Amerindians have both Mongoloid and Caucasoid physical features

It’s amazing that so many people were so credulous and so stupid that they actually believed David Reich et al. when they proclaimed that Nordics are Caucasoid-Mongoloid hybrids. All of the big names in the “HBD community” were among the duped. Witness the stupidity on display in the following posts from last year. The titles alone are incredibly stupid:

There’s Razib Khan’s post “Across the sea of grass: how Northern Europeans got to be ~10% Northeast Asian“. In this post Razib Khan tells all of his Nordic readers that “You’re Asian. Yes, you!”. He speculates in bold that “perhaps the Indo-Europeans were mongrels!”. He exclaims in bold that “it turns out that white people were always 10% non-white! We just didn’t know”.

Dienekes is a Mediterraneanist and was therefore thrilled to hear the claim by Reich et al. that Nordics are mongrels. He did a whole series of posts on the supposed racial impurity of Nordics, all of them chock-full of stupidity:

Hints of East/Central Asian admixture in Northern Europe

Estimating admixture proportions and dates with ADMIXTOOLS (Patterson et al. 2012)

The tangled web of humanity

ADMIXTURE tracks Amerindian-like admixture in northern Europe

Then there’s Greg Cochran’s post entitled “Injun-Europeans“. In that post Cochran says that “The French (and the Germans, and the Dutch and Irish) are closer to pure-blooded South American Indians than Italians are”. Reich et al. told him that was because Nordics are part Amerindian, and he believed them. It never occurred to him what an absolutely absurd notion that is. Later he observes that “Amerindians have the East Asian skin color genes, along with some of their own – as far as I know, you don’t see these at all in Europeans”, and that “there is zero overlap between Amerindian mtDNA haplotypes and those found in ye olde hunter-gatherers in Europe”. Doesn’t quite add up, does it Cochran? Then he notes the presence of the European mitochondrial haplogroup X and European Y-chromosome haplogroups in Amerindians, but fails to draw the obvious conclusion. Toward the end Cochran repeats the slur made by his good buddy Razib Khan, saying “maybe the Indo-Europeans were a mixed people”.

There are also these posts by Davidski:

They had blond hair and light eyes, and came from the north…but they were racially impure

Europeans are a three-way mix, with a whopping 20-40% ancient North Asian ancestry

Later, when a paper came out showing that the Mongoloid EDAR mutation is completely absent in European populations, Davidski began to dimly perceive that something wasn’t quite right about the picture that Reich et al. had painted, and posted “Ancient Amerindian-like admixture in Europe – something doesn’t add up“. He still didn’t get what was going on though, so the post contains a lot of convoluted nonsense attempting to explain the facts.

What makes the credulity and stupidity of all these people so amazing is that all anyone has to do to see that the claims made by Reich et al. are false is to simply look at the people they are making claims about.

There is nothing at all about the physical features of Nordics that is even remotely Mongoloid. Indeed, Nordics are the most ultra-Caucasoid of all Caucasoids. Their phenotype is more derived, more divergent from that of their Veddoid ancestors, than that of all other Caucasoids.

On the other hand, it’s obvious that Amerindians don’t look like pure Mongoloids. It’s obvious that they all look like Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrids.

Though simply looking at people is sufficient to expose the falsity of the claims made by Reich et al., there are plenty of physical anthropological data that expose it even further.

An important paper containing such data is “Observations on the face and teeth of the North American Indians“, published in 1931 in the Anthropological Papers of The American Museum of Natural History. This paper contains qualitative data on the physical features of full-blood Indians, mixed-blood Indians, Eskimos, American Whites, North Europeans, South Europeans, Hawaiians, Asiatics, Mexicans, and Negroes. The eight physical features studied were intercanthus distance (distance between the corners of the eyes), nasal bridge, the epicanthic eyefold, the palpebral fissure (the opening between the eyelids), the enamel rim, Carabelli’s cusps, the number of molar cusps, and skin color.

The most important pattern that emerges from the data is that Indians are intermediate between Whites and Asiatics in the frequencies of the traits studied.

Eskimos are much more Mongoloid than Indians, and Indians have higher frequencies of narrow intercanthus distance than Eskimos. Full-blood Indians have lower frequencies of narrow intercanthus distance than mixed-blood Indians.

Whites have high frequencies of high nasal bridge, Asiatics have low frequencies of high nasal bridge, and Indians have intermediate frequencies of high nasal bridge.

Asiatics have about a 100% frequency of the epicanthic eyefold, Europeans have about a 0% frequency of the epicanthic eyefold, and Indians have intermediate frequencies of the epicanthic eyefold.

The enamel rim is a feature of the shoveled incisors characteristic of Sinodonty. Sinodonty is one of the pleiotropic effects of the Mongoloid EDAR mutation. Asiatics have high frequencies of the enamel rim, Whites have low frequencies of the enamel rim, and Indians have intermediate frequencies of the enamel rim.

If the claims made by Reich et al. were true, then we would expect the trait frequencies of Asiatics and Indians to be the same and at one extreme, the trait frequencies of South Europeans to be at the other extreme, and the trait frequencies of North Europeans to be intermediate between those of Asiatics and Indians and those of South Europeans. But of course the claims made by Reich et al. aren’t true, and of course that is not at all the pattern that we observe. What we observe is that the trait frequencies of Asiatics are at one extreme, the trait frequencies of North Europeans and South Europeans are at the other extreme, and the trait frequencies of Indians are intermediate between those of Asiatics and those of Europeans. And in fact, the trait frequencies of South Europeans are slightly closer to those of Asiatics than the trait frequencies of North Europeans are. South Europeans have a slightly lower frequency of high nasal bridge than North Europeans, and a slightly higher frequency of the epicanthic eyefold than North Europeans.

A second pattern that emerges is that some groups of Indians have trait frequencies closer to those of Whites than other groups of Indians, across multiple traits. The final remark of the paper is “One curious relation observed is that if the European is taken as the basis of comparison, the village tribes are nearer the whites than are the other Indians, or perhaps one should say the Mexicans and mixed-Indians”. The “village tribes” are the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and Arizona. Compared to the other Indians, the Pueblo Indians tend to have lower frequencies of wide intercanthus distance, higher frequencies of high nasal bridge, lower frequencies of the epicanthic eyefold, lower frequencies of the enamel rim, and higher frequencies of light skin color.

Among the Pueblo Indians, the Zuni tribe in particular stands out from the rest. Of all the Indian tribes, the Zuni have the lowest frequency of wide intercanthus distance, the highest frequency of high nasal bridge, the lowest frequency of the epicanthic eyefold, and among the highest frequencies of light skin color.

The following photographs of Zuni Indians show that many of them have a very Caucasoid appearance. (Click to enlarge.)

zuni-1

zuni-2

zuni-3

zuni-4

zuni-5

zuni-6

zuni-7

zuni-8

zuni-9

zuni-10

zuni-11

zuni-12

zuni-13

zuni-14

zuni-15

zuni-16

In the photograph of a group of Zuni Indians below, the boy on the right in the foreground and the girl at the upper-right look especially Caucasoid.

zuni-17

And in the photograph of Zuni Indians below, the boy and the man holding the boy look especially Caucasoid.

zuni-18

Given that the Zuni tribe stands out from the other Pueblo Indian tribes as being especially Caucasoid, it is interesting that, unlike the languages of the other Pueblo Indian tribes, the Zuni language does not belong to any language family, but is a language isolate.

After the Pueblo Indians, the tribe with the trait frequencies closest to those of Whites is the Navajo tribe. Based on the findings of the K = 17 admixture analysis of Amerindians and the K = 16 admixture analysis of Mongoloids, this is likely the result of a greater amount of Y C3-M217 proto-Caucasoid admixture in the Navajo.

A third pattern in the data is that while Indians have trait frequencies that are intermediate between those of Whites and those of Asiatics, Hawaiians have trait frequencies that are intermediate between those of Whites and those of Indians. This pattern is seen for frequencies of high nasal bridge, the epicanthic eyefold, and the enamel rim. For Carabelli’s cusps, Asiatics and Indians have frequencies that are about the same, while Hawaiians have a frequency that is intermediate between the frequencies for Asiatics and Indians and the frequency for Whites. These observations are due in part to Hawaiians being primarily Polynesoid and not Mongoloid, but they are also due in part to Caucasoid admixture in Hawaiians.

In the White Gods post I pointed out that the Wikipedia article on mummies mentions the Andeans, the Egyptians, and the Guanches as the only three ancient peoples that practiced artificial mummification. But in his 1971 article “The Bearded Gods Speak”, Thor Heyerdahl noted a fourth ancient people that practiced artificial mummification: the Polynesians. Here is an excerpt from the article:

This means that modern archaeologists have direct evidence of the remarkable fact that true mummification was practiced by the very founders of the earliest pre-Inca civilization in Peru. In fact, true mummification—with evisceration through the anus and rubbing with resinous and oily preservatives—was common both to Peru and adjacent Polynesia, while it was totally unknown in Indonesia. But whereas hundreds of actual mummies are still available from the desert region of Peru, we have mainly the written records of early voyagers to attest to the wide distribution of the practice of mummifying royal persons throughout the far-flung islands of Polynesia—from Easter Island in the East, to Hawaii in the north, to New Zealand in the southwest. The very widespread occurrence of this elaborate practice in a tropical island area whose damp climate prevents lasting success shows that it must have spread from a common cultural source outside the island area. Since mummification cannot have reached the islands from Southeast Asia, it is all the more noteworthy that two most elaborate royal mummy-bundles recently brought from a cave in Hawaii to the Bishop Museum in Honolulu correspond in striking detail with the sophisticated mummy-bundles of the pre-Inca Tiahuanaco culture.

You can read the entire article, and see a photograph of a Hawaiian mummy casket, on this page.

The K = 5 craniometric admixture analysis showed that the Polynesoid component is modal for the skulls from the Mokapu Peninsula of the Hawaiian island of Oahu, and that many of those skulls have significant amounts of the Mongoloid component, but it also showed that many of those skulls have significant amounts of the Caucasoid component. The Caucasoid component also appears in the other two corners of Polynesia, in some of the skulls of the Māori of New Zealand and the Moriori of the Chatham Islands, and in a couple of the skulls of the Easter Islanders.

A fourth pattern in the data is that the frequencies of several traits that characterize Mongoloids decrease with age, while the frequencies of the opposite traits, which characterize Caucasoids, increase with age. Specifically, the frequencies of wide intercanthus distance, flat nasal bridge, and the epicanthic eyefold, all characteristic of Mongoloids, decrease with age. The frequencies of narrow intercanthus distance, high nasal bridge, and the absence of the epicanthic eyefold, all characteristic of Caucasoids, increase with age.

This confirms the observation that has been made by many anthropologists many times before, that Mongoloids are the most pedomorphic of the three major races. Negroids are the second most pedomorphic, and Caucasoids are the least pedomorphic. Among Caucasoids, Mediterraneans are more pedomorphic than Nordics. Veddoids are more pedomorphic than Mediterraneans.

A fifth pattern in the data is that the frequencies of wide intercanthus distance and flat nasal bridge, both characteristic of Mongoloids, tend to be higher in females than in males. This is consistent with the idea that Mongoloids are the most feminized of the three major races.

Both Negroids and Mongoloids have low nasal bridges, while a high nasal bridge is a characteristically Caucasoid trait. Some people with a high nasal bridge are said to have an aquiline nose. According to the Wikipedia article on aquiline noses, Samuel George Morton wrote in his 1839 work Crania Americana that the aquiline nose is primarily found among Mediterraneans, Middle Easterners, and North Africans. The article also says that William Z. Ripley wrote in his 1899 work The Races of Europe that an aquiline nose is a characteristic of the Teutonic (Nordic) race. It’s clear, then, that an aquiline nose is a characteristically Caucasoid trait. On the Wikipedia page you can see a large gallery of famous Caucasoids with aquiline noses. There are no non-Caucasoids in that gallery. But as the article notes, Morton also wrote in Crania Americana that Amerindians are “marked by a brown complexion; long, black, lank hair; and deficient beard. The eyes are black and deep set, the brow low, the cheekbones high, the nose large and aquiline, the mouth large, and the lips tumid and compressed”. The aquiline nose of Amerindians is the strongest sign of their obvious Caucasoid admixture.

Posted in Uncategorized
56 comments on “Amerindians have both Mongoloid and Caucasoid physical features
  1. The PCA in Lazaridis et al. 2013 shows that most modern Europeans are placed inbetween La Brana/Loschbour, the Early Farmers, and Mal’ta 1/Afontova Gora 2. And the diagram illustrating the calculated „ANE admixture“shows that even populations in the far northwest of Europe, such as the Scottish, are considerably „ANE admixed“. Even if ANE admixture isn’t really admixture, as you maintain, but instead relates to a more eastern origin on the continuum between La Brana/Loschbour and Mal’ta, we’ll nonetheless arrive at the conclusion that modern Europeans, also modern western Europeans, are not purely the descendants of Early Farmers and Loschbour/La Brana-like hunter-gatherers, but instead also have ancestry from a group with more eastern roots.
    And since the Gedrosia component is so strongly present in Mal’ta 1 and Afontova Gora 2 while being at the same time completely absent in the western La Brana sample, it makes sense to assume that Gedrosia admixture is linked with increased ANE-like ancestry and thus arrived at the same time as the above mentioned eastern group.

    The question is: When did this eastern group arrive? I have admitted before (not on this site I think) that it’s of course possible that more ANE-like groups lived in western Europe already during the Mesolithic. I just find it unlikely that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers somewhere west of Loschbour and west of the Scandinavian hunter-gatherers were genetically more eastern than either of them. And they would have to have been oddly isolated in their hypothetical western pocket, given that the rather central European Loschbour hunter-gatherer was genetically so strongly western. Also an Iberian origin can be ruled out, otherwise we’d see some of this influence in La Brana. That hunter-gatherer groups on the Iberian peninsula didn’t mix with each other isn’t credible to me.

    Regarding the genetic distance maps of the Brandt, Haak et al. study, my thought was: The Bell Beaker culture originated on the Iberian peninsula, at least the ideological package and the basic equipment, that’s what archeology tells us. And likewise the mt-DNA evidence and the conclusions from the authors of the study suggest that there was a genetic influx from the Iberian peninsula associated with the Bell Beaker culture, discernible in the high frequency of haplogroup H and the introduction of novel variants of this haplogroup. And these western connections of the Bell Beaker culture would prevent modern eastern European and extra-European groups from displaying low genetic distance to the Bell Beaker people. Yet, as I said, the domestic pottery of the eastern Bell Beaker group shows more eastern relations. And the evidence from tooth morphology presented by Jocelyne Desideri here http://www.fondationlatsis.org/plpdf/Prix_Latsis/UNIGE_2008.pdf
    suggests that there was a strong local substrate in the eastern Bell Beaker group. The same is also evident from craniometry: Iberian Bell Beaker people were typically Atlanto-Mediterranean, while more central European groups were strikingly often Dinaroid. Also see this map here, showing the different local groups of the Bell Beaker culture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Beaker_culture_diffusion.svg/500px-Beaker_culture_diffusion.svg.png
    The Kromsdorf individuals belong to the yellow, easternmost groups. I would be wary of ascribing the spread of R1b to the earliest Bell Beaker groups from the Iberian peninsula. I’d much rather suspect that it was absorbed into the Bell Beaker culture somewhere in central Europe.

    Now, you’ve made a good point, alluding to the connection of R1a with the Caucasus component. This is also nicely reflected in the mt-DNA evidence from the Corded people, and in the recent study showing a particularly high variance of R1a near the Turkey/Iran border (Underhill et al. 2014). Also of interest here are the Rolloff experiments by Dienekes, which showed that the date of the admixture of the West Asian component into the Ukrainians was around 3530 BC, and into the Lithuanians around 3800 BC. So no, I don’t think the Caucasus association of R1a resulted from its spread from a glacial refugium. Instead, the Rolloff date is perfectly in line with the origin of the Kurgan burial custom in the Leylatepe culture south of the Caucasus, its implementation in the North Caucasian Maykop culture from 4000 BC on, and the spread of the North Pontic „Kurgan“/Yamnaya culture afterwards, in the late 4th millennium BC. An interesting conclusion that also follows, is that, in all likelihood, the Yamnaya culture was R1a, not R1b.

    The French are an R1b population, so it’s interesting to consider Dienekes’ Rolloff experiment regarding the Burusho-like admixture in the French: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/rolloff-analysis-of-french-as-mixture.html
    The date is around 4940 BC, so much earlier than the Kurgan/Yamnaya times. Also earlier than Bell Beaker. Unfortunately this tells us nothing about the direction where this Burusho-like influence came from. An eastern origin would make sense, though.

    The decreasing frequency of R1b from west to east doesn’t necessarily prove its origin in the west. First of all, a group of R1b males coming from the east might have procreated more in western Europe than in the east. Secondly, later migrations from the east might have reduced the R1b frequency in central Europe.
    Also consider this study, http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/huge-study-on-y-chromosome-variation-in.html
    concluding that „the variance distribution of the rare R1b-M269* Y chromosomes, displaying decreasing values from Iran, Anatolia and the western Black Sea coastal region, is also suggestive of a westward diffusion from the Iranian plateau, although more complex scenarios can be still envisioned because of its non-star like structure“.

    Regarding the paucity of burials from the Upper Paleolithic (and the complete absence of y-DNA data from that era) I note that any UP European population that gave DNA to present day Europeans must have continued to exist through the Mesolithic. Hence, you cannot treat Mesolithic hunter-gatherers as if they were a distinct kind of human beings. They were at least partly, and probably mostly, descended from UP Europeans. And UP Europeans that didn’t survive through the Mesolithic are irrelevant with regards to modern y-DNA. Hence it’s the record of Mesolithic ancient DNA that matters. I acknowledge that it’s fairly limited and that it might be larger, and hopefully soon will be larger. Until that day I’ll remain sceptical with regards to R1b in Mesolithic Western Europeans.

    Alright, I acknowledge that drift and replacement of old paragroups was stronger in the small bands of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic. So there you have a mechanism that could explain how e.g. R1b-L23* disappeared from western Europe, if (if!) it once had been present there, since, according to the link you provided, R1b-L23 originated 8000 years ago.

    If you look at the distribution map of R1b-L23* in Myres et al. 2011 a very wide distribution is indeed apparent, in line with the relatively high age of that paragroup. The distribution looks a bit like a circle, encompassing Switzerland, Poland, the southern Urals, northern Kazakhstan, the Caucasus, Anatolia. More plausible than assuming an origin in western Europe would be an origin somewhere in this circle.

    And R1b-L11 originated 6100 years ago. So at least the latter (4100 BC) was definitely in a Neolithic context. And yet its paragroup is rare in western Europe. An explanation might be that R1b-L11* (and even older variants of R1b) weren’t very common in western Europe. Otherwise you’d have to invoke a severe bottleneck.

    The Centum-Satem distinction isn’t the one and only all-decisive trait. Germanic is linguistically intermediate between Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic, see here:

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/11/splits-or-waves-trees-or-webs.html

    This net was based on the data here:

    http://www.languagesandpeoples.com/Eng/SupplInfo/AnttilaNeighborNet.htm

    Thus, traits in common between Germanic and Balto-Slavic, under the exclusion of Italo-Celtic are:
    No. 10: -i suffix instead of -r (marking the present)
    No. 11: -m- suffix instead of -bh- (case marker)

    A trait in common between Germanic and Baltic, under the exclusion of Italo-Celtic is:
    No. 3: long o instead of a, oe.

    Further information can be found here: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/indoeuropean.html
    For the genitive singular of nouns, we have Slavic (OCS) and Baltic (Lithuanian) using -ó, Baltic and Germanic (Gothic) using -eso, and Celtic (OIR) and Italic (Latin) using -í.
    For indirect and dative cases, we find a similar pattern: Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Tokharian use -m. Celtic and Italic using -bhos (dative singular).
    The Celtic-Italic link is fortified by such constructions as the comparison in -samo (vs -tero, -isto) and medium voice in -r (vs -oi, -moi).

    Also consider this tree by Ringe et al., based on lexical data:

    I think the Balto-Slavic like influence in Germanic was brought by R1a people, either with the Corded Ware culture, or with Unetice, or both.

    Personally, after writing this post, I’m doubting again that R1b was originally Indo-European. I mean, the R1a-branch had some relations with the Transcaucasian area. The earliest splinter group of Indo-European was located in Anatolia. And although the Caucasus component is virtually absent in Ireland, it has a descent presence in France and Spain, and a slight one in England and southern parts of Britain. And it’s precisely the Basques, with their 0% West Asian who don’t speak an Indo-European language. Maybe Indo-European originated in Eastern Anatolia, and R1b was originally Basque-related.

    As for your argument that subclades of R1b conforming with subgroups of Indo-European proves the Indo-European origin of R1b: That isn’t a convincing argument. R1b-M153 is a specific Basque and Gascon variant of R1b-S116. So ethnically specific subclades of haplogroups can arise even in ethnic groups which don’t speak the original language of the haplogroup, which applies in the case of the Basques and Gascons, if your theory is correct. (The Gascons are Romanized Aquitanians, who were Basque-speaking in pre-Roman times.) The explanation being: a specific subvariant of a haplogroup is more likely to spread within the borders of an ethnic groups than outside of them. Especially if the mutation arose within that ethnic group. And it doesn’t matter where the parent clade originally came from, or what language it spoke.

    I’ll have something more to say, later.

  2. Regarding the idea that there may have been a considerably more MA1/AG2-like population somewhere in Mesolithic Western Europe, there is also the problem that Mesolithic western Europeans were mostly descended from hunter-gatherers who had spent the LGM in the Franco-Cantabrian refugium. It’s dubious that groups who had expanded after the LGM from one and the same refugium could differ considerably in their autosomal make-up.

    The date for the admixture of the Burusho-like ancestry into the French inferred by Dienekes, 4940 BC, is hard to explain if that mixture is assumed to have taken place in France. At that date, the LBK settled down in France. It’s unlikely that it immediately mixed with the local hunter-gatherers, it didn’t do that in Germany either. And the local foragers were probably Loschbour-like. But the date was inferred with the French as a population, and this isn’t necessarily tied to the geographical area called France. Unlike Dienekes however, I don’t conclude that the mixture must have taken place in Western Asia. In fact, some archeologists have suggested that there has been an early influence of rather eastern European groups in middle Neolithic central Europe. In the Malice group of Poland (5000 – 4400 BC), which gave rise to Brzesc-Kujawski (4600 – 4100 BC) and Jordansmühl (4400 – 3900 BC); in the Tchitcharovce group, which gave rise to Csöshalom-Oborin in northern Hungary (from 4500 BC); in Gatersleben (Thuringia, from 4400 BC) and inTisza-Polgar (4400 – 4000 BC) and Bodrogkeresztur (4000 – 3700 BC) in Hungary. Related groups were also present in Croatia, Austria and Bavaria (Lasinja-Balaton 2, 4200 – 3700 BC). Now, as is often the case, this eastern influence is very controversial, since archeologists also find a lot of local continuity. But what I find noteworthy: Zsuzsanna Zoffmann (Anthropological sketch of the prehistoric population of the Carpathian Basin) could verify such an external, Cromagnoid influence in the Tisza-Polgar culture via Penrose-analysis of cranial material. In any case, the date of these influences would be well in line with the date inferred by Dienekes.

    Personally I surmise that R1b/Gedrosia entered central Europe at that time, and that it first expanded to western Europe with the central European Bell Beaker groups. The question remains, if that movement was associated with Indo-European languages or rather with Basque-related people. Now, compared with Indo-European speaking northwestern Europeans, the Basques have less Gedrosia, less MDLP Indo-Iranian, and considerably less MA1/AG2-like ancestry. This means inspite of their high incidence of R1b, they are less like the original R1b people than the Indo-European northwestern Europeans are. Moreover, the astounding expansion of R1b males speaks in favour of a certain cultural dominance associated with them. So it’s more likely that they belonged to a linguistic group that was succesful and expanding, like the Indo-Europeans.

    As for the question if the Proto-Indo-Europeans were associated with the West Asian or more with the North European component, I note that already Ötzi had 6% West Asian in the Globe13 analysis. This is only a bit less than the modern French have, and comparable to other western European populations. The recent study on the two Iron Age Bulgarians seems to show that the more Mediterranean, early Iron Age Bulgarian had a similarly moderate West Asian admixture. Moreover, in both Ötzi and this Bulgarian this West Asian admixture is combined with a strong Mediterranean component and a rather weak North European one. So, most of the West Asian admixture of most parts of Europe was present quite early, earlier than most of the North European admixture. So, unless we want to ascribe an Indo-European language to Ötzi, the Indo-Europeans must have arrived with the North European component, since this was the change that affected Europeans after Ötzi much more. Strong West Asian admixture is restricted to southeastern Europe and Italy. From there, some additional, slight West Asian admixture seems to have expanded to other Europeans at a very late date. The Romans were probably one of the most important agents for this.

    Finally I want to address your suggestion that the Neolithic words of Proto-Indoeuropean spread and mixed into a pre-existent Pre-Proto-Indoeuropean population which became Proto-Indoeuropean in consequence. These words must have been spoken by people, by a group of people which spread. The wheel-wagon vocabulary for instance is well represented in Germanic, Indo-Iranian and Tocharian, and partly present in the other languages too:

    It’s kind of unlikely that these words spread that far and wide by mere borrowing. And I’ve heard there is linguistic evidence that there wasn’t much borrowing between Indo-European languages after they had spread.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: