posted                      

The earliest crania of homo sapien sapiens in East Africa are ancestral to modern day Tutsis, Masai, Oromo, people,ie, Elongated East Africans who are "Negroid" Howells database lists as "African" only Dogon, Teita, and San, but NO Elongated East Africans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
^^^

Racial Affinities of Prehistoric East Africans

W.W. Howells' study of world craniometric variation is especially relevant to the racial affinity of East Africans before the expansion of Negroids into the region. Howells studied some 2,500+ skulls from 28 populations of recent Homo sapiens based on 57 metric variables [1], including skulls from the Teita tribe of East Africa. These recent Teita tribesmen (and women) clustered with other Sub-Saharan Africans, indicating that (as is obvious) recent Kenyans belong primarily to the Negroid race.

Howells then studied prehistoric East Africans and other humans from around the world to determine whether or not they show any affinities with living races [2]. He did this to examine whether the morphological complexes of modern races can be discerned in remote times. Using the same multivariate approach he studied the Elmenteita, Nakuru and Willey's Kopje skulls from Kenya. His conclusion was that there is no racial continuity between recent Negroid East African skulls and these prehistoric remains, as the following passage illustrates ([2, p. 41]:

(...) The DISPOP [Dienekes: DISPOP is Howells' program] results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island.

Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the recent East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory. On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have beeen changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes.

[1] Howells WW (1989) Skull shapes and the map: craniometric analyses in the dispersion of modern Homo. Peabody Museum Papers 79:1-189.
[2] Howells WW (1995) Who's Who in skulls: ethnic identification of crania from measurements. Peabody Museum Papers 82:1-108.


=====

Prehistoric East Africans were not Negroid.

---

Paragroup E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E*, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.






The limb portions of the people you try to claim is tropical adapted. Like other Africans it matches or is closer to them.

Now, if the so called negro skulls aren't as old as he claims and or continues.


Now, go cry me a river. (salt lake city)


Explain, why are Haplo A*, B* and D* carriers are the oldest amongst mankind. And human remains have been found where these same people still live?





So much for your pseudo logic.


Forget about all the nazi nonsense, ok!


REMEMBER: R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

code:

---

COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS

ENGLISH    DRAVIDIAN      SENEGALESE        MANDING
MOTHER        AMMA          AMA,MEEN          MA
FATHER    APPAN,ABBA       AMPA,BAABA         BA
PREGNANCY   BASARU          BIIR              BARA
SKIN          URI          NGURU,GURI         GURU
BLOOD       NETTARU         DERET             DYERI
KING       MANNAN          MAANSA,OMAAD        MANSA
GRAND      BIIRA           BUUR                BA
SALIVA     TUPPAL          TUUDDE              TU
CULTIVATE  BEY            ,MBEY            BE
BOAT       KULAM           GAAL                KULU
FEATHER    SOOGE           SIIGE               SI, SIGI
MOUNTAIN    KUNRU          TUUD                KURU
ROCK       KALLU           XEER                KULU
STREAM     KOLLI           KAL                 KOLI

---

code:

---

English                Senegalese            Dravidian
body                   W. yaram                 uru
head                   D. fuko,xoox              kukk
hair                   W. kawar                 kavaram 'shoot'
eye                    D. kil                   kan, khan
mouth                  D. butum                 baayi, vaay
lip                    W. tun,F. tondu          tuti
heart                  W. xol,S. xoor           karalu
pup                    W. kuti                  kutti
sheep                  W. xar                   'ram'
cow                    W. nag                   naku
hoe                    W. konki                
bronze                 W. xanjar                xancara
blacksmith             W. kamara               
skin                      dol                   tool
mother                 W. yaay                   aayi
child                  D. kunil                  kunnu, kuuci
ghee                     o-new                   ney

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
Has your arse already been torn apart at the Indian forum. Claiming mythology as facts?
========

THE “ARYAN COLOR” – THE RIG VEDA

The Rig Veda praises the god who "destroyed the Dasyans and protected the Aryan colour." - Rg.V. III 34.9

It then goes on to thank the god who "bestowed on his white friends the fields, bestowed the sun, bestowed the waters." - Rg.V. I 100.18

RIG VEDA DESCRIBES ARYAN GODS AS BLONDS

Indra - X 23.4 - "With him too is this rain of his that comes like herds: Indra throws drops of moisture on his yellow beard. When the sweet juice is shed he seeks the pleasant place, and stirs the worshipper as wind disturbs the wood."

Indra - 10.96.8 - "At the swift draught the Soma-drinker waxed in might, the Iron One with yellow beard and yellow hair. He, Lord of Tawny Coursers, Lord of fleet-foot Mares, will bear his Bay Steeds safely over all distress."

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:
Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.

However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.

---

Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.

However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.

---

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Not only were the Aryans Iranians, but they were also descended from an even more ancient population of Indian folks who settled in the region. Hence, the strong linguistic ties between populations in Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia. Old Iranian (pre persian) languages are a branch of the Indo Iranian language family. Of course this is classed as a member of IndoEuropean but the European part of Indo European is a child of IndoIranian not the other way around. And there are still elements of the old IndoIranian folks in the western regions of Iran.

---

quote:

---

The preference for lighter skin in India is primarily due to the influence of foreigners. I am not even talking about Aryans. The Greeks were one group, but they weren't that numerous to begin with. But with the Greeks began the history of "modern" India. Most history before that is blurred by myth, fantasy and mystery, with Harrappan civilization still not being fully understood. It was during the Persian era and then the Mughal era that light skin as a symbol of beauty really became predominant. Mughal art almost always shows people with features similar to themselves (IndoPersian and Mongol/Asian). After the Mughals came the British and the white skin preference became even more blatant and it was during British rule that movies and entertainment became standardized according to "British taste", which meant that actors and actresses are all light bright and trying to be white or European looking, Persian looking or sometimes even Asian looking, anything other than the natural dark brown that is predominant in India. And Gandhi was indeed racist in the sense that he didn't want to be lumped with blacks as a 3rd class citizen, but would accept 2nd class status under the British. Indians were often considered as some of the most loyal and trustworthy of the colonized peoples of the British and because of this the British often took them to many of their colonies around the world. This is what led to the rise of Indian populations in the Caribbean, Africa and the Pacific. But they were always used as a buffer, meaning they were always placed above the natives as second class under the British and because of this came a feeling of superiority and resentment from the locals.

Now, some may feel a sense of Aryan superiority in India with their light skin, but the wheels come off the wagon when they go to Europe because no matter how light or "Aryan" they think they are, the British still don't consider them as "one of them" and look down on them because of the history of the British conquest of India. The fact is that British aren't Aryans, as Aryans are in reality populations in and between India and Iran and are not Europeans. But because European scholars trumped up Aryan supremacy as the basis for global European supremacy and based the colonial education system around it, a lot of Indians subscribed to it, not realizing that the British are not Aryans and are simply doing what they always do, making up stuff to justify their rule.

Traces of the Mughal and Persian communities are still found in India with names like "Khan" and features similar to old Mongol and Mughal paintings like joined eyebrows, but those features have absolutely nothing to do with Europe.

The fact is that the whole Aryan supremacy myth created by Europe is an attempt to put the basis of Indian culture in the hands of Europeans, by claiming some close relationship to the lighter skinned peoples of the Indo Iranian plateau, with Europe somehow an ancient homeland of these people. In other words, to turn history upside down. The truth is that Indo Europeans are a population partly derived from Indian, Asian and Aryan Persian stock and it is from this stock that the Indo European languages derive. In Hindi you say "Mera Nam es" in English you say "My name is". Sounds quite similar doesn't it, but of course I am no linguist.

---

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Not only were the Aryans Iranians, but they were also descended from an even more ancient population of Indian folks who settled in the region. Hence, the strong linguistic ties between populations in Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia. Old Iranian (pre persian) languages are a branch of the Indo Iranian language family. Of course this is classed as a member of IndoEuropean but the European part of Indo European is a child of IndoIranian not the other way around. And there are still elements of the old IndoIranian folks in the western regions of Iran.

---

Actually the Iranian speakers and Indic (Indian) speakers are two branches make up the Indo-Iranian subfamily along with a third recently identified branch of peole in Afghanistan and northeastern Pakistan called Nuri which includes the Kalash people. The Indo-Iranian subfamily is just one of the many sub-families of Indo-European is no more ancient than Baltic or Greek. Judging by the distribution of the languages the likely homeland for Indo-European languages is Russia.

This does NOT however mean there was an actual immigration let alone invasion of people in India who introduced IE language and culture. The evidence tends to point to a long process of acculturation among native peoples through chain of contact. For example Vedic Sanskrit was introduced by people native to northern India whose original language may have been the language isolate Burushaski or something similar. Later Sanskrit and Sanskrit derived languages hold Dravidian or other features. etc.

I have an Indian friend who even suggests the theory that Aryanization may perhaps be rooted in the spread of Vedic religion the same way Arabic took over the Arabian peninsula through Islam and perhaps Semitic religions before that.

quote:

---

The preference for lighter skin in India is primarily due to the influence of foreigners. I am not even talking about Aryans. The Greeks were one group, but they weren't that numerous to begin with. But with the Greeks began the history of "modern" India. Most history before that is blurred by myth, fantasy and mystery, with Harrappan civilization still not being fully understood. It was during the Persian era and then the Mughal era that light skin as a symbol of beauty really became predominant. Mughal art almost always shows people with features similar to themselves (IndoPersian and Mongol/Asian). After the Mughals came the British and the white skin preference became even more blatant and it was during British rule that movies and entertainment became standardized according to "British taste", which meant that actors and actresses are all light bright and trying to be white or European looking, Persian looking or sometimes even Asian looking, anything other than the natural dark brown that is predominant in India. And Gandhi was indeed racist in the sense that he didn't want to be lumped with blacks as a 3rd class citizen, but would accept 2nd class status under the British. Indians were often considered as some of the most loyal and trustworthy of the colonized peoples of the British and because of this the British often took them to many of their colonies around the world. This is what led to the rise of Indian populations in the Caribbean, Africa and the Pacific. But they were always used as a buffer, meaning they were always placed above the natives as second class under the British and because of this came a feeling of superiority and resentment from the locals.

Now, some may feel a sense of Aryan superiority in India with their light skin, but the wheels come off the wagon when they go to Europe because no matter how light or "Aryan" they think they are, the British still don't consider them as "one of them" and look down on them because of the history of the British conquest of India. The fact is that British aren't Aryans, as Aryans are in reality populations in and between India and Iran and are not Europeans. But because European scholars trumped up Aryan supremacy as the basis for global European supremacy and based the colonial education system around it, a lot of Indians subscribed to it, not realizing that the British are not Aryans and are simply doing what they always do, making up stuff to justify their rule.

Traces of the Mughal and Persian communities are still found in India with names like "Khan" and features similar to old Mongol and Mughal paintings like joined eyebrows, but those features have absolutely nothing to do with Europe.

The fact is that the whole Aryan supremacy myth created by Europe is an attempt to put the basis of Indian culture in the hands of Europeans, by claiming some close relationship to the lighter skinned peoples of the Indo Iranian plateau, with Europe somehow an ancient homeland of these people. In other words, to turn history upside down. The truth is that Indo Europeans are a population partly derived from Indian, Asian and Aryan Persian stock and it is from this stock that the Indo European languages derive. In Hindi you say "Mera Nam es" in English you say "My name is". Sounds quite similar doesn't it, but of course I am no linguist.

---

What's funny is that Bollywood only chooses the lightest people to be stars, and many of those people are not surprisingly of foreign ancestry. Even in the early years of Bollywood at least 80% of the actors were of northern Pakistani to Afghan descent. Today even many of the naturally light actors and and especially actresses use make up like fair-and-lovely to make themselves more fair to the point where they don't even look Indian anymore.

---

The homeland of Indo-European is in the Asian steppes and not within the Geographical confines of what is now considered "Europe". That is my point. These people were more Asian than European, no matter how light or dark they were. Europeans only got the language later due to both linguistic diffusion and some physical diffusion towards the West. The actual European part of Indo-European is in my opinion younger, but the only reason some propose it as older is because they lump the Greek and Baltic branches with the older Mesopotamian and Indus branches which is pure d nonsense. My point being that Harrapan, even though it is not translated, is most likely a branch of this language and if so is the oldest surviving example of such. Indo-European in my opinion is a language that started in and around India and spread to Europe.

The fact is that there is not enough evidence to actually know for sure where the origin of indo-European is geographically. The theories about Andronovo are purely speculative and based on theoretical reconstruction. Andronovo is a long way from India. And the idea that Vedic represents the spread of this language into India proper only makes sense if you ignore the language of Mojenjo Daro and the Harrappan complex, which is older than the theoretical spread of vedic languages in India.

This is Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

Andronovo Culture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indo-Iranian_origins.png

Andronovo and the proposed birth place of Indo European is not in Europe it borders on the far East of Europe. Calling this "Europe" is a stretch to say the least. That is like calling Kazakhstan European.

Again, modern scholars from the far West of Europe are the ones stretching the definition of Europe to include the ancient Eurasian Steppes as some pan-European ethnic federation when it isn't. And this area is a long way from India as well. And a lot of scholars have questioned making Andronovo the homeland of the theoretical Indo-Aryan linquistic family and/or ethnic population as again, the Indus Valley civiliazation predates this and some of the earliest swastikas are found in Mohenjo Daro.

My impression is that the Indus Valley civilization was contemporary with early Mesopotamia and Elam in Iran. These cultures shared a similar form of written language based on seals and pictographs and were also contemporary with Early ancient Egypt. Trade and contacts flourished between them all and I have no doubt that the flow of populations between India, Elam and Mesopotamia was well established. The later "indo-iranians" were simply a continuation of this older pattern except now you are talking of migrations from northern areas of the Iranian plateau as well. But these areas are not part of Europe. And the Iranian plateau is not in the same region as the Andronovo complex. So again, calling the people of Andronovo "Indo-Iranians" is a stretch as these populations do not have any physical cultural similarities to the populations of India, Iran and Mesopotamia other than the proposed homeland of the chariot being in the Andronovo complex and some cultural aspects like fire worship.

A complete map of Eurasia and note the area of the supposed "Andronovo" complex and how far it is from Europe. Keep in mind that Russia, as a national entity is made up of the historic Russian homeland and a great many Asian provinces. Lumping them all together as European makes no sense.


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eurasian_continent.jpg

Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:
Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.

However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.

---

according to what you are saying most Indians would not call themselves "white" "black" or "mulatto"

---

Posts: 53 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:
Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.

However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.

---

according to what you are saying most Indians would not call themselves "white" "black" or "mulatto"

---

Posts: 53 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.


However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.

---

'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.

---

Posts: 53 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
^^ You have yet to explain why North Indians look like White Southern Europeans.



Among the Aryan castes of India, are also found light eyes.

The anthropological evidence is clear of the Aryan invasion and who left their genetic mark. Too bad you reject history.

---

Posts: 53 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.


However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.

---

'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.

---

Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India. And what's the cutoff point for black and the origin of brown? Besides, there are many African Americans in the US with significant European ancestry and are certainly lighter than many Indians, yet they are considered black.

With respect to your comment about Bollywood actors and actresses being of foreign origin, that's incorrect. In the early days of Bollywood, there were many Afghan actors/actresses but that was because Indian society frowned on that as a career choice. But since the 70's, almost all have been Indians and the most prominent actresses have been South Indian in particular.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.


However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.

---

'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.

---

Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India. And what's the cutoff point for black and the origin of brown? Besides, there are many African Americans in the US with significant European ancestry and are certainly lighter than many Indians, yet they are considered black.

With respect to your comment about Bollywood actors and actresses being of foreign origin, that's incorrect. In the early days of Bollywood, there were many Afghan actors/actresses but that was because Indian society frowned on that as a career choice. But since the 70's, almost all have been Indians and the most prominent actresses have been South Indian in particular.

---

Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage.

See:Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27; and

Aravanan KP. 1979. Dravidians and Africans, Madras;

Aravanan KP. 1980. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India. J Tamil Studies 20–45.

.

---

Posts: 53 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India.

---

Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.


However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.

---

'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.

---

Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India. And what's the cutoff point for black and the origin of brown? Besides, there are many African Americans in the US with significant European ancestry and are certainly lighter than many Indians, yet they are considered black.

With respect to your comment about Bollywood actors and actresses being of foreign origin, that's incorrect. In the early days of Bollywood, there were many Afghan actors/actresses but that was because Indian society frowned on that as a career choice. But since the 70's, almost all have been Indians and the most prominent actresses have been South Indian in particular.

---

Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage.

See:Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27; and

Aravanan KP. 1979. Dravidians and Africans, Madras;

Aravanan KP. 1980. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India. J Tamil Studies 20–45.

.

---

I've got lots of South Indians in my extended family. Grew up in Chennai. Not one thinks he/she is of African descent.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.

---

Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India. And what's the cutoff point for black and the origin of brown? Besides, there are many African Americans in the US with significant European ancestry and are certainly lighter than many Indians, yet they are considered black.

---

quote:

---

With respect to your comment about Bollywood actors and actresses being of foreign origin, that's incorrect. In the early days of Bollywood, there were many Afghan actors/actresses but that was because Indian society frowned on that as a career choice. But since the 70's, almost all have been Indians and the most prominent actresses have been South Indian in particular.

---

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

Well Lioness, I'm an Indian and I know of no Indian that considers him/herself to be black as in someone of African descent. I also don't know of any Indian that is delusional enough to think of him/herself as white. I'm sure someone will point to a some Indian friend that thinks otherwise but, by and large, Indians don't think of themselves of recent African descent.


However, most Indians do sympathize with the plight of African Americans and I believe the Indian community voted for Obama at the rate of 90%.

---

'Black' is a reference to skin color. There are black peoples native to many tropical regions around the world not just Africa. So course there are many Indians that are indeed black. That does not mean they are of African descent. This whole thread is silly and stupid due to its author.

---

Except in the US, black denotes African ancestry. If you want to define black as just people with black skin, then yes, there are blacks in India. And what's the cutoff point for black and the origin of brown? Besides, there are many African Americans in the US with significant European ancestry and are certainly lighter than many Indians, yet they are considered black.

With respect to your comment about Bollywood actors and actresses being of foreign origin, that's incorrect. In the early days of Bollywood, there were many Afghan actors/actresses but that was because Indian society frowned on that as a career choice. But since the 70's, almost all have been Indians and the most prominent actresses have been South Indian in particular.

---

Dravidian speaking people recognize their African heritage.

See:Aravanan KP. 1976. ''Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans''. Journal of Tamil Studies 10:23–27; and

Aravanan KP. 1979. Dravidians and Africans, Madras;

Aravanan KP. 1980. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India. J Tamil Studies 20–45.

.

---

I've got lots of South Indians in my extended family. Grew up in Chennai. Not one thinks he/she is of African descent.

---

All that matters is that many scholars including Dravidian ones have noted a close affinity between Dravidians and Africans genetically, linguistically, culturally. This doesn't mean they came recently from Africa.
It is likely that they belong to a group that was spread as early as the Neolithic between south Asia and Africa with some in Arabia and Sumer and Elam or southern Mesopotamia as well. of course they are not going to claim African descent.


Tamil girl

Many Dravidians have mixed with other populations over the last several thousand years, but nevertheless there are some in their native cultures that still look very African.

Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

The homeland of Indo-European is in the Asian steppes and not within the Geographical confines of what is now considered "Europe". That is my point. These people were more Asian than European, no matter how light or dark they were. Europeans only got the language later due to both linguistic diffusion and some physical diffusion towards the West. The actual European part of Indo-European is in my opinion younger, but the only reason some propose it as older is because they lump the Greek and Baltic branches with the older Mesopotamian and Indus branches which is pure nonsense. My point being that Harrapan, even though it is not translated, is most likely a branch of this language and if so is the oldest surviving example of such. Indo-European in my opinion is a language that started in and around India and spread to Europe.

---

quote:

---

The fact is that there is not enough evidence to actually know for sure where the origin of indo-European is geographically. The theories about Andronovo are purely speculative and based on theoretical reconstruction. Andronovo is a long way from India. And the idea that Vedic represents the spread of this language into India proper only makes sense if you ignore the language of Mojenjo Daro and the Harrappan complex, which is older than the theoretical spread of vedic languages in India.

---

quote:

---

This is Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
Andronovo Culture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indo-Iranian_origins.png
Andronovo and the proposed birth place of Indo European is not in Europe it borders on the far East of Europe. Calling this "Europe" is a stretch to say the least. That is like calling Kazakhstan European.

---

Correction. Andronovo is NOT the proposed birth place of Indo-European but of Indo-Iranian! The culture proposed to be the cradle of Indo-European is the earlier Yamnya Culture!

As you can see the Yamnya is located in Russia and split into directions west, east, and even a small group south into the Caucasus.

quote:

---

Again, modern scholars from the far West of Europe are the ones stretching the definition of Europe to include the ancient Eurasian Steppes as some pan-European ethnic federation when it isn't. And this area is a long way from India as well. And a lot of scholars have questioned making Andronovo the homeland of the theoretical Indo-Aryan linquistic family and/or ethnic population as again, the Indus Valley civiliazation predates this and some of the earliest swastikas are found in Mohenjo Daro.

---

quote:

---

My impression is that the Indus Valley civilization was contemporary with early Mesopotamia and Elam in Iran. These cultures shared a similar form of written language based on seals and pictographs and were also contemporary with Early ancient Egypt. Trade and contacts flourished between them all and I have no doubt that the flow of populations between India, Elam and Mesopotamia was well established. The later "indo-iranians" were simply a continuation of this older pattern except now you are talking of migrations from northern areas of the Iranian plateau as well. But these areas are not part of Europe. And the Iranian plateau is not in the same region as the Andronovo complex. So again, calling the people of Andronovo "Indo-Iranians" is a stretch as these populations do not have any physical cultural similarities to the populations of India, Iran and Mesopotamia other than the proposed homeland of the chariot being in the Andronovo complex and some cultural aspects like fire worship.

---

quote:

---

A complete map of Eurasia and note the area of the supposed "Andronovo" complex and how far it is from Europe. Keep in mind that Russia, as a national entity is made up of the historic Russian homeland and a great many Asian provinces. Lumping them all together as European makes no sense.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eurasian_continent.jpg

---

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
Sumerian seals have been unearthed across the Indus Valley, and Harappan seals have been discovered across Mesopotamia.

This occurred through trade, although there may have been a small colony of Sumerians in the Indus Valley

See following - On the So-Called Sumero-Indian Seals", George A. Barton, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 8, 1926 - 1927, pp. 79-95.

No idea where the Sumerian = Dravidian claim comes from. This seems to be another strange afrocentric piece of pseudo-history.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

The homeland of Indo-European is in the Asian steppes and not within the Geographical confines of what is now considered "Europe". That is my point. These people were more Asian than European, no matter how light or dark they were. Europeans only got the language later due to both linguistic diffusion and some physical diffusion towards the West. The actual European part of Indo-European is in my opinion younger, but the only reason some propose it as older is because they lump the Greek and Baltic branches with the older Mesopotamian and Indus branches which is pure nonsense. My point being that Harrapan, even though it is not translated, is most likely a branch of this language and if so is the oldest surviving example of such. Indo-European in my opinion is a language that started in and around India and spread to Europe.

---

You speak as if there is truly a distinction between Europe and Asia when we know there is non either georgraphically or genetically. Europe is as much a subcontinent of Asia as is India, and European peoples are continuous to Asian peoples, hence the common use of 'Eurasia'. In many ways this is similar to the peoples of the Levant and Arabia being segregated to Asia only even though Africa is right beside it and the Semitic languages there are derived from Africa. As far as your opinion goes, I stick by linguistics. And linguistics shows that Vedic Sanskrit is about as old as Achaean Greek and that the Hittite language Nasili is slightly older than both. This along with the fact that Europe has the most diversity possessing most of the subfamilies while Indo-Iranian is the largest and most diverse sub-family with the most languages only points to an origin between these regions in the Russian steppes between Europe and west Central Asia is more likely.
As for the Harappan language. Virtually all scholars agree that it is NOT an Indo-European langauge and possess many features alien to it. While the script has not been translated, language syntax programs suggest affinities with Dravidian languages more than anything else.

quote:

---

The fact is that there is not enough evidence to actually know for sure where the origin of indo-European is geographically. The theories about Andronovo are purely speculative and based on theoretical reconstruction. Andronovo is a long way from India. And the idea that Vedic represents the spread of this language into India proper only makes sense if you ignore the language of Mojenjo Daro and the Harrappan complex, which is older than the theoretical spread of vedic languages in India.

---

Again, you assume that Harappan is Vedic culture when both archaeology and linguistics show that it isn't. As I stated the origin of Indo-European can be deduced from language distribution. The majority of brances are located in Europe while Indo-Iranian in Asia is the largest and most diverse of all the branches. The second largest and diverse branc after Indo-Iranian is Slavic. There was also an Anatolian branch spoken in the Near East such as Hittite and Armenian exists today as an isolate branch in the Caucasus.
You are also assuming that Indo-European was the only language group in central Asia that existed. There is a total language isolate called Burushaski spoken in northern Pakistan that shows a subtle influence in Vedic Sanskrit and many scholars think was part of a more extensive family in Central Asia where the Andronovo culture later became dominant. There was even shown to be Burshaski influence in other IE languages in words for certain objects like the fruit apple. And again Harappan likely represents Dravidian since all the features of Harappan civilization are preserved more fully among Dravidian speakers and was unknown or alien to Vedic Sanskrit.

quote:

---

This is Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
Andronovo Culture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indo-Iranian_origins.png
Andronovo and the proposed birth place of Indo European is not in Europe it borders on the far East of Europe. Calling this "Europe" is a stretch to say the least. That is like calling Kazakhstan European.

---

Correction. Andronovo is NOT the proposed birth place of Indo-European but of Indo-Iranian! The culture proposed to be the cradle of Indo-European is the earlier Yamnya Culture!

As you can see the Yamnya is located in Russia and split into directions west, east, and even a small group south into the Caucasus.

quote:

---

Again, modern scholars from the far West of Europe are the ones stretching the definition of Europe to include the ancient Eurasian Steppes as some pan-European ethnic federation when it isn't. And this area is a long way from India as well. And a lot of scholars have questioned making Andronovo the homeland of the theoretical Indo-Aryan linquistic family and/or ethnic population as again, the Indus Valley civiliazation predates this and some of the earliest swastikas are found in Mohenjo Daro.

---

Yes scholars in the past have attempted to include Central Asia as prehistoric Europe, but that is besides the point. Indo-Iranic is one branch in Asia while most branches are in Europe. The same way all subfamilies of Afrasian are located in Africa with just one subfamily (Semitic) being located in Southwest Asia. Language distribution in both instances make it clear where each phylum originates. IE in Europe and Afrasian in Africa. Mohenjo Daro as the earliest and indigenous culture in India is irrelevant to IE languages.

quote:

---

My impression is that the Indus Valley civilization was contemporary with early Mesopotamia and Elam in Iran. These cultures shared a similar form of written language based on seals and pictographs and were also contemporary with Early ancient Egypt. Trade and contacts flourished between them all and I have no doubt that the flow of populations between India, Elam and Mesopotamia was well established. The later "indo-iranians" were simply a continuation of this older pattern except now you are talking of migrations from northern areas of the Iranian plateau as well. But these areas are not part of Europe. And the Iranian plateau is not in the same region as the Andronovo complex. So again, calling the people of Andronovo "Indo-Iranians" is a stretch as these populations do not have any physical cultural similarities to the populations of India, Iran and Mesopotamia other than the proposed homeland of the chariot being in the Andronovo complex and some cultural aspects like fire worship.

---

You're right that Harappa, Elam, and Sumer were all contemporaneous but what does that have to do with the introduction of IE languages. Indo-Iranian languages by the way were first known in Mesopotamia in the form of the Kassites and later in Syria among the Mitanni before it was known in India. The Andronovo culture contains more than just horses and chariots which by the way were unknown to Harappa and it contemporaries but Soma plant, certain styles of pottery and styles of weaponry as well.

Notice that right below the Andronovo are the later derived Yaz and Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complexes, and then after that the Swat culture in northeast Pakistan. This shows an obvious movement not of people but of culture. The earliest known center of Vedic culture by the way is located in Kashmir not long after the Swat culture. This supports the movement of Vedic culture from northeast to southwest as shown in the literature and not from from west to east as many Europeans once thought.

quote:

---

A complete map of Eurasia and note the area of the supposed "Andronovo" complex and how far it is from Europe. Keep in mind that Russia, as a national entity is made up of the historic Russian homeland and a great many Asian provinces. Lumping them all together as European makes no sense.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eurasian_continent.jpg

---

Of course it does not. But again this is besides the point that Andronovo is derived from the earlier Yamnya which is in Europe.

---

Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
All that matters is that many scholars including Dravidian ones have noted a close affinity between Dravidians and Africans genetically, linguistically, culturally. This doesn't mean they came recently from Africa.
It is likely that they belong to a group that was spread as early as the Neolithic between south Asia and Africa with some in Arabia and Sumer and Elam or southern Mesopotamia as well. of course they are not going to claim African descent.


Tamil girl

Many Dravidians have mixed with other populations over the last several thousand years, but nevertheless there are some in their native cultures that still look very African. [/QB]

---

Posts: 53 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
^^^ but Egmond we can't always define ourselves according to how other people opress us for whatever stupid reason they try to justify it with.

For many the concept of self identifying primarily by skin color is deeply ingrained to the point of never questioning it and taking it for granted as a good thing..

But many people in other parts of the world don't identify themselves primarily by skin color. Some choose nationality, religion, sexual preference, or philosophy as the primary self identifier

what do you think of this?

---

Posts: 53 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Check out these videoes on dravidian origins;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeKj-toC3Uc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcC6WoUgHdU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5jta98KRKY

---

Posts: 53 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
All that matters is that many scholars including Dravidian ones have noted a close affinity between Dravidians and Africans genetically, linguistically, culturally. This doesn't mean they came recently from Africa.
It is likely that they belong to a group that was spread as early as the Neolithic between south Asia and Africa with some in Arabia and Sumer and Elam or southern Mesopotamia as well. of course they are not going to claim African descent.


Tamil girl

Many Dravidians have mixed with other populations over the last several thousand years, but nevertheless there are some in their native cultures that still look very African.

---

Which geneticists are you talking about? All the Indian geneticists say otherwise. Also, that's not a picture of your "average" Tamilian. That would be like someone trying to pass of Aishwarya Rai as your average Tamilian. Neither extreme would be correct. [/QB]

---

you are absolutely right. your average Tamil living in the larg towns and cities are not pure Dravidians. There are very few people in India that are not genetically linked to other indians. nevertheless at one time they were all separate populations living in india as is obvious from the skeletal types found similar to those in other places - INCLUDING NUBIA.

And, I am really getting sick of people claiming for an argument genetic evidence proves that people either could not have been related or distinguishable two thousand years ago.

it is just silly and nonsensical.


A Tamil priest

Sorry but there are still large numbers of Dravidian speakers that retain the ancient Dravidian traits - there is also incontrovertible linguistic, archeological and cultural evidence.

"of the most remarkable findings related in some detail by Bernard Sergent, on the basis of independent studies... the multifarious kinship of the Dravidian language family with African languages of the Sahel belt, from Somalia to Senegal (Peul Wolof, Mande, Dyola). .
…we have several separate studies by unrelated researchers, using different samples of languages in their observations, and that each of them lists large numbers of similarities, not just in vocabulary, but also in linguistic structure, even in its most intimate features..."


"To quite an extent, this evidence suggests that Dravidian and some of the African languages (the case has been made in most detail for the Senegalo-Guinean languages such as Wolof) have a common origin. At the distance involved, it is unlikely that the isoglosses noted are the effects of borrowing. Either way, Proto-Dravidian must have been geographically close to the ancestor-language of the Negro-African languages. Did it come from Africa, as Sergent concludes? Should we think of a lost Saharan culture which disappeared before the conquests of the desert?.... "

Indians did not emerge from a single population!

There are many Indians in the U.S. that don't look anything like the original American "Indians" here too. SO WHAT!

Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

I understand what you are talking about, which is the Kurgan hypothesis, but Andronovo or Yamnya is not the point. I never agreed with that theory and to me it is simply a rehashed Aryan invasion theory. Neither of these cultures a: have any close proximity to India or Ancient Indian culture or b: have any evidence of being linguistically ancestral to ancient Indo-Iranian language groups. It is all based on pure speculation and the desire of trying to put Europe first in the development of language. Yamna is certainly not part of any ancient origin of Indo-European languages. My personal opinion is that those cultures may have influenced later Indo-Iranian populations but this isn't the origin of such languages. Likewise, R1a1 is likely to have originate in India anyway. Looking at the map of Human migrations humans moved out of Africa around Europe into Asia and made a "left hook" into Eastern Europe and across. That left hook is especially important in the post glacial period as the basis of later European lineages.

---

quote:

---

So rather than a "sudden" appearance of "Indo-European' languages 5-6,000 years ago, I believe this is simply a continued evolution of the languages spoken by the original migrants out of Asia/Africa into Europe along that 'left hook' from India during the post glacial period.

---

quote:

---

Scholars call this the "paleolithic continuity" theory. I call it common sense. Indian populations are older than Europe and European populations partly derive from "Indo-Iranian/Asian and African populations not the other way around which is the old Aryan myth.

http://www.humanjourney.us/indoEurope2.html

---

quote:

---

Like I said, the key to all of this is what language was spoken during the Harappan period in the Indus Valley and preceding cultures. I doubt very seriously that these languages were part of a different language family or that these languages were introduced from any part of Europe. But since it has not been deciphered, it is convenient to ignore and pretend it doesn't exist. And to me that is absolute pure nonsense. We know the people of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa spoke a language. If that language was a predecessor to and a variant of later Indo-European languages, then the whole theory of origins outside India is bunk. Like I said this whole concept is nothing but a rehash of the Aryan Invasion model where the populations of Harappa and the Indus Valley were suddenly disrupted by invading nomadic horse warriors who totally erased their language and culture and introduced another. That is pure B.S.

---

quote:

---

Again, some of the earliest swastikas are found in Harappa and these became a significant part of later Iranian and Indian Buddhist and Hindu religious traditions.

---

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandabear:

quote:

---

Djehuti wrote:

True, but you can't deny that the Bollywood industry has an ideal that does not match with how the majority of Indians look like. Even the lightest Indian actresses must still wear make-up to make themselves even lighter etc.

---

But that is true of all societies. Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt are not representative of the average white woman or man respectively; Halle Berry is not representative of the average African American. East Asian actresses routines have surgeries to remove the epicanthic fold. Black women straighten their hair or wear wigs or weaves. Why should Indian women be held to a different standard? Looks like most people want what they can't have naturally.

---

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

I understand what you are talking about, which is the Kurgan hypothesis, but Andronovo or Yamnya is not the point. I never agreed with that theory and to me it is simply a rehashed Aryan invasion theory. Neither of these cultures a: have any close proximity to India or Ancient Indian culture or b: have any evidence of being linguistically ancestral to ancient Indo-Iranian language groups. It is all based on pure speculation and the desire of trying to put Europe first in the development of language. Yamna is certainly not part of any ancient origin of Indo-European languages. My personal opinion is that those cultures may have influenced later Indo-Iranian populations but this isn't the origin of such languages. Likewise, R1a1 is likely to have originate in India anyway. Looking at the map of Human migrations humans moved out of Africa around Europe into Asia and made a "left hook" into Eastern Europe and across. That left hook is especially important in the post glacial period as the basis of later European lineages.

---

The Kurgan Hypothesis is the likely one supported by linguistic distribution as well as some archaeology. You were the one that first made reference to it with the Andronovo Culture. I merely showed you that the Yamnya culture is far older and is a precursor to it. You say these cultures are far from India yet the Andronovo is in Central Asia just north of it and the later Swat culture IS in India. Again the vast majority of IE languages are spoken in Europe instead of Asia. Indo-Iranic while being the most diverse branch is just ONE surviving branch in Asia, though there is evidence that members of that branch were also spoken in European Russia. I don't know what IE language origins have to do with 'Aryan invasion' as we are talking about language expansions and distribution NOT invading populations. The European origins of IE is no more about putting Europeans first than Afrisian origins are about putting Africans first. It is all a matter of the evidence of linguistic patterns as well as archaeology. You're right that Europeans have done much to create the impression of supremacy but insisting that IE is indigenous to India when all the evidence including ancient Indian texts does not help matters at all. Especially when you have truly indigenous Indian language families like Dravidian and Austrasian, and again there is a language isolate in Kashmir India and Jammu Pakistan that shows a substratum present in the Vedic language and even other IE languages that scholars are still mystified about. Also, I don't know what the origin of hg R1a has anything to do with it as its existence predates any known Eurasian language, European, Indian, or otherwise!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So rather than a "sudden" appearance of "Indo-European' languages 5-6,000 years ago, I believe this is simply a continued evolution of the languages spoken by the original migrants out of Asia/Africa into Europe along that 'left hook' from India during the post glacial period.

---

Again this is your belief, but it doesn't hold up to linguistics. As far as "sudden" appearance, how so? You mean historically, because even the historical records shows a pattern of areas north of the Near East in Ukraine and European Russia.

quote:

---

Scholars call this the "paleolithic continuity" theory. I call it common sense. Indian populations are older than Europe and European populations partly derive from "Indo-Iranian/Asian and African populations not the other way around which is the old Aryan myth.

http://www.humanjourney.us/indoEurope2.html

---

If that's the case, then the same can be said for ALL European languages even the pre- IE ones that existed like Basque in Spain etc. Are you telling me that the Basque language is Indian too? LOL Note by the way that Basque actually has more Asiatic features like agglutination than IE languages. This makes it closer to Dravidian than Sanksrit! There is a big difference between saying the language phylum itself originated in Paleolithic Asia and saying that its ancestral precursors did in immemorial times!

quote:

---

Like I said, the key to all of this is what language was spoken during the Harappan period in the Indus Valley and preceding cultures. I doubt very seriously that these languages were part of a different language family or that these languages were introduced from any part of Europe. But since it has not been deciphered, it is convenient to ignore and pretend it doesn't exist. And to me that is absolute pure nonsense. We know the people of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa spoke a language. If that language was a predecessor to and a variant of later Indo-European languages, then the whole theory of origins outside India is bunk. Like I said this whole concept is nothing but a rehash of the Aryan Invasion model where the populations of Harappa and the Indus Valley were suddenly disrupted by invading nomadic horse warriors who totally erased their language and culture and introduced another. That is pure B.S.

---

Did you not read any of what I wrote? Even though the Harappan script has not been deciphered, it has been studied enough to know that it is definitely not Indo-European! For one thing the script is read from left to right which is completely alien to IE languages. Here is one source on this matter.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Can-Computers-Decipher-a-5000-Year-Old-Language.html

Also, judging by Vedic texts, the Sanskrit language describes areas of northern India near the Hindu Kush and Ganges NOT the Indus Valley delta, and this is further supported by archaeology. In fact many features of Harappan Civilization like yoga and the linga are not mentioned in Vedic Sanskrit let alone other IE languages. If you can name something in Harappan culture that survives in IE languages, I'm happy to read it. Again, this has nothing to do with any Aryan invasion but the adoption and rise of a new culture after the decline of Harappa, since all archaeology shows that Harappan culture declined well before the presence of any culture indicative of 'Aryans'.

quote:

---

Again, some of the earliest swastikas are found in Harappa and these became a significant part of later Iranian and Indian Buddhist and Hindu religious traditions.

---

Actually the oldest known example of the swastika comes from Europe-- the Ukraine to be exact!! It was carved onto an ivory figure of mammoth tusk dating 10,000 BCE! Now, I'm not saying that the symbol itself originated from Europe, but earlier you brought up Paleolithic Eurasian origins for the IE phylum which is ridiculous. However, evidence does suggest such origins for the swastika as it is found not only in eastern Europe, but India of course, Siberia as far east as Korea and even among Native Americans! Either the symbol had a common paleolithic origin OR by coincidence these peoples all happened to envision this basic geometric figure. By the way, the second oldest appearance of the swastika is found in the pre-Sumerian Samarran culture of Mesopotamia not India.

Again, I suggest you do more research on the subject matter Doug. You are a very intelligent and keen observer, however I notice when it comes to this topic and in particular that of IE as it relates to Europeans, your indignation towards Eurocentrism as correct as it may be, does appear to get in the way of proper assessment.

---

Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Then you need to read some articles about the Kurgan hypothesis and the hypotheses about the spread of the "original" Indo Europeans which many claim is signified by R1a. I didn't say this. Suffice to say you haven't really taken time to read the various proponents of this theory. And yes the Kurgan hypothesis is a warmed over Aryan Invasion theory. The core of the theory is that horse warriors spread the language. If you don't believe me read the works of Marija Gimbutas. Secondly, it is based purely on archeological studies not any actual linguistic remains. Nobody actually knows what the Yamna culture spoke, they have no scripts and most of what remains is purely archeological artifacts. Hence, this is a theory based loosely on archaeological artifacts and extrapolation. So the fact that you believe in it is fine, but the critiques I have mentioned are not new and certainly everyone does not buy this theory, because it is a theory and not a proven fact.

---

quote:

---

Yes the Vedic and Sansrkrit languages are subject to linguistic analysis, but they came thousands of years after the Yamna and Kurgan cultures. The problem is that there is no linguistic evidence from those cultures to actually determine any relationship to Vedic languages or Sanskrit. So again, it is a theory primarily based around archaeological remains not linguistic evidence. Those things are core to the critiques against this theory and it is not new and not something I made up. And, likewise, Harrappan languages or scripts have not been deciphered or understood. Some people don't even believe there was a Harrappan script. But to the point of the Linga and Yoga, are you sure you understand what you are looking at? Yoga and Linga are core aspects of Hindu/Jain/Buddhist beliefs. And if they occur first in Harrappa, than is proof that much of what is called later Hindu culture was already in place and therefore not introduced from outside no matter what language they spoke. But since they were in place, the linguistics surrounding those things must have also been in place as well. Now some scholars have proposed that Harappan languages are Indo European. I did not make this up. But some others claim they are Australasian/Dravidian. The point is the Harappan languages are lost and undetermined so nobody knows their true relationship to later Indo-European languages. My point is that I doubt that Harappan languages were that much different from later Sanskrit or Vedic. But again, this implies that later Sanskrit and vedic are languages imposed by outsiders, hence the Aryan invasion theory all over again.

---

quote:

---

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y2jfHlinW4UC&pg=PA40&dq=kurgan+hypothesis&hl=en&ei=L4SQTpypD4fh0QHRp-FH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=kurgan%2 0hypothesis&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fcVIcaJxgdUC&pg=PA30&dq=kurgan+hypothesis&hl=en&ei=L4SQTpypD4fh0QHRp-FH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=kurgan% 20hypothesis&f=false

Also, I would like to see an image of that Swastika on a mammoth tusk if you have it. Again, if the swastika is found in Harappa before any certain date of Indo-Europeans being spoken in the region, then it has nothing to do with the spread of Indo-European languages. But it is an important symbol found in cultures throughout the region.

---

Here is one image of the ivory figure.



By the way, I never said the swastika has anything to do with the spread of IE languages. If you were comprehended what I said, I noted that the swastika not only predates Indo-European but the Harappan culture as well and is definitely a symbol paleolithic in origin!

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

I'm rather confused by the claim that Indo-European incursions did not significantly impact India genetically. If that was the case, why are some Indians so fair-skinned? If Indians all over the subcontinent are descended primarily from the first immigrants 50,000 years ago, well before any modern humans moved into northern Eurasia and adapted to the high latitudes, then almost all Indians today should be quite dark and tropically adapted. How did light-skinned Indians come to exist?

---

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged |