The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle

(e.g. pro-European urheimat arguments have been the worst offenders regarding unscientific arguments in the past, e.g. Colin Renfrew who has studied some of the earliest European cultures is somehow “anti-European” even though his argument stems from his archaeological interpretation about continuity in Europe)

Yes, he is concerned to demonstrate the continuity of “Near Eastern farmers” from Anatolia in Europe. Fine. He can have that. What he and every other proponent of his theory has failed to prove is that these people were “speakers of Proto-Indo-European”. What can I say? He ought to have studied the Hittites better than he did. Besides, as far as I know he has never published a follow-up of any sort defending his Aryans-are-from-Turkey story. Maybe, just maybe, it’s because he can’t rework the evidence to fit that frame anymore.

Indeed, when he published that book, the place of Hittite and the Anatolian group had not been fully explored. Isaac Taylor and a handful of others had arrived at the steppe more than a hundred years ago; it’s all in Google Books. But then comes the revelation that Hittite is IE and an anti-white scumbag like Renfrew, and the Gamkrelidze team in Russia, sees them as the vehicle of both agriculture *and* Aryan culture. Well, the picture has been revised since then. Simple as that. There’s an archaeology of IE scholarship itself that must also be taken into account.

There are still unsolved problems with all urheimats.

This seems to be more of a mantra for pussyfooting scholars than even a half-truth. I see all sorts of evidence in favor of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. I wasn’t swayed by Gamkrelidze’s 900 pages of pure reaching, on the other hand.

Based on my readings, I too think the steppe model more likely (or at least a combination of neolithic + steppe for both west and east)

Then we are in total agreement.

How do you know which Y-DNA haplogroup was dominant in the steppes back then and why do you present it as part of your “either or” argument?

I’m sorry, have you not read anything by Cavalli-Sforza? I thought all this was settled more than a decade ago. How long shall we spin on this hamster-wheel? Either the west-east swathe cut through the continent by this Y-DNA marker tallies with Aryan migration or it doesn’t. C.M. says Mongolians are responsible for it; which means the Vikings were closer to the Mongols than the Aryans. You see, it really is either/or, without your square quotes. Despite the reluctance of the scholars to draw sharp lines, their findings all tend in that direction.

Perhaps it’s just an argument of the “sometime in the past, there existed a grand white people who gave us most of our languages” sort.

I doubt they were grand in the sense of numerically preponderant. That ought to be uncontroversial enough for you. But yea, they certainly did “aryanize” much of the Continent, just as the Altaics did in the east. What’s the problem?

Dienekes, if anything, is pro-Anatolian. I don’t know about Razib but he seems to support a steppe model for at least the Indo-Iranians. What’s a wog btw?

A n*gger, by extension any non-white.

I wasn’t denying your existence. :-(

Well, I’m 100% West Euro, and half Italian to boot (lolzlolzlolz), so I have no genetic stake in the Aryan question at all. I think you’d just absorbed too much of the scholarly method to understand where I’m coming from. People like you won’t satisfied until we find a six foot tall mummy with blond hair from 3,000 BC with a stone age passport issued at Dniepropetrovsk.

Gudmund,

I don’t really know what the argument would be here?  How is it ridiculous to generalize about this?  I’d be interested to know what you think is wrong.

You know damn well what the argument is: they don’t like the central urheimat hypothesis because they’re basically anti-white and this comes too close to an assertion of deep identity for white people, which is *dangerous*. Aryans are *scary*. They oppressed people so their existence should be systematically denied. So it must be that those Tocharians out past Lake Baikal, wearing clothing that would have almost been at home in Donegal, had more in common with the muds overrunning Germany than the Boii of Halstatt. Ok! Aryans didn’t exist. R1a is a mythtery for all time. Nothing is certain. It’s all up in the air. Everything is relative! White is different things to different people. Into scare quotes we go!

A n*gger, by extension any non-white.

I don’t think Americans are very familiar with the various ways “wog” is used.  The Brits seem to use it the way you think, but I’m pretty sure even there it doesn’t refer to any non-white.  (Nigerians and Koreans both “wogs”?  Hard to believe.)

But that’s certainly not the way it’s used in Australia.  Here it almost always refers to southern and southeastern Europeans, as well as Turks and Levantines, ie the earliest non-NWE immigrant arrivals, who were granted permission to immigrate under the auspices of the “White Australia policy”—awry racial reasoning on the part of the authorities or not, that’s how it happened—and its use as such is jealously guarded by those groups.  I think you’d be surprised just how white some people who use “wog” to refer to themselves here are (and virtually all wogs use it to refer to themselves, typically with pride).  I have an uncle who looks like a slavicized version of Rutger Hauer (ie pretty bloody white); he’d automatically assume he and/or his group were being referred to by the use of “wog” or “the wogs.” 

As an example of how it can be used in conversation, just last night I was talking to a girl who was pouting about the rude manner in which some Indian tried to pick her up.  She was a “eurodarkie” like me (European facial contours, “dark” skin) and I used the Indian story as an opportunity to inquire about her background.  “I’m from [city],” she said.  No, I mean, what background are you?  You’re some wog, obviously, I said.  She said actually she wasn’t, that her mother was, in her words, “English…you know what I mean” [what she meant is her mother is “Australian,” but they cant’ say that anymore since so many people call themselves “Australian” these days that it’s lost all utility as an ethnic identifier, much like “American” has], and her father part-English, part-German.  And nothing else? I asked.  “Nope.  But people just think I’m Italian,” she said.  “But it’s okay if people think I’m Italian. It’s better than thinking I’m Indian—oops, it’s bad to say that.”  [In reality there must have been some nigger in the woodpile there at some point, else she’s adopted, because her appearance was ridiculously non-nordish for someone of the claimed backgrounds.]

Anyway, dayum, I had no idea you were this passionate about the Urheimat debate.  Kurgan Pride World Wide! Lol.

What he and every other proponent of his theory has failed to prove is that these people were “speakers of Proto-Indo-European”.

And every proponent of every other theory…There’s no need to get into the concept of “proof” here and despite adhering to a steppe origin (see? I’m not anti-“white”, I love them riders), I can’t admit that it’s been “proved” to a certain satisfaction as far as I am concerned.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s because he can’t rework the evidence to fit that frame anymore.

He seems to have. He has reworked his theory on some matters but you’re the one who should be telling me this.

an anti-white scumbag like Renfrew

I dunno, you seem more like an anti-white scumbag with your hard-on for pre-Scythians (the name is monstrous yet it caresses your ear?). At least Renfrew was initially concerned with those nice people, ancestral to the first civilizations in Europe, who created those lovely statuettes at the Cyclades and he went from there. Right?

I thought all this was settled more than a decade ago. How long shall we spin on this hamster-wheel? Either the west-east swathe cut through the continent by this Y-DNA marker tallies with Aryan migration or it doesn’t.

That matter isn’t settled in genealogy and population genetics today, let alone “more than a decade ago”.

A n*gger, by extension any non-white.

What’s white? (lolzolzolzolzolzorgz)

I think you’d just absorbed too much of the scholarly method to understand where I’m coming from.

Maybe you’ve read too much of that Greek chick who dabbled in Aryanism (I forget her name but the possibility of her ideological non-existence would have been one of the benefits of the Central Powers winning) and de Gobineau.

White is different things to different people

You’ve shown that to be the case so why are you trying to turn it on me? :(

this comes too close to an assertion of deep identity for white people

I don’t get this one, C.M.‘s fave theory would result in “white people” having an even deeper identity, one that went back to the Neolithic, rather than the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age. Since it’s always ideology with you: ideologically, I’d take Anatolia over the steppes but I can’t.

So it must be that those Tocharians out past Lake Baikal, wearing clothing that would have almost been at home in Donegal, had more in common with the muds overrunning Germany than the Boii of Halstatt.

The Tocharians come up (with certainty, that is) a few thousand years later than the people who had more in common with the “muds overrunning Germany” entered Europe (oh God, it’s about the Grand Turk after all). By the time they decided to go East they probably had more in common with the later East Slavs obviously (the beacons of light upon Europe).

You’re a good writer, by the way. I hope my writing can be as pleasing and soothing (honestly!) as yours, one day. Pretty please though, don’t do the lisp thing. It almost ruined it for me.

You know damn well what the argument is: they don’t like the central urheimat hypothesis because they’re basically anti-white and this comes too close to an assertion of deep identity for white people, which is *dangerous*. Aryans are *scary*. They oppressed people so their existence should be systematically denied. So it must be that those Tocharians out past Lake Baikal, wearing clothing that would have almost been at home in Donegal, had more in common with the muds overrunning Germany than the Boii of Halstatt. Ok! Aryans didn’t exist. R1a is a mythtery for all time. Nothing is certain. It’s all up in the air. Everything is relative! White is different things to different people. Into scare quotes we go!

The main problem I have is that I can’t get a read on this guy.  He claimed my comments were wrong, basically, and refused to go into why.  That’s not very convincing, whatever his ideological positions might be and frankly I don’t care what they are.  He doesn’t sound quite like a revanchist, eff-whites type to me judging from his subsequent comments (although you never know, some of those types are not the straightest shooters to put it mildly). 

But on to the questions at hand:  Specifically, I’m aware I said haplotype when I meant haplogroup - again, I am not a geneticist and do not work with these terms regularly, but a simple misstep in wording doesn’t invalidate everything I said - but was anything I said re: these haplogroups and their distributions and relationship to phenotype wrong?  Not that I can see.  I’m aware I wasn’t clear enough re: Renfrew’s hypothesis (i.e. that there is an important genetic aspect to it, which was worked out by others - geneticists - well after his linguistic theory was proposed; that is how academic research evolves, though, people pick up on old things when there is more evidence) - but again, how was I wrong about this when Balaresque et al offered evidence that supports Anatolian Hypothesis?  These are valid questions and it’s not very sporting to do the dodge tactic especially if he thinks I’m wrong.  If that’s the case I’m all for being corrected but I don’t think it is.

.There’s no need to get into the concept of “proof” here and despite adhering to a steppe origin (see? I’m not anti-“white”, I love them riders), I can’t admit that it’s been “proved” to a certain satisfaction as far as I am concerned.

Then I guess we have different standards. Guys like you will never be satisfied, for, as I contend, you’ve swallowed the postmodern academic lie that nothing is certain, pushed in to the hilt when it comes to the Aryans, who must not be allowed to have existed. Even an unholy leftist like Bruce Lincoln thinks the Anatolian set have just shut their ears to the hard facts marshaled over decades, a mound as high as a kurgan and way taller than theirs, no less than the Hindutva pandits have. At least they bring some passion to it (read Talageri — hilarious). You Western proponents are bloodless beggars of the question. You will observe I am placing you in with the “Anatolians” despite your assurance that you prefer the steppe model. This is because your motive is, as you admit, palpably jaundiced. It so happens that the most talent and proof align with my preference: Aryans may be tentatively identified with the aforementioned genetic marker, and their progress throughout the Continent mapped thereby. Simple as that, hoss. Bit of equestrian humour there for you.

Also I’m not the brightest, so my perspective will be very rough around the edges, and as you note, heavily ideological. I can do no better than to counter that there is an ideological undercurrent in all of the official literature as well, you just haven’t seen through it yet. I except Witzel from this charge; he seems strangely untouched by any fanaticism or vengeance, even in spite of all the hatred that’s been poured on him in the Hindoodoo press, and he doesn’t downplay obvious conclusions like Mallory and Adams.

He seems to have. He has reworked his theory on some matters but you’re the one who should be telling me this.

I can’t be bothered anymore. These matters were settled for me years ago. I read my own boys and the rest can sod off. Literally for archaeologists, lolzlozlzlozlzlolzz   But I will have to give this a wee dekka, thanks for the tip.

Maybe you’ve read too much of that Greek chick who dabbled in Aryanism

You’ll be pleased to learn my taste is not so vulgar. Really, do I strike you as a reader of that fan-girl slop? It proves what I’ve always known, I have no ability to assimilate and reflect what I’ve read. You’d think after thousands of pages of Dumezil just a paragraph or two of good sense would result. But no. I’m still an idiot.

I dunno, you seem more like an anti-white scumbag with your hard-on for pre-Scythians (the name is monstrous yet it caresses your ear?). At least Renfrew was initially concerned with those nice people, ancestral to the first civilizations in Europe, who created those lovely statuettes at the Cyclades and he went from there. Right?

Same starting point as Martin Bernal. But you have me there: I couldn’t care less about statuettes and wine bowls. Doesn’t resonate. I prefer brutality. Haoma-huffing eaters of horse flesh. Gang warfare on the steppes. Reduction of whole peoples to the Aryan yoke. Doesn’t thrill you at all, bro? Oh I know, it was just “cultural diffusion”, they shared their pottery with the good squat Alpines who learned Aryan creole for the benefits, etc. But at least someone back on the steppe was getting really really drunk and doing stunts on horseback, then went a-clobbering down the Indus.

The Tocharians come up (with certainty, that is) a few thousand years later than the people who had more in common with the “muds overrunning Germany” entered Europe (oh God, it’s about the Grand Turk after all).

Not really. But you must admit there’s a possibility the pushers of the Anatolian model are acting partly from attachment to liberal ideology. If so, how would this color the “debate”? In precisely the same way that guru Elst and pandit Talageri argue from their own rabid pro-Hindoo bias. Witzel and his Japanese colleague have settled all that in dozens of articles, debates, blah blah blah, and their magisterial translation of the RV with its priceless introduction. Guess what? All this brainpower comes to exactly the same conclusion as the old guard: Pontic-Caspian steppe. ]

By the time they decided to go East they probably had more in common with the later East Slavs obviously (the beacons of light upon Europe).

I don’t know about that. The Tochs don’t seem to have been an equestrian folk, for one, and we lack absolutely any trace of their kinship structure and living arrangements, for another. As far as their speech, the current theory is that the first arrivals preserved those features in common with centum, while later arrivals provided an Iranian stratum. I am curious to know where you got this idea or if you came up with it yourself, ‘cause it smells like shite.

Silver,

Missed your comment. That’s a great story, and I didn’t know the other white meats self-identify as wogs there.

I’m sure there would be some cog-diss if a Brit, say a skinhead, happened to call a Nigerian and Korean in the same room “wogs”, but I am also sure they would do it anyhow. Certainly a Nigerian would sooner be called wog than a Korean, given the word’s origin. I’m in favor of restricting it to negroes but these days I use “kaffir” as a rule: it sounds like a slur, it’s directed at blacks, but not one of my fellow Americans in five-thousands knows what it is. If they ask I tell. If they don’t, maybe they slink off to the bathroom and look it up on their iPhone; or they assume from context that it’s a synonym of “n*gger”. I have trouble with “wog” because my mouth’s muscles aren’t trained to the British manner, so the “o” is open and it sounds just weird.

A friend of mine, good black Irish features, told me no less than three guys called him “wog” while traveling in Northern Ireland.

Kurgan Pride World Wide! Lol.

If you like I will send you one of my “Solutrean Social Club” t-shirts!! Deys good fo swoopin dem flah honeyz at da club. Bitches all like, “daFUCK dat meanz?”, and u be all like, “BITCH, aint u KNOW u a muhfuggin SULootreen? Psk psk, get up on mah body nah.”

anon/uh wrote:

A last point to consider: Even Razib Khan and Dienekes (two wogs that is) support the Ukrainian model. These are legendary eggheads with a grasp of genetics that soars above all of our heads, including this C.M.

Some interpretations of recent genetic findings are weighing in against the Ukrainian hypotheses in favor of a central European one:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/

Basically, it seems East Eurasian mtDNA lineages were fairly common in pre-Indo-European Ukraine. However, such markers were not found in Bronze Age Corded Ware remains from eastern Germany (see here), with supposed origins on the Eastern Europe steppe, nor are they commonly found in present-day Ukraine. What this suggests is that the Eastern European steppe was not the source of any large-scale migrations into Central Europe. Rather, it’s more likely that the European steppe populations were replaced by successive waves of migrants from Central-Eastern or even Central Europe.

Indians on paper have wonderful qualifications.  In practice, they rarely live up to their billing.  Having worked with Indians in Canada, USA, Europe and the UAE, I have found them to be work shy, risk adverse, always looking for pen pushing positions with a business card that says manager or director.  I have not yet experienced one that ever met a deadline, ever complied with a budget or could think outside of the box.  They are very poor managers.  Usually, they occupy a position, quickly get into trouble, hide the fact, search frantically for another job, then move.  Rarely, and never in my experience, do they see a project through to completion.  The experience of many countries, including Canada and the UK is that they leverage their degrees (their exams consist of repeating back what they have been told, not original thinking) to get visas, sponsor their families, in turn have large families themselves, then, after they have turned neighborhoods into the slums they left behind in India, you find the relatives and offspring reliant on social security.  I would guess that they have a native cunning, that permits them to ride the backs of other immigrant communities, especially when it comes to taking advantage of liberal laws, but these people do not have a work ethic, which, no matter how high your IQ will limit them to safe jobs, ducking responsibility and migration to the civil service type of work.  I have found the Chinese to be completelly different.  They do have a work ethic and some pride in their neighborhoods.  But the Indians, just a curse really.  In years to come, our grandchildren will ask why we gave away our country to these awful people.

I am basing my information on this haplogroup distribution chart below.

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

The haplogroup distribution from various studies. There is a high percentage of males carrying R y dna.
I would say probably about 40%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_South_Asian_populations

My impression is that the Indians have a pretty intact feudal system which, regardless of where they immigrate to, comes along intact with them. The implication of all this is that within a feudal system everybody is considered an outsider indefinitely and actions are taken to benefit members within the feudal system—They wouldn’t put in any more effort than required because they see it as a form of trade to do work. A transaction which finishes the moment its over.

The Chinese/Asians on the other hand want to be embraced on a cultural level, they put in more effort because they wish to show their worth. They want to be part of the society on a fundamental level—to go beyond trade.

I think in a realistic sense Indians would never immigrate unless there was an economic reason, whereas Chinese/Asians might have deeper reasons.

As for IQ, I don’t think people are talking about human intelligence so much as trying to create ethnic based class systems.

India had the very most advanced civilization for thousands of years, much more advanced than China, only relatively recently has India been surpassed

Cut the stupid ghetto jive-talking already. You are not fooling anyone. The only relics of an advanced civilization that are found in India are those that were built by foreign rulers, the turko-mongol muslim Mughals and the white Christian British. The Hindus were never able to create an advanced civilization, probably because of the asinine caste system. Just read above how disgusted even Gandhi was by the Indian villages in which the overwhelming proportion of Hindus have always lived, or how disgusted Babur the Mongol-Turk conqueror of North India, the Aryan homeland, was by the utter shabbiness and backwardness of his new domain.

China has been ranking high in the IMO since 1986 (25 years ago) yet China has no Fields Medals, Abel Prizes, or anything equivalent to show for it

Ethnic Chinese have won 2 Fields Medals vs 0 for ethnic Indians.

East Asians have won more than 3 times the Nobel Prizes in the sciences than south Asians.

Technologically, economically, militarily, organizationally, in practically every way east Asia is miles and miles ahead of south Asia. You look very, very stupid bragging about India which is poorer, hungrier, filthier, shabbier than almost any other place on earth. This despite having all the advantages of western inspired political, judicial, educational institutions and the stability and peace of 3 generations since the British handed it over to the Hindus. What this mess proves is that the Brahmins of India, the black and brown sahibs who replaced the British white sahibs as rulers of India, have got to be among the dumbest people on the planet. Yet, shamelessly, they are also the most boastful!

I already know that the main reason India performs poorly in the IMO is simply because of a bad selection process and pre-college education system

India performs poorly in practically everything, not just the IMO. It has the hungriest children on the planet in both percentage and absolute terms despite having enough farmland. Or look at it’s miserable infrastructure, shabby even by third world standards, despite graduating tons of “engineers” every year. Who or what do you blame for the miserably failed systems and processes of India if not the low intelligence of it’s ruling elite, the upper caste hindus?

  India never had a high LITERATE population. Brahmins forbade others from learning to read

Like I said the Hindu hereditary caste system is an asinine way to organize a society, another expression of the low intelligence of Indians. Just look at it’s sorry results.

The egalitarian Enlightenment movement of Europe and America which drew inspiration from not just the pagan Greeks but also the Confucian Chinese basically created the modern age. Caste and superstition ridden India has a lot of catching up to do…

Even after generations of independence India still has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world, and what passes for literacy in India is a joke.

My society bends over backwards to promote blacks, and it’s nigh impossible to find competent ones.

Hey Frank, stop lying to us. Your society is led by a black, Obama, who replaced an incompetent white, Bush. You have more African-American doctors than German-American doctors despite there being more German-Americans than African-Americans. The head of NASA, a former Commander of the Space Shuttle, is African-American. Heads of Fortune 100 corporations are black. American music from jazz to rock to hip hop is the creation of blacks and imitated all over the world. Your all-American sports are dominated by blacks. Your most popular religion, Pentecostalism, was started by a black. Etc, etc.

my simple test is skin, hair, and eye color—the lighter the better.

Then you should have a fetish for albinos. Do you? Does anybody?

Instead what I see is tons of pasty white men who have a fetish for black haired, black eyed, darker skinned mongoloid females. They seem to find the Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino women utterly irresistible. It is actually amusing to see them acting more possessive over Asian girls than girls of their own race! How do you think that makes white girls feel? Undesirable and inferior I bet.

Ethnic Chinese have won 2 Fields Medals vs 0 for ethnic Indians.

Three Japanese and a Vietnamese have also won the Fields Medal. Vietnam also performs much better than India in the International Math Olympiad. So does Iran.

The Wolf Prize in mathematics has been won by 3 Japanese and 2 Chinese mathematicians vs 0 Indians.

The Wolf Prize in Physics which is second to the Nobels in prestige has been won by 2 Japanese and 1 Chinese vs 0 Indians.

The Wolf Prize in Chemistry has been won once by a Chinese but never by an Indian.

The Wolf Prize in Medicine has been won by 3 Japanese vs 0 Indians/south Asians.

indo-europeans were not from central europe or ukraine. Why do you keep whining about that?!
What is your problem then? So they came from the middle east, so what? The biggest mistake you make is to identify “indo-europeans” with R1a (it’s a mongoloid haplotype, the oldest R1a is found in China), it’s not true, the oldest or one of the oldest indo european speeches, Greek, groups into armenian and then more distantly iranian, the greeks came from the middle east, as all people with indo european speeches were. They looked different than now, but that’s not strange, Europeans are mixed heavily, just look at all the different haplotypes.

The problem is with you guys is that you claim certain haplotypes as your own while it’s simply not true, for example R1a, it’s present in Europeans “so it must be from europe”. I wrote before that R1a and R1b originate from Asia, if you don’t believe me just let a professor read my message.
I mean it’s also true of N3, if 60% of finnish males have this haplotype, what does that make? Finnish origin? Of course not, it could not be, because N3 is a sister clade of haplotype O. There are maybe 75 million Chinese males with N3. But N3 is certainly not in the 60% like in finland. What you see in Finland is that people with altaic speech from somewhere near northern China migrated to Finland somewhere in time.

I mean europeans would like to see themsleves as “unique”, but you really are no more than a mix of middle eastern and mongoloid. It’s s the way it is, nothing more, ask any honest geneticist.

I mean how can R1a be a gene of “indo-european”, if ti’s only present primarily in eastern europe, not southern europe and southern europe is certainly the entry point of indo european speakers. Look at greece: it’s primarily J2 and E3b as the theory would have predicted of a middle eastern origin of indo europeans. western europe is where R1b is dominant and it’s not even from europe itself, the people with R1a and R1b could not have spoken indo european languages for one simple reason, R1a and R1b have northern Chinese origin ( there are the people with the oldest coalescent ages of these haplotypes going back way before they emerge in Europe, for example the R1b coalescent age of spanish and irish is only 3000 years old, because these areas where the last areas to be settled by people with R1b).
R1a could not be the language of indo european, it’s simple as that. What exactly the people spoke at the time, I am not sure but it could be something that’s related to the siberian languages or like that of finland, but certainly not indo european.

Now the kurgan (burial mount), if this is something “indo european”, how come there are no burial mounts in europe? You guys are making the mistake of claiming the indo europeans buried their kins in kurgans or rode horses, you can forget about that, the oldest domesticated horses were found in ancient kazakstan, yeah.

the indo europeans cremated their kins, like in middle east, drank wine like everybody in middle east, eat bread like other middle eastern people, looked as other middle eastern people and migrated in the neolithics, 8000 years ago, into europe. Their lifestyle, farming was superior to the hunter gatherer societies so their languages became dominant by culture not by war. If you farm you wait for the food to grow literally, instead of going after ruuning game or collecting wild berries. There was a population explosion in neolithics due to farming. hunter gatherers did not had as many children as the indo european farmers so that’s how europe got their speech conversion. Of course the hunter gatherers married the daughters of the farmers too.

You know where the kurgans are? In Siberia primarily. So no kurgans and no horses for indo european, they aquirred horses much later.

indo-europeans: middle eastern origin, from anatolia, wheat and barley bread, wine, sheep and cows, the language family is large stretching into india, from it’s point of origin, the middle east.
crops and animals domesticated in middle east, how clearer could it be. European females share almost exactly the same haplogroups as the women in today syria and turkey.

Characteristics of
Siberian steppe nomads: horses domesticated in today’s area of kazakstan, they dug up bones with a mouth bit, I think. kurgans, tattooes, living in kind of tents, bow hunting, alcoholic drink from mare’s milk,