Lazaridis notes that ANE-like ancestry was an important genetic contributor to Native Americans, Europeans, ancient Central Asians, South Asians, and some East Asian groups, BUT NOT IN MIDDLE EAST***

Furthermore, there is a problem with their theory: in ancient European populations, the ANE genetic component is visible in samples from the Yamnaya people, but ******not in Western or Central Europeans prior to the Corded Ware culture. After the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, the EHG and WHG lineages merged in Eastern Europe, accounting for the initial presence of ANE ancestry in the region. Western Europe had no ANE ancestry until this period.

>>17991892
>>17991886
in short? your r1b arguments are FLAWED* and already answered and refuted, outside of genetics it is not your area, and if there is a linguistics connection, it cannot be explained with r1b or even ANE.

>>17991647
Right>>17991354

>>17991886
>Are you willfully ignorant or trolling?
Are you?

>What exactly does your spamming this thread with pages from a linguistics article prove?
Apparently it's beyond your comprehension. The pages are from the very same book OP posted. This book proposes cognates between AA languages and Eskimo languages. Also, the root mentioned by the OP has a cognate in Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan.
You should quit playing dumb. You know exactly what this is about. You have to offer a better explanation than ANE for why AA languages would have anything at all in common with Eskimo languages.

>there was no ANE genetic influx into Egypt or the Middle East. It's not "denialism," it's factual disputes.
It is denialism. You are denying very, very basic facts. R1b is ultimately of ANE origin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian
>Western Hunter-Gatherers of the Villabruna cluster also carried the Y-haplogroup R1b, derived from the Ancient North Eurasian haplogroup R*, indicating "an early link between Europe and the western edge of the Steppe Belt of Eurasia."[67]

>doesn't necessarily imply that the term OP is referring to results from ANE inheritance. There's no evidence for that.
Oh but there is. OP posted it right here: >>17988800
Same book. Same page. Neither IEs nor AAs influenced Proto-Chukchi-Kamchatkan.
I'm sorry but you're just going to have to accept gene flow north to south unless you have a better idea. It can come from Southern Europe, the Caucasus and Anatolia, or Iran. It doesn't actually matter. It would be a miracle if you found a way to suggest gene flow south to north managed to achieve language transfer to Eskimos.

>But I'm glad you backtracked and conceded that the "R1b argument" is not only flawed, but ignorant.
Wtf are you talking about??

>>17991892
Irrelevant. I am not suggesting a large autosomal transfer of ANE genes.

>>17991896
If you are wondering why I didn't immediately respond to you here: >>17991354
It's because you replied to someone else assuming they were me.

>There is no substantial evidence other than reconstructed words.
If you don't accept reconstructions as evidence you don't accept linguistic evidence to begin with. It's an anti-intellectual stance and refusal to deal with evidence that you don't understand means you can be ignored. However, if you *ever* have any questions regarding how you can be more confident in some of the evidence I have suggested in the past, I will gladly help you.

I have a question. Let's say I want a broad overview of the genetic composition of an ethnicity. What is the best way to do that?
I want a broad overview of
• West Eurasian (WE)
• North Eurasian (NE)
• East Eurasian (EE)
• Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

Here is a test on Natufians. The distances are poor, but keep in mind this is just a PCA. It gives you a general idea of where Natufians are relative to other extremes.
For testing purposes, WHG represents WE. Congo Represents SSA. WSHG represents NE.

Of course, one conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Natufians were majority Eurasian. The distances tell us something is inaccurate, but does it fail to give us the big picture?

>>17992823
Here is a second test. When I throw in an extra source Vahaduo decides there's an EA pull.

>>17992825
Here is another test using Ancient Egyptians.

Keep in mind I am not drawing any conclusions based on this. I am asking if this sort of analysis is useful in any way, and if it is, what is the best way to do it?

>>17992823
>Here is a test
OOF

>>17992823
>• North Eurasian (NE)
This doesn't exist. Nor does South Eurasian.