...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Vedic Origins of the Europeans: the Children of Danu (Questions) (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Vedic Origins of the Europeans: the Children of Danu (Questions)
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Full Link: https://vedanet.com/2012/06/13/vedic-origins-of-the-europeans-the-children-of-danu/

By David Frawley (Pandit Vamadeva Shastri)

Migrations Out of India or Central Asia

We have noted Danu or Danava as a term for an inimical people or even an anti-god, like Deva and Asura, probably reflects some split in the Aryan peoples. This could be the conflict the Purus, the main Rig Vedic people located on the Sarasvati river near Delhi, and the Druhyus, who were located in the northwest by Afganistan, who fought quite early in the Rig Vedic period.

Certainly we can only equate the Proto-Europeans with the northwest of India or greater India that extends into Afghanistan and Central Asia. If they can be connected to any group among the five Vedic peoples it must be the Druhyus.

However, we do find Druhyu kingdoms continuing for some time in India and giving names to regions like Gandhara (Afghanistan) and Aratta (Panjab) connected more with Iranian or Scythian people. Yet, we do note a connection between the Scythians and the Celts, whose Druid priests connect themselves with the Scythians at an early period. The Scythians also maintained a trade from India to Europe that continued for many centuries. In this regard the Proto-Europeans could have been a derivation of Aryan India by migration, cultural diffusion, or what is more likely, a combination of both.

Though the Druhyus and Proto-Europeans may be connected, it is difficult to confirm, particularly as the Europeans were a very different ethnic type (Nordic and Alpine) than most of the Indians and Iranians, who were of the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasian race.

However, it is possible that European ethnic types were living in ancient Afghanistan or Central Asia, even Kashmir, where we do find some of these types even today. The evidence of the Tokharians suggests this. The Tokharians (Tusharas) were a people speaking an Indo-European language closer to the European (a kentum-based language), and also demonstrate Nordic or Alpine, blond and red-haired ethnic traits. They lived in the Tarim Basin of western China that dominated the region to the Muslim invasion up to the eighth century AD, by which time they had become Buddhists. They may be related to the European featured mummies found in that area dating back to 1500 BCE. They were also present in Western China around Langchou in the early centuries BCE. The Tokharian language is possibly related to the Celtic and Italic branches, just as their physical features resemble northern Europeans. The Tarim Basin region was later regarded as the land of the Uttara Kurus and as a land of the gods. So such groups were not always censured as barbarians at the borders but were sometimes honored as highly advanced and spiritual.

The evidence does not show an Aryan invasion/migration into India in ancient times, certainly not after the Harappan era (c. 3000 BCE) and probably not before. No genetic or skeletal or other hard evidence has been found to prove this. Similarly, we do not find evidence of migration of interior Indic peoples West, the dark-skinned people that were prominent on the subcontinent to the northwest. But if the same ethnic types as the Europeans were present in Western China, Afghanistan or in northwest Iran, like the Fergana Valley (Sogdia), such a migration west would be possible, particularly given their familiarity with horses. In this case the commonality of Indo-European languages would not rest upon a common ethnicity with the interior Indo-Aryans but on a common ethnicity with peripheral Aryans on the northwest of India.

It is also possible that the European people derived their Aryan culture from the influence of Vedic peoples, probably mainly Druhyus but also Scythians (who might themselves be Druhyus), who migrated to Central Asia and brought their culture to larger groups of Europeans already living in Europe and Central Asia. The Europeans could have picked up an Aryan influence indirectly from the contact with various rishis, princes or merchants, without any significant genetic or familial linkage with Indic peoples. Or some combination may have existed. Such peoples with more Vedic cultures like the Celts could derive mainly from migration, while those others like the Germans might derive mainly from cultural diffusion. In any case, various means of Aryanization existed that can explain the spread of Vedic culture from the Himalayas to Europe, of which actual migration of people from the interior of India need not be the only or even primary factor.

We do note the names of rivers like the Don, Dneiper, Dneister, Donets and Danube to the north of the Black are largely cognate with Danu. This could reflect such a movement of peoples from West or Central Asia, including migrants originally from regions of greater India and Iran. At the end of the Ice Age, as Europe became warmer, it became a suitable land for agriculture. This would have made it a desirable place of migration for people from the east and the south, which were flooded or became jungles.

European and Iranian Peoples of Central Asia and Europe: Sycthians and Turanians

The northern Iranian peoples, called Turanians or Scythians, dominated the steppes of Central Asia from Mongolia to Eastern Europe. By the early centuries BC they had set up kingdoms from the Danube in the West to the Altai Mountains in the East. They were the main enemies of the Persians. Unlike the Persians, their religions had more Devic elements and affinities to the Vedic with a greater emphasis on Devas, Sun worship, drinking of Soma and a greater variety of deities like the Vedic. We could call these Turanians or Scythians the main Proto-European Aryans. Some would identify them with the original Slavic peoples as well, who were likely always the largest and dominant Indo-European group in Europe.

Curiously in the early centuries AD we find the Scythians entering into north India and creating some kingdoms there, with both Hindu and Buddhist influence. It is possible that such contacts with India were transmitted to Central Asia and West, much as from previous Vedic eras.

It is probable that the Danavas, Scythians and Turanians were largely the same group of people with Vedic affinities and connections to Vedic culture through various kings, rishis, traders and movements of both people and cultures. Later the Turks came into Central Asia and displaced the Scythian peoples driving them south and west.

Western Indo-European scholarship is obsessed with these eastern Scythian and other possible European elements. Some like Parpola even see the Vedic peoples of the Rig Veda as a migration of the Scythians into India. However, these Central Asian Vedic people were just one branch of a greater Vedic people that included several branches within India itse.f

Much of the search for a Proto-Indo-European language or PIE could be more correctly regarded as a search for the proto-European people. What has been reconstructed through it is more the homeland of the Danava-Druhyu branch of the Vedic people after their dispersal from India rather than all the Indo-European speakers. It is at best only a recontruction of the western branch of the Vedic peoples and even that in a limited and distorted manner.

Therefore, we need not stop short with reconstructing Scythian and Central Asian Aryan culture, we must take it into India itself, where other Vedic branches existed using many of the same cultural forms like Fire worship, Sun worship, the sacred plant or Soma cult, the cult of the sacred cow and horse, symbols like the sacred tree and swastika, worship of rivers as Goddesses. The philosophical, medical and astronomical knowledge that we find in European peoples like the Celts and the Greeks also mirrors that of India such as we find in the Upanishads, Ayurvedic medicine and Vedic astrology.

Questions(Appreciate any detailed answers backed by evidence/links):

1. ''However, it is possible that European ethnic types were living in ancient Afghanistan or Central Asia, even Kashmir, where we do find some of these types even today.'' Leading to the question if there are ethnically similar types to European ethnic types in this region is there presence a result of these groups intermixing/hybridization with authentic European types (people)? (excluding the known European admixture in this region of which there is some. More in regards to speculated admixture such as Indo-European admixture. The Indo European-genetic admixture argument. That Indo-European speaking South Asians have Indo European admixture. Although the Kalash speak Indo-European but are said to have no European admixture.

2. ''The evidence of the Tokharians suggests this. '' Does it?

3. ''But if the same ethnic types as the Europeans were present in Western China, Afghanistan or in northwest Iran, like the Fergana Valley (Sogdia), such a migration west would be possible, particularly given their familiarity with horses. In this case the commonality of Indo-European languages would not rest upon a common ethnicity with the interior Indo-Aryans but on a common ethnicity with peripheral Aryans on the northwest of India.'' Is this arguing these groups of people (Kashmiris, Afghanistan) have Tocharian admixture? Tocharians are said to be an Indo-European people. If so, is this correct?

4.''Therefore, we need not stop short with reconstructing Scythian and Central Asian Aryan culture, we must take it into India itself, where other Vedic branches existed '' What are these other branches?

Struggling to understand just how much of a genetic impact the Europeans have made on the South Asian population. In particular in terms of ancient admixture. This whole Aryan/Indo European argument floating around the internet makes it sound/seems as if the whole of South Asia is mixed with European genes.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here are answers to your questions.

.

1. ''However, it is possible that European ethnic types were living in ancient Afghanistan or Central Asia, even Kashmir, where we do find some of these types even today.'' Leading to the question if there are ethnically similar types to European ethnic types in this region is there presence a result of these groups intermixing/hybridization with authentic European types (people)? (excluding the known European admixture in this region of which there is some. More in regards to speculated admixture such as Indo-European admixture. The Indo European-genetic admixture argument. That Indo-European speaking South Asians have Indo European admixture. Although the Kalash speak Indo-European but are said to have no European admixture.
Yes there were modern ethnic Europeans living in Central Asia. After 1000 BC, Europeans began to invade Western Europe. Greeks speaking Europeans rebelled against Persian rule. The Persians exiled Greeks to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

2. ''The evidence of the Tokharians suggests this. '' Does it?
No. Tokharians called themselves Kushana. The Kushana were not Indo-Europeans, they spoke Dravidian languages. During kushana rule, there were multiple ethnic groups living in Central Asia. As a result Tocharian was a Dravidian trade language https://www.academia.edu/8491572/Is_Tocharian_a_Dravidian_Trade_Language


3. ''But if the same ethnic types as the Europeans were present in Western China, Afghanistan or in northwest Iran, like the Fergana Valley (Sogdia), such a migration west would be possible, particularly given their familiarity with horses. In this case the commonality of Indo-European languages would not rest upon a common ethnicity with the interior Indo-Aryans but on a common ethnicity with peripheral Aryans on the northwest of India.'' Is this arguing these groups of people (Kashmiris, Afghanistan) have Tocharian admixture? Tocharians are said to be an Indo-European people. If so, is this correct?
The Indo-European languages are not based on a common ethnicity. The Indo-European languages are connected based on the relationship between the Greek language and Sanskrit, and Greek loan words in other European languages that agree with the Greek words in Sanskrit.
The Greek words in Sanskrit, result from the Greek presence in Afghanistan-Pakistan when Panini wrote the grammar for Sanskrit, which was a lingua franca. The Greek language influenced other European languages when these Europeans were ruled by the Greeks, and the Roman use of Greek as a lingua franca when the Romans ruled many parts of Europe. See: Greek influence on Sanskrit, https://www.academia.edu/1898458/Greek_influence_on_Sanskrit




4.''Therefore, we need not stop short with reconstructing Scythian and Central Asian Aryan culture, we must take it into India itself, where other Vedic branches existed '' What are these other branches?

You are right people should stop trying to reconstruct an Aryan culture, because there never was a Aryan Culture.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kushana

.
 -

.
Central Asia was called Kush by the ancient people. The Armenians made it clear that the ancients called Persia, Media,Elam Aria, and the entire area between the Tigris and Indus rivers Kush.Bardesones, writing in his Book of the Laws of Countries, in the 2nd Century said that the "Bactrians who we called Qushani (or Kushans)".The Armenians, called the earlier Parthian: Kushan and acknowledged their connection with them. Homer, Herodotus, and the Roman scholar Strabo called southern Persia AETHIOPIA. The Greeks and Romans called the country east of Kerma: Kusan.

First, I would like to make it clear that the probable language of the Kushana was Tamil. According to Dravidian literature, the Kushana were called Kosars=Yakshas=Yueh chih/ Kushana. This literature maintains that when they entered India they either already spoke Tamil, or adopted the language upon settlement in India. In pinyin Yueh chih is pronounced: Yuezhi

The Kushana and the Yueh chih/ Yuezhi were one and the same. In addition to North Indian documents the Kushana-Yueh chih association are also discussed in Dravidian literature. V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen hundred years ago, note that in the Sanskrit literature the Yueh chih/ Yuezhi were called Yakshas, Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana.

Many of the Yueh people were Dravidian speakers. The Yueh people were also called Yuehchih or Kuishuang (Kushana). In ancient times the Yueh chihs controlled Central Asia and much of China until the first century BC. In the Pali Chronicles, the Ramayana and Matsya, the Yuehchih were called Yakshas or Kosar. The Yueh of North China established Xia. According to the Yi Xia Dong Xi Shuo, by Fu Ssumein, the li Qiang (Black Qiang) of Shang were united with the Yueh people of southwest China.
.
 -
.
The Yuezhi allegedly arrived in India during the 2nd century BC. He makes it clear that the Yuezhi / Kushana as noted on their coins worshipped Siva as seen on the coins of Kanishka. This is why we have a coin of a Kushana king from Taxila, dated to AD 76 that declares that the king was maharaja rajatiraja devaputra Kushana "Great King, King of kings, Son of God, the Kushana".

The term Tochara has nothing to do with the Yuehchih, this was a term used to describe the people who took over the Greek Bactrian state, before the Kushana reached the Oxus Valley around 150 BC . There is no reason the Kushana may not have been intimately familiar with the Kharosthi writing at this time because from 202BC onward Prakrit and Chinese documents were written in Kharosthi.

The Kushana and the Yuezhi were one and the same. In addition to North Indian documents the Kushana- Yuezhi association are also discussed in Dravidian literature.V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen hundred years ago note that in the Sanskrit literature the Yueh chih were called Yakshas, Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana.

Some researchers believe that the Ars'i spoke Tocharian A, while Tocharian B was the "Kucha language" may have been spoken by the Kushana people. I don't know where you read that the speakers of Tocharian A were called Ars'i. These names: Ars’i and kucha, have nothing to do with ethnic groups, they refer to the cities where Tocharian text were found: Tocharian A documents were found around Qarashar and Turfan, thusly these text are also referred to as Turfanian or East Tocharian; Tocharian B documents were found near the town of Kucha, thusly they are sometimes called Kuchean or West Tocharian.

Linguist use the term Tochari to refer to these people, because they were given this title in Turkic manuscripts . As a result, the word Tochari has nothing to do with the Kushana people. The observable evidence make it clear that the terms used to label the Tocharian dialects are not ethnonyms, they are terms used to denote where the Tocharian records were found. The use of the term Ars'i does not relate to the Kushana people. The terms: Asii, Pasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli, refer to the white nomads that took Bactria away from the Greeks—not the Yuezhi .

These white nomads came from the Iaxartes River that adjoins that of Sacae and the Sogdiani .The Kushana people took over Bactria much later. It is a mistake to believe that Ars'i and Kucha were ethnonyms is understandable given your lack of knowledge about Tocharian. And I will agree that there were a number of different languages spoken by people who wrote material in Tocharian. It is for this reason that I have maintained throughout my published works on Tocharian, that this was a trade language. See: Tocharian is a Dravidian trade language https://www.academia.edu/8491572/Is_Tocharian_a_Dravidian_Trade_Language

This Tocharian/Kushan language was used by the Central Asians as a lingua franca and trade language due to the numerous ethnic groups which formerly lived in central Asia". Kharosthi was long used to write in Central Asia. It was even used by the Greeks. The use of the Kharosthi writing system in Central Asia and India, would place this writing contemporaneous with the tradition, recorded by the Classical writers of Indians settling among the Kushana.

There were many people who probably used Tocharian for purposes of communication including the Kushana and the "Ars'i/Asii". They probably used Tocharian as a lingua franca. You make it clear in your last post that numerous languages were spoken in Central Asia when the Tocharian was written in Kharosthi. Most researchers believe that a majority of the people who lived in this area were bilingual and spoke Bactrian ,Indian languages among other languages. I agree with this theory, and believe that the Kushana Kings may have spoken a Dravidian language. Due to the possibility that the Kushana spoke a Dravidian language which is the substratum language of Tocharian; and
the presence of a number of different terms in Tocharian from many languages spoken in the area-led me to the conclusion that Tocharian was a trade language. The Kushana always referred to themselves as the Kushana/Gushana. The name Kushana for this group is recorded in the Manikiala Stone inscription (56BC?), the Panjtar Stone inscription of 122 AD and the Taxila Silver Scroll.

The Greeks called them Kushana in the Karosthi inscriptions, and Kocano. In the Chinese sources they were called Koei-shuang or Kwei-shwang= Kushana, and Yueh chih .

As you can see the term Kushana had been used to refer to these people long before Kujula Kadphises used the term as a personal name. This was over a hundred years after the Kushana had become rulers of Bactria. It would appear from the evidence that the nation of the Kushana was called Kusha.

In 176 B.C., the Huns fell upon the in western Gansu,defeated their army and murdered their King. This battle led to the Kushana migration into Nanshan region, and thence to Bactria and North India. (Bagchi 1955, p.4)

The Kushana first occupied Transoxiana about 160 B.C. and established themselves in the Oxus Valley (Chi 1955, p.8) They later drove the Haumavorka Indo-European Saka people, from Bactria and founded the Kushana dynasty which lasted until the 3rd century A.D.

It was Kujuula Kadphises who united the Kushana people and made them into a single nation. Kadphises conquered India as far as the Indus. His capital was Purushapura near Peshwar, in Pakistan. Later Wiima Kadphises extended Kushana rule into the Punjab.

The Kushana conquered the Sakas and Parthians and took control of an empire stretching from the Oxus river in Afghanistan, to the Ganges plains of India.. This unite under one authority the former dominions of the Indo-Greeks and the Sunga dynasts.

The greatest king of the Kushana was Kaniska. Kaniska came to power between A.D. 78-144. (Thapar 1972, p.92)

 -

Kaniska ruled an empire extending from Central Asia, to Varansi in the Ganges Valley. He supported the arts and repaired many Kushana monuments and cities.

 -

Kaniska had two capitals. The capital in Central Asia was Bergraam or Kupura in Afghanistan, while in India the capital was established at Muthura.

The Kushana were not Vedic worshippers. As among the Egyptians and Nubians, the Kushana raised past kings to the status of "gods", and they dedicated temples to them.

The Kushana were great patrons of the Buddhists. They supported the Mahavana (Great Vehicle) school of Buddhism. Under the Kushana the Buddha, was depicted in the form of the Muthuras school. These Muthura school Buddhas had strong negroid features.

The Kushana king was called the raja or Maharajatiraja "king of Kings".

Another famous Kushana king, Kujula imitating the Roman denares (coins) was the first Asians to circulate coins in central Asia. It was Kaniska, who first put Buddha on Indian coins.

 -


The Kushana made fine sculptures and engraved beautiful carved sheets of ivory. Their plaques are some of the finest art pieces in India.

.
 -
.
 -

.
The Kushana were at this time in control of the Silk Road, which took Chinese goods to the West. It was also under the Kushana that Buddhism entered China. The Kushana ruled India for almost 200 years.

 -


.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Modern European languages, the so-called Indo-European, are derived from the Indian languages of the Dravidians, plus the East Asian languages of people like the Persians, plus whatever the Aryans and other White Central Asians spoke, plus the languages of the native Black Europeans that they melded with.

Point being, that modern languages are modern combinations of ancient languages - the English language is a perfect example. Therefore a case can be made for just about any connection. [/qb][/QUOTE]The relationship between English and ancient language is mainly due to literacy, not the combination of ancient and modern languages. Speakers of the Germanic languages (which) include English) lexicalized many Greek and Roman terms as they became literate in these languages.

Blacks spread civilization around the world. As other people came in contact with these bLacks they adopted cultural traditions and the terms that came along with the new way of life introduced to Europeans by the Blacks. This is evident in the relationship between Greek, and the two major lingua francas of Central asia and South Asia: Tocharian and Sanskrit.


It is important to remember that the relationship between Indo-European and Indo-Aryan language, especially Sanskrit is via the Greek language. Greek influenced other European languages because it was recognized as a language of culture and civilization by the Romans.

It was in Pakistan that the Greek language was probably incorporated into Sanskrit. Many of the rules for Sanskrit were codified by Panini, who was born in Salatura, in Northwest Pakistan. Panini’s grammar contains 4000 rules.

When Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, it was spoken by the elites in the area. Greek was also popular when Panini wrote the Sanskrit grammar. The Greeks were called Yunani or Yavana. Thus we learn from Agrawala (1953) that the Yavanani lipi (edict) was well known in Gandahara, and even Panini mentions the Yavana in his grammar . The term Yauna meant Ionian (Woodcock, 1966).

The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).

Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions.

Greek was used for commercial purposes and served as a patrician lingua franca of the Kabul valley and of Gandhara. During the rule of Pushyamitra many Greeks settled in India. Due to the long history of Greeks in India, Ashoka had some of his edicts written in Greek and Aramaic bilinguals. In 44 A.D., Appolonius of Tyana when he visited Taxila found that merchants and kings learned Greek “as a matter of course” (Rahman, 2004; Woodcock,1966).

Given the popularity of Greek in the region it is not surprising that Sanskrit would show such a strong relationship to the Indic languages, since it was spoken throughout the area of a couple of hundred years. Commenting on the Greek rulers of India, Kulke and Rothermund (1998), said that “They are referred to as ‘Indo-Greeks’, and there were about forty such kings and rulers who controlled large areas of northwestern India and Afghanistan….They appear as Yavanas in stray references in Indian literature, and there are few but important references in European sources. In these distant outposts, the representatives of the Hellenic policy survived the defeat of their Western compatriots at the hands of the Parthians for more than a century” (p.70). The greatest of the Indo-Greek rulers was Menander, who is mentioned in the famous Milindapanho text. The Shakas adopted many elements of Indo-Greek culture which they perpetuated in India for over 100 years (Rahman, 2004).

It is impossible to argue for a genetic relationship between Vedic and Greek languages based on the fact that speakers of these languages formerly lived in intimate contact in historical times. Secondly, we know the Dravidians were in Greece before the Indo-Europeans enter the country. These non-I-E speakers were called Pelasgians. As a result, Anna Morpurgo Davies, The linguistic evidence:Is there any?, in Gerald Cadogan, The End of the early Bronze Age in the Agean (pp.93-123), says that only 40% of Greek is of Indo-European etymology (p.105). Since only 40% of the Greek terms are of I-E origin, many of the Greek terms that agree with the Indic languages may be from the 60% of the Greek lexical items that came from non-I-E speakers which as noted by Lahovary in Dravidian origins and the West, were people who spoke either Dravidian languages, or other languages from Africa, genetically related to the Dravidian group.

In conclusion, as a result of the Greek influence in Bactria and India-Pakistan , Indians and Bactrians had to acquire "Greek Culture" to enhance their position and opportunity in North India and Bactria during Greek rule. Greek rule placed prestige on status elements introduced into the region by the Greeks, especially the Greek language. Status acquired by Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis was thus centered around acquisition of Greek language and Greek culture. This supported by the evidence that Indian elites used Greek in business and government (Rahman, 2004). This would have inturn added pressure on the Bactrians to incorporate Greek terms into a Bactrian lingua franca (i.e., Tocharian).

Given the fact that Greek administrators in Bactria and Northern India-Pakistan ,refused to fully integrate Bactrians and Indians into the ruling elite, unless they were “well versed in Greek culture and language) led to subsequent generations of native Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis to progressively incorporate more Greek terms into their native language. This would explain why Tocharian has many features that relate to certain IE etymologies and Panini’s Sanskrit grammar, present many terms that are associated with the Greeks, but illustrates little affinity to Indo-Iranian languages which are geographically and temporally closer to Tocharian.

Some researchers might dispute the influence of the Greek language on Sanskrit because Panini’s grammar was suppose to have been written around 400 B.C. This date for the grammar might be too early, because Rahman (2004) and Agrawala (1953) maintains that Greek was spoken in Gandahara in Panini’s time.

The influence of colonial Greeks in Central Asia would explain why the most important evidence of an I-E relationship with Sanskrit. The historical connections between the so-called Indo-European languages probably respect an areal linguistic relationship—not genetic relationship.


Here I discuss in detail the relationship between Greek and Sanskrit

http://www.federatio.org/joes/EurasianStudies_0310.pdf

see pages 70-77.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The history of Aryan people is quite interesting. First lets discuss the history of the Aryan Invasion Theory. The AIT was formulated by the Europeans who read the Rig Veda and recognized that the ancestors of the Indo-Aryan speakers came to India as nomads, attacked Desa cities, and eventually dominated North India.

AIT was supported by the fact that many speakers of Dravidian languages remain in North India.Secondaly, we find that the original North Indians from Harappan times down to 1000BC used red-and-black pottery, Around 1000 BC, we see that populations in many North Indian urban areas were replaced by people using Plain Grey Ware. Archaeologists have assumed that the PGW people were probably Indo-Aryan speakers. The PGW people first invaded india around 1200-1000 BC. They made another invasion around 800 BC and we see the red-and- black(BRW) pottery users begin to migrate southward, into centers where the megalithic building Dravidian speakers were also using BRW.

Hittites(probably white people) forced the Kushites (Kaska , Mittani-Hurrian) into Iran. The Kushites living in Iran invaded India and founded the Indo-Aryan speakers in 1000BC. In 800 BC, nomadic people from Iran begin the domination of India and the original Indo-Aryan speaking population and mated with the original Dravidian and Munda speaking populations . It wasat this time that the white Iranians began to dominate India.

The Persians conquered India and Europe. The Persians exiled Greek (Ionians) into what is now Pakistan. Here the ionians prospered. Alaxander the Great conquered India and more Greeks entered what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. Soon this region was made up of populations speaking Greek, Indo-Aryan dialects and Dravidian languages. To unite the people a grammarian named Pannini, wrote a grammar of a lingua franca that became Sanskrit. Because Sanskrit included elements of Greek, Indo-Aryan and dravidian languages , Europeans began to develop the idea of the Indo-Europeans.

The Indo-Europeans included the Europeans led by the Greeks and the Indo-Aryan speakers of Iran and India. The Europeans and Indo-Aryans are unified via the Sanskrit language. In reality, the European and Indo Aryan languages are not related, except through Sanskrit, which modern European linguist did not know was a lingua franca.


Aryan is not a racial term.


  • --- In Ta_Seti@yahoogroups.com, "ulagankmy" <ulagankmy@y...> wrote:
    Dear Dr Winters

    As you are aware, the word 'aariyan' is a Tamil word, an ancient one at
    that and which has been borrowed by many tribes in deep past. Probably the root is Su. a and Ta. aal, to spread out, powerful, strong etc.


    Sumerian a-ri-a and Tamil aariyan

    The noun aal-al ( >aaRRal) which means strength, capacity and so forth is still in use in Tamil . The following note may help out to destroy the myth that Europeans were the Aryans.

    Related to this is that the whole of Rig Veda and related literature in
    Rigkrit is another variant of SumeroTamil. As such it has nothing to
    do with any "Aryan' family of languages - it is a pure fiction





    The word "aryan " that has acquired a racial connation has become one of
    the most important words to divide of Indian into Aryan and Dravidian with vrious antagonisms along racial lines. The growth of 19th century
    Dravidian movements in Tamil Nadu which has become political in the 20th
    cent. and the cultural movements to purify Tamil by cleaning it of the so-called Sanskrit terms are related to this. The replacemnt of Tamil as the language of Temple Worship among the tamils however has a different
    historical basis. It was something introduced by Ramanuja and on
    philosophical grounds. The Sanskrit literature , under the impact of
    Sankara became predominantly Advaitic Vedantic and hence was seen as
    detrimental to the growth of Bakthi and for which reason Ramaunuja
    installed the recitation of Thruvaymozi in the temples in place of Vedic
    mantras. One can see the present movement of the Saivites to give the
    place of honour to Tamil particularly the Thevaram corpus as something like that of Ramanuja, who incidently was a Brahamin and who wrote only in Sanskrit despite being a brilliant Tamil scholar.

    At the moment and perhaps mainly due to IndoEuropean scholarship the
    excitment and arrogance with which the Brahmins in Tamil Nadu received
    this, which is mainly a hypothesis , and who started to call themseves the scions of these Aryans is that which unnderlies the Brahmin-bashing that continues to this day. I have a colletion of litwrature in Tamil towards the end of 19th ,where the Smartha brahmins called themselves Aryans and went on to criticise severely Saiva Sidddhanta and many other philosophies of the Tamils. The Dravidian identity was fostered by Bihop Caldwell with his epoch making "Comparative study of Dravidian Languages" which was well received by the Tamil scholars but vehemently challenged by the Smartha Brahmins.

    This association of Tamil Brahmins with Aryanism and also Sanskrit along
    with it, still continues and will continue perhaps for a long time. It is certainly unfortunate for such a hatred for the TERM aryan is NOT to be met with in traditional India where the primary meaning of Aryan as used in Thevaram corpus Kamba Ramayan and so forth and perhaps also as Dhammapada did not have the racial sense at all rather that of "exceptional or brilliant individual" as in Tamil " ariyan'

    In Sangam classics there are several uses of it .

    1. aariyar tuvanRiya peerisai imayam: the famed Himalayas where dwell the Aryas. Here it certainly means a group of people bordering the Himalayas and in sense a generic term for all those who dwelt in the North of India

    2. aariyak kuuttu: here it means a noisy kind of dance especially those
    like walking on ropes to the accopaniment of loud and boisterous music.

    3. ariyamum tamizum: This phrase used by Appar and so forth applies to the Languages and here aariyam means certainly Sanskrit. Here we see the
    beginnings of the use of Aryan and Dravidian (=Tamil) in linguistic terms but without any anatogonistic emotional undertones. For both are recognised as languages founded by Siva.

    Ariyan as the Brilliant , Resplendent Principle and hence another variant for Siva

    We see the use of Aryan in this sense in the following verse of Tirumular

    Tirumantiram 134.

    puraiyaRRa paalinuL ney kalataaR pool
    tirai aRra cintaiyil aariyan ceppum
    uraiyaR RuNarvoor udambing kozitaaR
    karaiyaRRa cooti kalawthasat taame
    Meaning

    BEING emerges but stands as the Unconscious in the mind that
    becomes unruffled by any earthly desires just like ghee
    being present invisibly in the pure milk. Those who transcend
    speech ( by transcending temporality) and LISTEN in
    DEEP SILENCE to the instructions on Absolute Illumination that
    BEING-the -Radiant instructs on (through the language of Cin
    Muttirai) will untie themselves from all attachments to the
    physical body and becoming FREE from it, plunge into
    Boundless Radiance and through that also become a Sat, an
    absolute (just like BEING)

    Here Ariyan is used as anohter name for Civa, the Immensely Radiant BEING who illuminates all and helps the attainment of genuine freedom through the severances to all the bondages.
    The use of Aryan in the sense 'divine" that the above suggests is also
    available in Kampan's description of Rama as "aariya maintan". Here it may also mean the "royal, the kingly" etc.

    Su. a -ri-a

    The Tamil 'aariyan' that has has so many different meanings and hence
    possibly with different etymological roots also occurs in Sumerian in the sense "divine, royal " etc as the following line from Sulgis MutarIbuyam (Hymn B) would indicate.

    11. lugal-e lugal-a-ri-a nin-e -tu-da -me-en
    I, the king of Royal descent, who a princess bore.
    Ta. uLukaLee uLugak aariya(ariya) ninnee todda maan

    lu> uLu> aaLu, aaL: person. gal> kaL: great -e: -ee: the suffix that
    isolates that which is named ; the teeRRa eekaaram. a-ri-a> ariya (the
    rare) ; aariya: the royal , divine etc. nin> Nin, nan: the lofty: tu-da>
    todda; to bear , to give birth; me-en> maan: the person as in ceeramaan,
    atikaimaan etc The term" lugal-aria" is almost identical with the Tamil usage of Arya maintain such as that of Kamban. And this may be the sense in the use of Arya by Buddha in Dhammapada.

    It is also interesting that in the long history of Tamil literature nowhere we come across the Brahmins being called or call themselves as Aryas. Even in Sangam epoch we have kapilar, known as a Brahamana calling himself AntaN and NOT Aryan. This term has been more in use with the royalties and as an alternative term for Siva , the Brilliant Principle, the supremely radiant BEING that illuminates all minds arising as the inner sun.
.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you for your details responses Clyde. Am just trying to understand about South Asian genetics/history. Even though historically many different groups migrated to South Asia for some strange reason everything seems to always seems to focus on the Aryans. It is almost like deliberate confusion is being caused to keep the history of South Asia covered by having everyone fight over the Aryans a group(s)

The term Aryan is far too ambiguous. It is used to refer to /being used by too many ethnically different groups (Iranians, Indians, Europeans) and is further confused by the term Indo-Aryan as opposed to just Aryan. For people who want a simple understanding of there roots this is all too confusing.

What am trying to understand is when the South Asians talk about the Indo Aryans. I understand they are referring to a people who migrated from Iran to South Asia. The ancestors of some/many South Asians. These people (Indo-Aryans) I understand to be Ethnically NON-EUROPEAN people.

I have then heard Europeans talk about how they are connected to the Aryans or refer to themselves as Aryans. Who are the Aryans Europeans are referring to when they call themselves Aryans?. Are they a ETHNICALLY EUROPEAN people they are referring to and IF so, then why are both South Asians and Europeans using the term Aryan to refer to TWO ETHNICALLY DISTINCT/DIFFERENT Racial groups?. Is it because there is a connection between the Indo-Aryans South Asians refer to (those who migrated from Iran) and the Aryans (Ethnic European people) Europeans refer to?

Then on top I read about the Indo-Europeans who again are connected to this all this Aryan stuff. By this I understand when they Europeans refer to themselves as Aryans they are referring to one of these Indo-European tribes. So then if the Indo Aryans the South Asians speak of are not ethnically the same as the Aryans the Europeans speak of why and what exactly are both groups fighting over?

Further to confuse matters is this whole claim that Indo-European languages were bought into South Asia by Indo-European speaking people. Therefore all South Asians who speak Indo European have Indo European genes which are basically European genes as there is no such thing as a Indo European.

On top to further confuse things is the presence of this whole R1a haplogroup which DNA tests show many many South Asians have and apparently Europeans have too. So if the Aryans Europeans and South Asians speak of are Ethnically Distinct/different groups then which group does this R1a haplogroup belong to? Does it belong to the Indo-Aryans the South Asians speak (Ethnically NON-European people) or does it belong to the Aryans Europeans speak of (Indo-European Aryan tribe who were Europeans)

If it belongs to the Indo-Europeans (Aryans-ethnic European types) then because so many why do so many South Asians have this gene? Is it because they ALL have european admixture? If it does not belong to the Indo European Aryans but to the Indo-Aryans (South Asian people) then why do Europeans have this gene?

If the Aryans South Asians speak of were ethnically distinct from the Aryans Europeans speak of then what are both sides always fighting over? Is there an actual connection between these two ethnically distinct groups both refer to. If so, what is that connection?

Am trying to understand the genetic impact of Europeans in South Asian (India/Pakistan). That is authentic european admixture.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clyde in answer to your response on number 1. Central Asia is not South Asia. Am aware there were ethnic European people living in Central Asia (Chinese Tocharian mummies) but Central Asia is not South Asia. What about Kashmir?

Number 2- yes I also do not believe the Indo European language being correlated with genes in South Asia that Europeans are claiming.

This is why I want to know the exact genetic impact Europeans made on South Asian history so I can be clear on South Asian history.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).

Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions. ''

Ethnically who were the ancient Greeks? Were they Ethnically European people? How much genetic impact did Alexander the Great leave in South Asia? There seems to be no reaL idea on which groups in South Asia are carries or Greek genes from Alexander the Great's time.

There have been attempts to claim groups like Kalash/Kashmiris are descendants of Alexander the Great’s but so far genetic research has dismissed these claims

http://world.greekreporter.com/2015/06/02/new-study-denies-the-greek-origin-of-kalash-tribe-in-pakistan/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973929/

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coolnight:
Thank you for your details responses Clyde. Am just trying to understand about South Asian genetics/history. Even though historically many different groups migrated to South Asia for some strange reason everything seems to always seems to focus on the Aryans. It is almost like deliberate confusion is being caused to keep the history of South Asia covered by having everyone fight over the Aryans a group(s)

The term Aryan is far too ambiguous. It is used to refer to /being used by too many ethnically different groups (Iranians, Indians, Europeans) and is further confused by the term Indo-Aryan as opposed to just Aryan. For people who want a simple understanding of there roots this is all too confusing.

What am trying to understand is when the South Asians talk about the Indo Aryans. I understand they are referring to a people who migrated from Iran to South Asia. The ancestors of some/many South Asians. These people (Indo-Aryans) I understand to be Ethnically NON-EUROPEAN people.

I have then heard Europeans talk about how they are connected to the Aryans or refer to themselves as Aryans. Who are the Aryans Europeans are referring to when they call themselves Aryans?. Are they a ETHNICALLY EUROPEAN people they are referring to and IF so, then why are both South Asians and Europeans using the term Aryan to refer to TWO ETHNICALLY DISTINCT/DIFFERENT Racial groups?. Is it because there is a connection between the Indo-Aryans South Asians refer to (those who migrated from Iran) and the Aryans (Ethnic European people) Europeans refer to?

Then on top I read about the Indo-Europeans who again are connected to this all this Aryan stuff. By this I understand when they Europeans refer to themselves as Aryans they are referring to one of these Indo-European tribes. So then if the Indo Aryans the South Asians speak of are not ethnically the same as the Aryans the Europeans speak of why and what exactly are both groups fighting over?

Further to confuse matters is this whole claim that Indo-European languages were bought into South Asia by Indo-European speaking people. Therefore all South Asians who speak Indo European have Indo European genes which are basically European genes as there is no such thing as a Indo European.

On top to further confuse things is the presence of this whole R1a haplogroup which DNA tests show many many South Asians have and apparently Europeans have too. So if the Aryans Europeans and South Asians speak of are Ethnically Distinct/different groups then which group does this R1a haplogroup belong to? Does it belong to the Indo-Aryans the South Asians speak (Ethnically NON-European people) or does it belong to the Aryans Europeans speak of (Indo-European Aryan tribe who were Europeans)

If it belongs to the Indo-Europeans (Aryans-ethnic European types) then because so many why do so many South Asians have this gene? Is it because they ALL have european admixture? If it does not belong to the Indo European Aryans but to the Indo-Aryans (South Asian people) then why do Europeans have this gene?

If the Aryans South Asians speak of were ethnically distinct from the Aryans Europeans speak of then what are both sides always fighting over? Is there an actual connection between these two ethnically distinct groups both refer to. If so, what is that connection?

Am trying to understand the genetic impact of Europeans in South Asian (India/Pakistan). That is authentic european admixture.

I explained above that the term Aryan has nothing to do with Europeans or Indo-Europeans. It was the NAZIs that began to apply this term to Europeans.
Some Hindu Nationalist have created animosity between Dravidians and Indo-Aryan speakers by claiming that politicians in South India are trying to divide India by claiming that Dravidian speakers were in India before the Indo-Aryan speaking Hindus.
These Nationalist claim that genetics proves that Hindus speaking Aryan languages are the original inhabitants of India. This is false India, Scientific research has established the fact that India was settled by numerous populations and Indo-Aryan speakers only entered India around 1200 and 800 BC.

The archeological evidence indicated that the first settlers of India were probably Negritos and Austro-Asiatic, then Dravidian speakers and finally Southeast Asians . Geneticists maintain that the Dravidian speakers originated in India , but this is false Dravidian speakers come from Africa and belonged to the C-Group Culture of Nubia and the Fezzan.
Because the Dravidians originated in Africa, haplogroup R1a probably originated in Africa were we find Africans that carry R1a and speak Tamil, a Dravidian language in Chad-Cameroon. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjk

Reich et al,claims that the Indian Cline divides Indians into two groups Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ANS).

The ANI are related to western Eurasians and speak Indo-Euopean languages. The ANS on the otherhand speak Dravidian languages.

‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans.
The ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI) are the Dravidian speakers. The ASI, is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other.


--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coolnight:
Clyde in answer to your response on number 1. Central Asia is not South Asia. Am aware there were ethnic European people living in Central Asia (Chinese Tocharian mummies) but Central Asia is not South Asia. What about Kashmir?

Number 2- yes I also do not believe the Indo European language being correlated with genes in South Asia that Europeans are claiming.

This is why I want to know the exact genetic impact Europeans made on South Asian history so I can be clear on South Asian history.

There is no evidence of European influence on South Asian genetics. Most researchers claim South Indians spread R1a into Europe.

You need to read N. Lahovery, Dravidian Origins and the West, @ https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.219801/2015.219801.Dravidian-Origins_djvu.txt

.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coolnight:
''The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).

Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions. ''

Ethnically who were the ancient Greeks? Were they Ethnically European people? How much genetic impact did Alexander the Great leave in South Asia? There seems to be no reaL idea on which groups in South Asia are carries or Greek genes from Alexander the Great's time.

There have been attempts to claim groups like Kalash/Kashmiris are descendants of Alexander the Great’s but so far genetic research has dismissed these claims

http://world.greekreporter.com/2015/06/02/new-study-denies-the-greek-origin-of-kalash-tribe-in-pakistan/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973929/

These papers are fine but you will not understand the role of Pre-Alexander Greeks in Afghanistan and-Pakistan until you read the paper: Greek influence on Sanskrit, https://www.academia.edu/1898458/Greek_influence_on_Sanskrit

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''There is no evidence of European influence on South Asian genetics. '' C'mon Clyde. Forget the R1a there most definitely is european admixture in South Asia. The british colonialists were the most recent european tribes/people to migrate to India and they left there genetic impact in the region with the anglo indians. The Scynthians were another European (Northern european types) tribe who also migrated to india and again mixed and left a genetic impact. There is mention of the Huns too (not sure if these were european ethnic types). Then there is also the Indo European tribes who migrated to various part of South Asia. How much genetic impact they left in the region I guess is still being figured out. These are just tribes that we know of. But a certain percentage of present day South Asians most certainly do have authentic European ancestry/admixture. Even in remote regions like Kashmir, some individuals are known to have married/mixed with europeans.Even there political elite are mixed mongrels of european descent (Farooq Abdullah and his son Ex Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah) With all the evidence how can you even say there is no european influence on south asian genetics. There bollywood/entertainment industry is full of european mixed mongrels (katrina kaif, nargis fakhri, karishma/kareena kapoor, arjun rampal, diya mirza, lisa ray, Ayesha Takia etc...) These are well known top actors/actresses. I read even aishwarya rai's (another top name) face shape is in between europeans and mongloids pointing to her ancient european ancestry. Not hard to see the european and mongloid influence in her phenotypes. The europea influence in Arun Nayor, Elizebeth Jurley's Ex husband is obvious http://static2.bornrichimages.com/cdn2/500/500/91/c/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ar_thumb.jpg

I have seen a number of indian actors/actresses/models where I felt the indian influence was obvious.Bollywood celebs who marry out are known to marry europeans. Preity Zinta being the latest actress to have married a white man. This is nothing new. There political elite are also known to marry Europeans. Sonia Ghandi a political leader of India is fully European. Even in present times Goa in south india is known as one of the most popular tourist spots for european visitors. India is a popular place for europeans to visit and for some to settle down too. There is European influence all over south asian, india in particular. But I guess it would take a lot of investigation to figure out precisely how much genetic impact Europeans have made in South Asia which is what I would like to know.

Present day Indians are not a singular ethnically homogeneous group/people. India is a mixed place. India is ethnically diverse. Despite this diversity I do believe there are pockets of homogeneity throughout India amongst groups who have managed to restrict/control the degree of gene flow into there region/group. It would take a very lot of investigation to uncover this as India is large region.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''Reich et al,claims that the Indian Cline divides Indians into two groups Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ANS).

The ANI are related to western Eurasians and speak Indo-Euopean languages. The ANS on the otherhand speak Dravidian languages.'' yes but I have read ths ANI/ASI were not a singluar group but ANI encompasses a number of tribes/groups who were likely closely genetically related. I read the europeans fit into the ANI. The ASI I read were ethnically distinct from ANI and not related to any other group outside the subcontinent. I have read the ASI being connected/related to the Onga/Jarawa tribe/Andaman Islanders. However someone I have interacted with who shared the same ancestry as me has claimed because there DNA test shows no Melanesians/ Australoid inputs they believe the ASI theory to be a myth, In other words they believe there ancestors were not related to the Onga//Andaman Islanders. They have told me that feel that Reich et al is basically promoting a fraud theory/claim.

South Asia is large region maybe the ASI people were not a singular ethnically homogeneous group. Maybe all south asians do not share the same ancestors under the ASI group.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''I explained above that the term Aryan has nothing to do with Europeans or Indo-Europeans. It was the NAZIs that began to apply this term to Europeans'' so then why do europeans refer to there indo european tribes (ethnic eurpean types) as Aryan if Aryans were Non-European people who migrated from Iran to South Asia. I mean is there a supposed to be a connection between the Indo-Aryan ancestors of South Asians and these Indo european people? And am not talking about 'terms' here but the actual/real ethnic groups/tribes. This whole thing of mixing the ancestors of south asians with europeans via the term Aryan has made this so confusing.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coolnight:
''Reich et al,claims that the Indian Cline divides Indians into two groups Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ANS).

The ANI are related to western Eurasians and speak Indo-Euopean languages. The ANS on the otherhand speak Dravidian languages.'' yes but I have read ths ANI/ASI were not a singluar group but ANI encompasses a number of tribes/groups who were likely closely genetically related. I read the europeans fit into the ANI. The ASI I read were ethnically distinct from ANI and not related to any other group outside the subcontinent. I have read the ASI being connected/related to the Onga/Jarawa tribe/Andaman Islanders. However someone I have interacted with who shared the same ancestry as me has claimed because there DNA test shows no Melanesians/ Australoid inputs they believe the ASI theory to be a myth, In other words they believe there ancestors were not related to the Onga//Andaman Islanders. They have told me that feel that Reich et al is basically promoting a fraud theory/claim.

South Asia is large region maybe the ASI people were not a singular ethnically homogeneous group. Maybe all south asians do not share the same ancestors under the ASI group.

They say its a myth about ASI, but the Hindutva, present no genomic data to support this claim. Also, you have ignored the fact that the Dravidians didnot migrate to India from Africa until after 3000 BC and the Indo-Aryan speakers arrived in India after 1200BC.

.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coolnight:
''I explained above that the term Aryan has nothing to do with Europeans or Indo-Europeans. It was the NAZIs that began to apply this term to Europeans'' so then why do europeans refer to there indo european tribes (ethnic eurpean types) as Aryan if Aryans were Non-European people who migrated from Iran to South Asia. I mean is there a supposed to be a connection between the Indo-Aryan ancestors of South Asians and these Indo european people? And am not talking about 'terms' here but the actual/real ethnic groups/tribes. This whole thing of mixing the ancestors of south asians with europeans via the term Aryan has made this so confusing.

You still fail to understand that the term Aryan has nothing to do with any modern tribe. It was originally used by the Elamites/Persians and popularized by the NAZIs.

You are confusing the linguistic evidence. You see, the Indo-Aryan speakers are mainly Indian and Iranian speakers. The Indo European speakers are Europeans and Indian speakers. The Indo-Aryan languages are not related to Indo-European languages except for Sanskrit.

Checkout this paper: https://www.scribd.com/document/49199224/Marcantonio-Repudiating-Linguistic-Evidence-Aryan-Hypothesis


It is important to remember that the relationship between Indo-European and Indo-Aryan language, especially Sanskrit is via the Greek language. Greek influenced other European languages because it was recognized as a language of culture and civilization by the Romans.

It was in Pakistan that the Greek language was probably incorporated into Sanskrit. Many of the rules for Sanskrit were codified by Panini, who was born in Salatura, in Northwest Pakistan. Panini’s grammar contains 4000 rules.

When Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, it was spoken by the elites in the area. Greek was also popular when Panini wrote the Sanskrit grammar. The Greeks were called Yunani or Yavana. Thus we learn from Agrawala (1953) that the Yavanani lipi (edict) was well known in Gandahara, and even Panini mentions the Yavana in his grammar . The term Yauna meant Ionian (Woodcock, 1966).

The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).

Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions.

Greek was used for commercial purposes and served as a patrician lingua franca of the Kabul valley and of Gandhara. During the rule of Pushyamitra many Greeks settled in India. Due to the long history of Greeks in India, Ashoka had some of his edicts written in Greek and Aramaic bilinguals. In 44 A.D., Appolonius of Tyana when he visited Taxila found that merchants and kings learned Greek “as a matter of course” (Rahman, 2004; Woodcock,1966).

Given the popularity of Greek in the region it is not surprising that Sanskrit would show such a strong relationship to the Indic languages, since it was spoken throughout the area of a couple of hundred years. Commenting on the Greek rulers of India, Kulke and Rothermund (1998), said that “They are referred to as ‘Indo-Greeks’, and there were about forty such kings and rulers who controlled large areas of northwestern India and Afghanistan….They appear as Yavanas in stray references in Indian literature, and there are few but important references in European sources. In these distant outposts, the representatives of the Hellenic policy survived the defeat of their Western compatriots at the hands of the Parthians for more than a century” (p.70). The greatest of the Indo-Greek rulers was Menander, who is mentioned in the famous Milindapanho text. The Shakas adopted many elements of Indo-Greek culture which they perpetuated in India for over 100 years (Rahman, 2004).

It is impossible to argue for a genetic relationship between Vedic and Greek languages based on the fact that speakers of these languages formerly lived in intimate contact in historical times. Secondly, we know the Dravidians were in Greece before the Indo-Europeans enter the country. These non-I-E speakers were called Pelasgians. As a result, Anna Morpurgo Davies, The linguistic evidence:Is there any?, in Gerald Cadogan, The End of the early Bronze Age in the Agean (pp.93-123), says that only 40% of Greek is of Indo-European etymology (p.105). Since only 40% of the Greek terms are of I-E origin, many of the Greek terms that agree with the Indic languages may be from the 60% of the Greek lexical items that came from non-I-E speakers which as noted by Lahovary in Dravidian origins and the West, were people who spoke either Dravidian languages, or other languages from Africa, genetically related to the Dravidian group.

In conclusion, as a result of the Greek influence in Bactria and India-Pakistan , Indians and Bactrians had to acquire "Greek Culture" to enhance their position and opportunity in North India and Bactria during Greek rule. Greek rule placed prestige on status elements introduced into the region by the Greeks, especially the Greek language. Status acquired by Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis was thus centered around acquisition of Greek language and Greek culture. This supported by the evidence that Indian elites used Greek in business and government (Rahman, 2004). This would have inturn added pressure on the Bactrians to incorporate Greek terms into a Bactrian lingua franca (i.e., Tocharian).

Given the fact that Greek administrators in Bactria and Northern India-Pakistan ,refused to fully integrate Bactrians and Indians into the ruling elite, unless they were “well versed in Greek culture and language) led to subsequent generations of native Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis to progressively incorporate more Greek terms into their native language. This would explain why Tocharian has many features that relate to certain IE etymologies and Panini’s Sanskrit grammar, present many terms that are associated with the Greeks, but illustrates little affinity to Indo-Iranian languages which are geographically and temporally closer to Tocharian.

Some researchers might dispute the influence of the Greek language on Sanskrit because Panini’s grammar was suppose to have been written around 400 B.C. This date for the grammar might be too early, because Rahman (2004) and Agrawala (1953) maintains that Greek was spoken in Gandahara in Panini’s time.

The influence of colonial Greeks in Central Asia would explain why the most important evidence of an I-E relationship with Sanskrit. The historical connections between the so-called Indo-European languages probably respect an areal linguistic relationship—not genetic relationship.
.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''They say its a myth about ASI, but the Hindutva, present no genomic data to support this claim.'' Yes you are right they should present some evidence. Maybe in the future they might. Is it not possible to share genes without it being the result of admixture. South Asia is a large region maybe the ASI present in ALL South Asians is not a result of mixing between two ethnically distinct groups. Is it not possible it could be a little more complicated than that, might be shared genes. rel Do not get me wrong. You have a lot more expertise than me and am not questioning this. I know very little about this field. Am not claiming to know anything, to be right or wrong, just keeping an open view. Am on here to get answers about south asian history.

''Dravidians didnot migrate to India from Africa until after 3000 BC and the Indo-Aryan speakers arrived in India after 1200BC.'' You are right dates are very important but I have not read/seen anything online about the dating of ASI/ANI genes. As I said I have read ANI is a composite group of different groups which include European and not a single population. ASI in terms of the information available on it is being presented as a single population related to the Andamenese Islanders. However the evidence for the whole ASI being related to the Andamenese Islanders seems to rest on the genetic distance between the two groups but even if the distance is close this does not automatically mean the two groups are related ethnically.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''You still fail to understand that the term Aryan has nothing to do with any modern tribe. It was originally used by the Elamites/Persians and popularized by the NAZIs.''

Clyde I understand Aryan has no genetic relation to any modern day ethnic group and am not confused over that. Am confused over if there is genetic (not linguistic but genetic) relationship or connection of any sort between Europeans, Indo Aryans (ancestors of south asians) and the Indo Europeans(who were basically northern european types)

Am asking this because I always see terms like europeans, indo aryan, indo european, proto indo european, proto aryan always crop up in the same topic/thread on Aryans. This is what am trying to understand. If there is a genetic not linguistic connection/relation between these groups.

''You are confusing the linguistic evidence. You see, the Indo-Aryan speakers are mainly Indian and Iranian speakers. The Indo European speakers are Europeans and Indian speakers. The Indo-Aryan languages are not related to Indo-European languages except for Sanskrit.'' Thank you for clearing this up. Then it is this relationship between Sankskrit and Indo European that is causing all this confusion. On top no one seems to know how much genetic impact that Indo European people made in south asia. Indo europeans were ethnic groups who kigrated to south asia. Indo European is not just a linguistic terms it is just that the tribes known as indo european (northern european types) no longer exist as a seperate ethnic group today that the term indo european has come to be associated as a lingustic term only.

So when europeans talk about indo european speakers in india/South Asia are you saying they are referring to Sanskrit since you have said there is no other linguistic relation between the languages in this region other than with Sanskrit? Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems to be Europeans are claiming the Indo European migrations bought Sanskrit in to India and there is a supposed genetic link between these Sanskrit speakers and the indo european migrations.

Most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient rather than recent origin. This is what am trying to understand. How much genetic impact Europeans have made on South Asia for e.g 10%,15%,20% etc... That is authentic European admixture. No one seems to know this just a blurry picture is painted.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''Alaxander the Great conquered India'' again the narrative online suggests that Alexander did not conquer india. He came close but he turned around. he was defeated by Porus a small time king.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwGWKj3GPWI

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coolnight:
''You still fail to understand that the term Aryan has nothing to do with any modern tribe. It was originally used by the Elamites/Persians and popularized by the NAZIs.''

Clyde I understand Aryan has no genetic relation to any modern day ethnic group and am not confused over that. Am confused over if there is genetic (not linguistic but genetic) relationship or connection of any sort between Europeans, Indo Aryans (ancestors of south asians) and the Indo Europeans(who were basically northern european types)

Am asking this because I always see terms like europeans, indo aryan, indo european, proto indo european, proto aryan always crop up in the same topic/thread on Aryans. This is what am trying to understand. If there is a genetic not linguistic connection/relation between these groups.

''You are confusing the linguistic evidence. You see, the Indo-Aryan speakers are mainly Indian and Iranian speakers. The Indo European speakers are Europeans and Indian speakers. The Indo-Aryan languages are not related to Indo-European languages except for Sanskrit.'' Thank you for clearing this up. Then it is this relationship between Sankskrit and Indo European that is causing all this confusion. On top no one seems to know how much genetic impact that Indo European people made in south asia. Indo europeans were ethnic groups who kigrated to south asia. Indo European is not just a linguistic terms it is just that the tribes known as indo european (northern european types) no longer exist as a seperate ethnic group today that the term indo european has come to be associated as a lingustic term only.

So when europeans talk about indo european speakers in india/South Asia are you saying they are referring to Sanskrit since you have said there is no other linguistic relation between the languages in this region other than with Sanskrit? Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems to be Europeans are claiming the Indo European migrations bought Sanskrit in to India and there is a supposed genetic link between these Sanskrit speakers and the indo european migrations.

Most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient rather than recent origin. This is what am trying to understand. How much genetic impact Europeans have made on South Asia for e.g 10%,15%,20% etc... That is authentic European admixture. No one seems to know this just a blurry picture is painted.

Researchers early recognized a relationship between Sanskrit and Greek. This was the foundation of Indo-European linguistics. Yes, the relationship between I-E languages is based on the relationship of Greek and Sanskrit, and Greek and the other language.

Indo-European was traditionally a linguistic term. Originally the I-E culture was recognized as a impoverished nomadic cultur, based on , domestication of the horse, herding, and the use of wheeled vehicles.

Mallory suggested that the I-E people belonged to the Yamnaya and Corded Ware folk in the late 1990's, and the traditional view that the I-E people were a nomadic horse culture, changed and they became known as a farming and agricultural culture because these features characterized the Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures.

In relation to I-E you are trying to get an understanding of a phenomena that deserves a great among of reading. Frederik Kortlandt ( web page ) , has noted that "Speculations about the linguistic affinity of a prehistoric culture are futile because it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of prehistoric linguistic groups have vanished without leaving a trace." This results from the fact that pots and skeletons can not tell us the language they spoke. Conversely ,a skeleton can tell, us the genes they carried and possibly its race, but it can not provide information on the language spoken by the individual skeleton.

No one was present 1000's of years ago to record written records we can read today and have absolute knowledge about past events. As a result much of what we write is speculative in relation to I-E because this is a linguistic term, applied to a racial group. The problem with its use is that when we look at contemporary Europeans we see Caucasians, but the skeletal remains associated with the ancient Yamnaya, Corded Ware cultures down to 1400 BC, are of Negroid or Sub-Saharan people. Thusly, there has been a racial change in the population of Europe beginning around 1400BC, as the I-E and Indo-Aryan speakers began to migrate out of Central Asia, into the South, East and West of Eurasia, down into North Africa.

You have some very good simple questions but the answers are complex because, some people are using the concept of I-E as a source of racial pride when we are talking about two different populations: a Negro population before 1400BC, and a Caucasian population after this date.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''some people are using the concept of I-E as a source of racial pride when we are talking about two different populations''

Yes this is right. This is why there is so much nonsense regards this Aryan/Indo-Aryan topic online that it is hard to get a clear understanding of even the basics of who these terms refer to independently because you have two very ethnically different groups South Asians and Europeans using the same terminology to describe themselves. Europeans with there understanding/usage of Aryan introduce a new concept Indo-European which further confuses things for someone who is objectively looking to understand who the Aryans/Indo-Aryans were. Then you have two sides south asians and europeans using the term in relation to there own ethnic groups history. Both of whom are ethnically different groups. On top you have people some of whom claim the term Aryan and understand it only as a linguistic term. Others in relation to there ethnicity to modern day/past ethnic groups. With two different groups using the term to argue two totally different histories it has become overused, manipulated and ambiguous. Lost meaning. If both parties were arguing over the same people it would not be so hard to understand. However with both south asians and europeans relating the terms to themselves/ there own ancestral history this whole thing is a mess to understand. When south asians discuss the aryans you have the europeans who have there input in the topic and when europeans discuss the aryans you have the south asians claiming europeans have nothing to do with them. Whole thing is a mess because there is no clear cut clarity or understanding between both groups on whom which ethnic group/region the other is referring to when they talk about the Aryans.

Yes for some people there is a source of racial pride. Some people have a kind of emotional attachment to the history of there region/people. This can sometimes not allow people to see things for what they are. I guess it is only natural to some extent. I have read Europeans argue over who has the most Indo European genes/admixture as if that is somehow a source of pride or not pride for them or as if somehow having more indo european genes/ancestry makes them more ethnically european. Anyway the genetic impact europeans have made on south asia is all I really wanted to understand. I concentrate on the ancient times as most european admixture in south asia is likely of ancient origin. I really find the ASI interesting. They are said to be a group unique to the subcontinent. Even little is known about the ANI. Who knows what mysteries they hold. I feel genetics is in a primitive state. Maybe one day when geneticists know more they will be able to enlighten us about the history of this region until then I guess a lot of things remain speculation. At least that is the impression am getting from a lot of the anthropology forums I have frequented. But then again race/ancestry is a very sensitive issues for some people which can cause a lot of discord on these anthropology threads. I guess I will have to wait it out to see if any new findings come to light about the ancient history of South Asia.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
correction to post above. Meant to write''I have seen a number of indian actors/actresses/models where I felt the european influence was obvious.''
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coolnight:
''They say its a myth about ASI, but the Hindutva, present no genomic data to support this claim.'' Yes you are right they should present some evidence. Maybe in the future they might. Is it not possible to share genes without it being the result of admixture. South Asia is a large region maybe the ASI present in ALL South Asians is not a result of mixing between two ethnically distinct groups. Is it not possible it could be a little more complicated than that, might be shared genes. rel Do not get me wrong. You have a lot more expertise than me and am not questioning this. I know very little about this field. Am not claiming to know anything, to be right or wrong, just keeping an open view. Am on here to get answers about south asian history.

''Dravidians didnot migrate to India from Africa until after 3000 BC and the Indo-Aryan speakers arrived in India after 1200BC.'' You are right dates are very important but I have not read/seen anything online about the dating of ASI/ANI genes. As I said I have read ANI is a composite group of different groups which include European and not a single population. ASI in terms of the information available on it is being presented as a single population related to the Andamenese Islanders. However the evidence for the whole ASI being related to the Andamenese Islanders seems to rest on the genetic distance between the two groups but even if the distance is close this does not automatically mean the two groups are related ethnically.

The population history of India involves more than just Dravidian and Indo-Aryan speakers. The articles below provides insight into this phenomena. See:

http://olmec98.net/indohomo.pdf

https://print.ispub.com/api/0/ispub-article/5591

The Andamenese Islanders are Munda people.

Enjoy

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you for the links Clyde. They look interesting. I will have a read of them. You are right ''The population history of India involves more than just Dravidian and Indo-Aryan speakers.'' This is something that many overlook. Due to the various ethnic elements in this region. To determine the ancestry of Indians/South Asians requires great detailed investigation. All south Asians share/do not share ancestry depending on the lineage making them either less/more native to the region and less/more ethnically homogeneous. For example the Australoids tribe/group in India appear to have remained pretty ethnically homogeneous. For a long time they have lived in relatively isolated conditions with limited gene flow into there group. As a result they have managed to preserve there racial make up to a great extent. The Kalash tribe of Pakistan are another example. They too have lived in relatively isolated conditions for a long time with limited gene flow into there region. As a result they too have managed to preserve there ethnic look. Both these groups are racially/ethnically distinct but yet both have remained relatively homogeneous. I believe there may be more pockets of homogeneity like this in this region. Although it would take a lot of investigation to find out a groups/Individuals ancestry. This would mean there may be some Indians/South Asians groups/individuals whose ancestry is very native to the early period of the region who have no ancestry that is clearly foreign to there group/the region as a whole (for example european, mongloid etc...)


In terms of the Non-Caucasion lineages in South Asia. These are the groups I have come across.
Australoid, Melanesian, Veddoid, Austra Munda, Negrito, Sub Saharan, Polynesian, Mongloid.

I have read the Melanesian are the same as/Interchangeable with Australoid. Clyde if I have missed any if you could please let me know or if any of these lineages are not present in South Asia.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coolnight:
Thank you for the links Clyde. They look interesting. I will have a read of them. You are right ''The population history of India involves more than just Dravidian and Indo-Aryan speakers.'' This is something that many overlook. Due to the various ethnic elements in this region. To determine the ancestry of Indians/South Asians requires great detailed investigation. All south Asians share/do not share ancestry depending on the lineage making them either less/more native to the region and less/more ethnically homogeneous. For example the Australoids tribe/group in India appear to have remained pretty ethnically homogeneous. For a long time they have lived in relatively isolated conditions with limited gene flow into there group. As a result they have managed to preserve there racial make up to a great extent. The Kalash tribe of Pakistan are another example. They too have lived in relatively isolated conditions for a long time with limited gene flow into there region. As a result they too have managed to preserve there ethnic look. Both these groups are racially/ethnically distinct but yet both have remained relatively homogeneous. I believe there may be more pockets of homogeneity like this in this region. Although it would take a lot of investigation to find out a groups/Individuals ancestry. This would mean there may be some Indians/South Asians groups/individuals whose ancestry is very native to the early period of the region who have no ancestry that is clearly foreign to there group/the region as a whole (for example european, mongloid etc...)


In terms of the Non-Caucasion lineages in South Asia. These are the groups I have come across.
Australoid, Melanesian, Veddoid, Austra Munda, Negrito, Sub Saharan, Polynesian, Mongloid.

I have read the Melanesian are the same as/Interchangeable with Australoid. Clyde if I have missed any if you could please let me know or if any of these lineages are not present in South Asia.

The Veddoid is the same as Australoid. Negrito usually refers to the Munda.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Clyde. I also found this link:
http://www.shareyouressays.com/120679/6-main-types-of-racial-groups-in-india-essay

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clyde do you believe the ASI are a caucasion lineage? I do not see how North Indians in particular who have show on average around 30%-35% ASI in DNA tests which a significant amount could look as caucasion as they do if the ASI was a non-caucasion lineage.

Do you believe the ASI is ethnically related to the Andaman Islanders or do you believe the ASI were genetically/ethnically distinct from this group?

Interesting discussion on the ASI on these links

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=39141

Another link: http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=24358&page=2

On page 2 someone on this link wrote about the Kalash ''^ It's interesting that the Kalash have no ANI. In fact they don't have any components other than West Asian and ASI. No ANI, no Northern European, no Southern European, no Southwest Asian, and very little East Asian. I'm not too familiar with the Kalash, but they are probably indigenous to their region and have preserved their genetic heritage, even though some have proposed that they came from the north and migrated south to their present area. Linguistically, they speak an Indo-Iranian language, Kalasha, and Indo-Iranian is a subfamily of Indo-European. But it is a very conservative one from what I've read from Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how to interpret that with respect to the Indo-Europeanization process that may have been brought upon them and their previous language. Can anyone enlighten us?''

How can the Kalash not have any ANI?. I was under the impression all South Asians were a composite of ASI and ANI. Both ANI and ASI not being a singular homogeneous group but a composite of groups. How exactly would the Kalash not have ANI if pretty much every other South Asian does?

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
coolnight, are you Indian?? You seem to be making more posts on India than Egypt.

Also, one of the extremely rare instances when Clyde is right is that "arya" is a title that has no bearing on 'race'. The whole Vedic origin of Indo-European languages is a hypothesis that is not even supported by the languages themselves.

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have made two posts. One on South Asia. One on India. I will make more posts on what am interested in finding out not on my interest per se.

'' is a title that has no bearing on 'race'. The whole Vedic origin of Indo-European languages is a hypothesis that is not even supported by the languages themselves.''

As I have stated several time I have no interest in Indo European from a lingusitic perspective.


I understand there are two components to Indo European. Linguistic and Genetic.
The genetic- Indo-Europeans were a group of people who belonged to a certain ethnic/racial type (Northern Europeans/Nordic)

These Indo European people spoke a language which has been found to be related to a language spoken in South Asia and hence these languages fall under the Indo-European category.

Now the argument what I understand Europeans have presented is that the the Indo European language spoken in South Asia was bought there by the Indo-European people (Northern european types) whether through elite dominance/invasion or migration makes no difference to there claim that the Indo European speakers of South Asia had the language bought to them. With this argument the Europeans have bought in the genetic aspect. This is the aspect am trying to understand. Not the linguistic one. That is that DNA tests have shown a small Northern European component present in Many North indians. This Northern European component they claim are the Indo-Europeans genes. A result of the Indo European migrations into these parts of India and subsequent mixing of there genes into these parts of the population. This is the genetic connection Europeans speak about. The Indo European argument in relation to south asia is the connection between language and genetics.


I do not believe there is a Indo European language and Genetic connection in South Asia. This does not mean I deny Indo European migrations to India took place. I do not deny that. Historically many European tribes have migrated to India. That there is European influence in India is clear. However this whole idea that a group of people invaded/migrated to india and enforced there language on the people is too cut n dry. There are too many examples of people who speak a language that does not originate from there region and who also have no genetics from the group whom the language they speak originates from. The Kalash are Indo European speakers but they have shown to have no European admixture.The Burusho do not speak an Indo European language but are said to be Indo European people.

So am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is authentic European admixture. Am focusing on this whole Indo-European/Aryans argument because most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient origin and because the Northern European component found in many South Asians is being connected to the Indo-European migrations. Whereas as I stated before I do not deny Indo Europeans migrated to Indian/South Asia and no doubt admixture did occur. I do not believe this Northern European component found in many South Asians is reflective of these Indo European genes or authentic European genes of any other nature in ALL the groups/Individuals who supposedly show this component . DNA tests look at less than 1% of an individuals genes. A lot more has to be taken into consideration that is not when determining a groups/Individual's ancestry. As I said earlier many different groups migrated to South Asia not just the Indo Europeans in different time frames. If it is possible/can be shown populations/groups can/do share some of the same genes without this being a result of admixture this alone would raise doubts on relying on genetics alone to understand ancestry. I feel phenotypes/ethnic-biological differences between groups/Individuals are far more reliable an indicator of an Individual/Group's ancestry than DNA tests. Phenoptyopes can not be manipulated. Except through plastic surgery I guess but then most people do not have plastic surgery. Genetic data however can be interpreted and understood in many different ways. There is also the question of the origin of the genes when multiple populations/groups show the same gene. How do you determine where the gene began.

I find it hard to believe that ALL South Asians showing this Northern European component have European admixture/Indo European genes. Am not convinced. I believe there is more to this Northern European component than we know. DNA test companies give us no details on if these various South Asian groups show the same exact gene. Nor do they date the genes. We have no idea how far back/recent these genes go. Whereas no doubt there is European (plus other foreign) admixture in Kashmir. Both groups are known to inter marry. In particular the union tends to be Kashmiri males and European females. However I believe that in a remote region like Kashmir, European admixture (ancient/ recent) is limited to only a small percentage/some part of the populace. I find it hard to believe the whole populace has European admixture even if this is said to be mostly of ancient origins. Gene flow into this region has always been controlled/restricted. I have viewed hundreds of photos of ethnic Kashmiris (not the mixed European/Indian/Pakistan or any other foreign admixture mutts/mongrels. Nor those who are clearly migrants from these or any other outside group into the region but ethnic Kashmiris those whose roots/ancestry is indigeneous to the region). There West Asian/Central Asian affinity is visible (ANI). They are said to be around 30% -35% ASI on average. The ASI is hard to detect/pin down in South Asian phenotype/appearance because we have no evidence/image of what the ASI looked like to compare them to present day groups. This means if the ASI percentages/figures in South Asians are correct then no doubt this admixture is visible in them. We just are not able to pin point it down. The ASI are said to have affinities with the Jarawa/Andamanese Islanders who are the only group to show ASI admixture without ANI admixture. However even the genetic affinity of the ASI with the Andamese Islanders is said to be very distant. This means the Andaman islanders very likely do not represent what the ASI looked like. The ASI are also said to be genetically/ethnically distinct from the ANI . On top one the most important point that is overlooked is that the ASI like the ANI is said to be a conglomerate of different groups/tribes and not a singular homogeneous/racial ethnic group. This means the phenotype/appearance of the ASI ancestors of South Asian groups could have varied greatly. Hence the ASI ancestors of South Asians could just as well be bigger contributors to the stark differences in looks/appearances between different South Asians groups especially if it found to be the ASI did not share a similar/homogeneous appearance but varied in phenotype/appearance across the region.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


So am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is authentic European admixture. Am focusing on this whole Indo-European/Aryans argument because most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient origin and because the Northern European component found in many South Asians is being connected to the Indo-European migrations. Whereas as I stated before I do not deny Indo Europeans migrated to Indian/South Asia and no doubt admixture did occur. I do not believe this Northern European component found in many South Asians is reflective of these Indo European genes or authentic European genes of any other nature in ALL the groups/Individuals who supposedly show this component .

After this long discussion you have learned nothing. As a result, you should just accept your personal opinion as valid and leave it at that.

This is because there in no such thing as Indo-European (I-E) genes, especially Northern European genes.You have read the literature, there was no migration of Northern Europeans into India. As a result, the questions you are asking will never be answered to your satisfaction, so just choose a side--but remember you can not "prove" the side you have chosen, because the ancient genes of Mesopotamia and Central Asia are Kushite genes and the Kushites came from Africa.

Persian records document the exile of whites from Europe into South Asia, and it was not in ancient times.

Population history via genetics can never be proven. It can't be proven because each person has his/her individual genetic make-up, and members of different ethnic groups can carry the same genes. As a result, only craniometrics can determine the racial ancestry of an individual.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
the ancient genes of Mesopotamia and Central Asia are Kushite genes and the Kushites came from Africa.


The Kushites from Africa lived in what is now Sudan.

The Arab presence is estimated at 70% of the Sudanese population.[10] Others include the Arabized ethnic groups of Nubians, Zaghawa, and Copts.

 -

so which of these genes correspond to Mesopotamian and Central Asian genes ?


.

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''After this long discussion you have learned nothing. As a result, you should just accept your personal opinion as valid and leave it at that. ''

No I do not want to accept my personal opinion as valid if it is wrong. Ok the reason I call these European tribes that migrated into South Asia Indo-europeaans is because they spoke an Indo European language. Clyde I do not care what you or anyone call the european. As I stated clearly in comment '' am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is AUTHENTIC EUROPEAN ADMIXTURE.''

You even deny European influence in India which is ridiculous because india is filled with european influence from there Bollywood being filled with mixed european-indian mongrels. Many of the bollywood music videos have european dancers. I can name several ''indian'' actors who married/dated white women/men. To there elite (Sonia Ghandi). Some of there elite are also know to marry Europeans./half Europeans. Even if we discard the term Indo European in a genetic sense we still are left with many European tribes that historically migrated India. This is the Northener european component am talking about that has shown in the DNA tests of many in particular Northern Indians. This component I do not believe is authentic European admixture in ALL cases. This is the ancient component showing in the DNA tests of many Indians/South Asians am trying to understand.

''You have read the literature, there was no migration of Northern Europeans into India.'' But European tribes have historically migrated into India. Who were the Saka/Scynthians if not Ethnically/Racially Europeans as there skeletal remains showed them to be a Northern European/Nordic type people. Also Europeans once lived in Central Asia. Why are you denying ancient European presence in India/South Asia when Europeans very clearly were present there.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
the ancient genes of Mesopotamia and Central Asia are Kushite genes and the Kushites came from Africa.


The Kushites from Africa lived in what is now Sudan.

The Arab presence is estimated at 70% of the Sudanese population.[10] Others include the Arabized ethnic groups of Nubians, Zaghawa, and Copts.

 -

so which of these genes correspond to Mesopotamian and Central Asian genes ?


.

LOL. The Kushites long ago migrated out of the Sudan into West Africa. The Nuba and other groups only came into the Sudan during the Roman period.

In addition, the people in Central Asia are also recen t migrants to the area.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coolnight:
''After this long discussion you have learned nothing. As a result, you should just accept your personal opinion as valid and leave it at that. ''

No I do not want to accept my personal opinion as valid if it is wrong. Ok the reason I call these European tribes that migrated into South Asia Indo-europeaans is because they spoke an Indo European language. Clyde I do not care what you or anyone call the european. As I stated clearly in comment '' am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is AUTHENTIC EUROPEAN ADMIXTURE.''

You even deny European influence in India which is ridiculous because india is filled with european influence from there Bollywood being filled with mixed european-indian mongrels. Many of the bollywood music videos have european dancers. I can name several ''indian'' actors who married/dated white women/men. To there elite (Sonia Ghandi). Some of there elite are also know to marry Europeans./half Europeans. Even if we discard the term Indo European in a genetic sense we still are left with many European tribes that historically migrated India. This is the Northener european component am talking about that has shown in the DNA tests of many in particular Northern Indians. This component I do not believe is authentic European admixture in ALL cases. This is the ancient component showing in the DNA tests of many Indians/South Asians am trying to understand.

''You have read the literature, there was no migration of Northern Europeans into India.'' But European tribes have historically migrated into India. Who were the Saka/Scynthians if not Ethnically/Racially Europeans as there skeletal remains showed them to be a Northern European/Nordic type people. Also Europeans once lived in Central Asia. Why are you denying ancient European presence in India/South Asia when Europeans very clearly were present there.

I said there were no ancient Europeans in India, only people who have a historical presence. A historical presence means that we have documents associated with their appearance, like the Saka.

.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
the ancient genes of Mesopotamia and Central Asia are Kushite genes and the Kushites came from Africa.

quote:
The Kushites long ago migrated out of the Sudan into West Africa. The Nuba and other groups only came into the Sudan during the Roman period.


LOL. this sounds like making up stuff-ism

So the Kushies left Sudan and went to Mesopotamia and Central Asia and then went to West Africa

or

the Kushites left Sudan and went to West Africa and then went to Mesopotamia and Central ?

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coolnight:

I have made two posts. One on South Asia. One on India. I will make more posts on what am interested in finding out not on my interest per se.

'' is a title that has no bearing on 'race'. The whole Vedic origin of Indo-European languages is a hypothesis that is not even supported by the languages themselves.''

As I have stated several time I have no interest in Indo European from a lingusitic perspective.

I understand there are two components to Indo European. Linguistic and Genetic.
The genetic- Indo-Europeans were a group of people who belonged to a certain ethnic/racial type (Northern Europeans/Nordic)

These Indo European people spoke a language which has been found to be related to a language spoken in South Asia and hence these languages fall under the Indo-European category.

Now the argument what I understand Europeans have presented is that the the Indo European language spoken in South Asia was bought there by the Indo-European people (Northern european types) whether through elite dominance/invasion or migration makes no difference to there claim that the Indo European speakers of South Asia had the language bought to them. With this argument the Europeans have bought in the genetic aspect. This is the aspect am trying to understand. Not the linguistic one. That is that DNA tests have shown a small Northern European component present in Many North indians. This Northern European component they claim are the Indo-Europeans genes. A result of the Indo European migrations into these parts of India and subsequent mixing of there genes into these parts of the population. This is the genetic connection Europeans speak about. The Indo European argument in relation to south asia is the connection between language and genetics.

I do not believe there is a Indo European language and Genetic connection in South Asia. This does not mean I deny Indo European migrations to India took place. I do not deny that. Historically many European tribes have migrated to India. That there is European influence in India is clear. However this whole idea that a group of people invaded/migrated to india and enforced there language on the people is too cut n dry. There are too many examples of people who speak a language that does not originate from there region and who also have no genetics from the group whom the language they speak originates from. The Kalash are Indo European speakers but they have shown to have no European admixture.The Burusho do not speak an Indo European language but are said to be Indo European people.

So am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is authentic European admixture. Am focusing on this whole Indo-European/Aryans argument because most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient origin and because the Northern European component found in many South Asians is being connected to the Indo-European migrations. Whereas as I stated before I do not deny Indo Europeans migrated to Indian/South Asia and no doubt admixture did occur. I do not believe this Northern European component found in many South Asians is reflective of these Indo European genes or authentic European genes of any other nature in ALL the groups/Individuals who supposedly show this component . DNA tests look at less than 1% of an individuals genes. A lot more has to be taken into consideration that is not when determining a groups/Individual's ancestry. As I said earlier many different groups migrated to South Asia not just the Indo Europeans in different time frames. If it is possible/can be shown populations/groups can/do share some of the same genes without this being a result of admixture this alone would raise doubts on relying on genetics alone to understand ancestry. I feel phenotypes/ethnic-biological differences between groups/Individuals are far more reliable an indicator of an Individual/Group's ancestry than DNA tests. Phenoptyopes can not be manipulated. Except through plastic surgery I guess but then most people do not have plastic surgery. Genetic data however can be interpreted and understood in many different ways. There is also the question of the origin of the genes when multiple populations/groups show the same gene. How do you determine where the gene began.

I find it hard to believe that ALL South Asians showing this Northern European component have European admixture/Indo European genes. Am not convinced. I believe there is more to this Northern European component than we know. DNA test companies give us no details on if these various South Asian groups show the same exact gene. Nor do they date the genes. We have no idea how far back/recent these genes go. Whereas no doubt there is European (plus other foreign) admixture in Kashmir. Both groups are known to inter marry. In particular the union tends to be Kashmiri males and European females. However I believe that in a remote region like Kashmir, European admixture (ancient/ recent) is limited to only a small percentage/some part of the populace. I find it hard to believe the whole populace has European admixture even if this is said to be mostly of ancient origins. Gene flow into this region has always been controlled/restricted. I have viewed hundreds of photos of ethnic Kashmiris (not the mixed European/Indian/Pakistan or any other foreign admixture mutts/mongrels. Nor those who are clearly migrants from these or any other outside group into the region but ethnic Kashmiris those whose roots/ancestry is indigeneous to the region). There West Asian/Central Asian affinity is visible (ANI). They are said to be around 30% -35% ASI on average. The ASI is hard to detect/pin down in South Asian phenotype/appearance because we have no evidence/image of what the ASI looked like to compare them to present day groups. This means if the ASI percentages/figures in South Asians are correct then no doubt this admixture is visible in them. We just are not able to pin point it down. The ASI are said to have affinities with the Jarawa/Andamanese Islanders who are the only group to show ASI admixture without ANI admixture. However even the genetic affinity of the ASI with the Andamese Islanders is said to be very distant. This means the Andaman islanders very likely do not represent what the ASI looked like. The ASI are also said to be genetically/ethnically distinct from the ANI . On top one the most important point that is overlooked is that the ASI like the ANI is said to be a conglomerate of different groups/tribes and not a singular homogeneous/racial ethnic group. This means the phenotype/appearance of the ASI ancestors of South Asian groups could have varied greatly. Hence the ASI ancestors of South Asians could just as well be bigger contributors to the stark differences in looks/appearances between different South Asians groups especially if it found to be the ASI did not share a similar/homogeneous appearance but varied in phenotype/appearance across the region.

Well from the linguistic perspective, the way IE languages are distributed geographically--- with the majority of IE language subfamilies found in the European subcontinent from an early date with the Balto-Slavic subfamily of eastern Europe being the largest and most diverse; and the largest and most diverse subfamily of all being Indo-Iranian of Iran, Afghanistan, and India and originally including most of Central Asia, it becomes apparent that the homeland of Proto-IE had lie somewhere in the Russian steppes between Europe and Central Asia. The glottochronology i.e. time depth of IE as well as the reconstruction of Proto-IE words for flora and fauna and environmental aspects also support the Russian steppes.

But the genetic perspective is somewhat more complicated and not as straightforward. The other competing major hypothesis is that of Collin Renfrew's 'Anatolian Origin' which attempts to tie Proto-IE with the spread of agriculture into Europe. The major problem with this hypothesis is that it conflicts with all the major linguistic evidence I just cited above not to mention the fact that the Anatolian Origin hypothesis only fits IE speakers in Europe but not speakers from other areas of Western Eurasia. However considering the recent genetic findings supporting the Steppe origins including Ukraine just north of Anatolia, it becomes clear that the spread of IE in Europe was closely associated or rather entangled with Anatolians and others in the Balkan area.

As for South Asia i.e. the Indian subcontinent neither of the two major ancestral components--ASI and ANI seem to have any direct ties with IE languages. ANI if anything has to with the spread of Neolithic culture from Southwest Asia, namely Iran, while ASI is an even older aboriginal component. Many geneticsts agree that if anything Indo-Aryan languages in India post-date ANI by at least several centuries and have their origin further north in Central Asia and linguistic evidence shows that instead of entering India via the Khyber pass from Pakistan, instead the earliest Indo-Aryan speakers came from the Kashmir and Swat Valley area. Genetically there is actually very little if any influence from these Central Asians among Vedic Indians, and that most of the Central Asian genetic influence among Indians today actually date to later historical times post-Vedic era.

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by coolnight:

I have made two posts. One on South Asia. One on India. I will make more posts on what am interested in finding out not on my interest per se.

'' is a title that has no bearing on 'race'. The whole Vedic origin of Indo-European languages is a hypothesis that is not even supported by the languages themselves.''

As I have stated several time I have no interest in Indo European from a lingusitic perspective.

I understand there are two components to Indo European. Linguistic and Genetic.
The genetic- Indo-Europeans were a group of people who belonged to a certain ethnic/racial type (Northern Europeans/Nordic)

These Indo European people spoke a language which has been found to be related to a language spoken in South Asia and hence these languages fall under the Indo-European category.

Now the argument what I understand Europeans have presented is that the the Indo European language spoken in South Asia was bought there by the Indo-European people (Northern european types) whether through elite dominance/invasion or migration makes no difference to there claim that the Indo European speakers of South Asia had the language bought to them. With this argument the Europeans have bought in the genetic aspect. This is the aspect am trying to understand. Not the linguistic one. That is that DNA tests have shown a small Northern European component present in Many North indians. This Northern European component they claim are the Indo-Europeans genes. A result of the Indo European migrations into these parts of India and subsequent mixing of there genes into these parts of the population. This is the genetic connection Europeans speak about. The Indo European argument in relation to south asia is the connection between language and genetics.

I do not believe there is a Indo European language and Genetic connection in South Asia. This does not mean I deny Indo European migrations to India took place. I do not deny that. Historically many European tribes have migrated to India. That there is European influence in India is clear. However this whole idea that a group of people invaded/migrated to india and enforced there language on the people is too cut n dry. There are too many examples of people who speak a language that does not originate from there region and who also have no genetics from the group whom the language they speak originates from. The Kalash are Indo European speakers but they have shown to have no European admixture.The Burusho do not speak an Indo European language but are said to be Indo European people.

So am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is authentic European admixture. Am focusing on this whole Indo-European/Aryans argument because most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient origin and because the Northern European component found in many South Asians is being connected to the Indo-European migrations. Whereas as I stated before I do not deny Indo Europeans migrated to Indian/South Asia and no doubt admixture did occur. I do not believe this Northern European component found in many South Asians is reflective of these Indo European genes or authentic European genes of any other nature in ALL the groups/Individuals who supposedly show this component . DNA tests look at less than 1% of an individuals genes. A lot more has to be taken into consideration that is not when determining a groups/Individual's ancestry. As I said earlier many different groups migrated to South Asia not just the Indo Europeans in different time frames. If it is possible/can be shown populations/groups can/do share some of the same genes without this being a result of admixture this alone would raise doubts on relying on genetics alone to understand ancestry. I feel phenotypes/ethnic-biological differences between groups/Individuals are far more reliable an indicator of an Individual/Group's ancestry than DNA tests. Phenoptyopes can not be manipulated. Except through plastic surgery I guess but then most people do not have plastic surgery. Genetic data however can be interpreted and understood in many different ways. There is also the question of the origin of the genes when multiple populations/groups show the same gene. How do you determine where the gene began.

I find it hard to believe that ALL South Asians showing this Northern European component have European admixture/Indo European genes. Am not convinced. I believe there is more to this Northern European component than we know. DNA test companies give us no details on if these various South Asian groups show the same exact gene. Nor do they date the genes. We have no idea how far back/recent these genes go. Whereas no doubt there is European (plus other foreign) admixture in Kashmir. Both groups are known to inter marry. In particular the union tends to be Kashmiri males and European females. However I believe that in a remote region like Kashmir, European admixture (ancient/ recent) is limited to only a small percentage/some part of the populace. I find it hard to believe the whole populace has European admixture even if this is said to be mostly of ancient origins. Gene flow into this region has always been controlled/restricted. I have viewed hundreds of photos of ethnic Kashmiris (not the mixed European/Indian/Pakistan or any other foreign admixture mutts/mongrels. Nor those who are clearly migrants from these or any other outside group into the region but ethnic Kashmiris those whose roots/ancestry is indigeneous to the region). There West Asian/Central Asian affinity is visible (ANI). They are said to be around 30% -35% ASI on average. The ASI is hard to detect/pin down in South Asian phenotype/appearance because we have no evidence/image of what the ASI looked like to compare them to present day groups. This means if the ASI percentages/figures in South Asians are correct then no doubt this admixture is visible in them. We just are not able to pin point it down. The ASI are said to have affinities with the Jarawa/Andamanese Islanders who are the only group to show ASI admixture without ANI admixture. However even the genetic affinity of the ASI with the Andamese Islanders is said to be very distant. This means the Andaman islanders very likely do not represent what the ASI looked like. The ASI are also said to be genetically/ethnically distinct from the ANI . On top one the most important point that is overlooked is that the ASI like the ANI is said to be a conglomerate of different groups/tribes and not a singular homogeneous/racial ethnic group. This means the phenotype/appearance of the ASI ancestors of South Asian groups could have varied greatly. Hence the ASI ancestors of South Asians could just as well be bigger contributors to the stark differences in looks/appearances between different South Asians groups especially if it found to be the ASI did not share a similar/homogeneous appearance but varied in phenotype/appearance across the region.

Well from the linguistic perspective, the way IE languages are distributed geographically--- with the majority of IE language subfamilies found in the European subcontinent from an early date with the Balto-Slavic subfamily of eastern Europe being the largest and most diverse; and the largest and most diverse subfamily of all being Indo-Iranian of Iran, Afghanistan, and India and originally including most of Central Asia, it becomes apparent that the homeland of Proto-IE had lie somewhere in the Russian steppes between Europe and Central Asia. The glottochronology i.e. time depth of IE as well as the reconstruction of Proto-IE words for flora and fauna and environmental aspects also support the Russian steppes.

But the genetic perspective is somewhat more complicated and not as straightforward. The other competing major hypothesis is that of Collin Renfrew's 'Anatolian Origin' which attempts to tie Proto-IE with the spread of agriculture into Europe. The major problem with this hypothesis is that it conflicts with all the major linguistic evidence I just cited above not to mention the fact that the Anatolian Origin hypothesis only fits IE speakers in Europe but not speakers from other areas of Western Eurasia. However considering the recent genetic findings supporting the Steppe origins including Ukraine just north of Anatolia, it becomes clear that the spread of IE in Europe was closely associated or rather entangled with Anatolians and others in the Balkan area.

As for South Asia i.e. the Indian subcontinent neither of the two major ancestral components--ASI and ANI seem to have any direct ties with IE languages. ANI if anything has to with the spread of Neolithic culture from Southwest Asia, namely Iran, while ASI is an even older aboriginal component. Many geneticsts agree that if anything Indo-Aryan languages in India post-date ANI by at least several centuries and have their origin further north in Central Asia and linguistic evidence shows that instead of entering India via the Khyber pass from Pakistan, instead the earliest Indo-Aryan speakers came from the Kashmir and Swat Valley area. Genetically there is actually very little if any influence from these Central Asians among Vedic Indians, and that most of the Central Asian genetic influence among Indians today actually date to later historical times post-Vedic era.

The idea of an Indo-European origin in Anatolia is [URL=Quentin Atkinson’s Nonsensical Maps of Indo-European Expansion, http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/quentin-atkinsons-nonsensical-maps-of-indo-european-expansion]nonsensical as proving by the maps[/URL] and linguistic evidence that the Anatalians spoke non-European languages.

Hatti
In the ancient literature the Proto Dravidians and Nigewr-Congo speakers are called Kushites. Using boats the Kushites moved down ancient waterways many now dried up, to establish new towns in Asia and Europe after 3500 BC. The Kushites remained supreme around the world until 1400 1200 BC. During this period the Hua (Chinese) and Indo European (I E) speakers began to conquer the Kushites whose cities and economies were destroyed as a result of natural catastrophes which took place on the planet between 1400 1200 BC. Later, after 500 AD, Turkish speaking people began to settle parts of Central Asia. This is the reason behind the presence of the K s h element in many place names in Asia e.g., Kashgar, HinduKush, and Kosh. The HinduKush in Harappan times had lapis lazuli deposits.

 -


Proto Saharans/Kushites expanded into Inner Asia from two primary points of dispersal : Iran and Anatolia. In Anatolia the Kushites were called Hattians and Kaska. In the 2nd millennium BC, the north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non I E speakers.

Anatolia was divided into two lands “the land of Kanis” and the “land of Hatti”. The Hatti were related to the Kaska people who lived in the Pontic mountains.

Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place names (1). The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.

Singer (1981) has suggested that the Kaska, are remnants of the indigenous Hattian population which was forced northward by the Hittites. But at least as late as 1800 BC, Anatolia was basically settled by Hattians (2)

Anatolia was occupied by many Kushite groups,including the Kashkas and or Hatti. The Hatti , like the Dravidian speaking people were probably related . The Hatti were probably members of the Tehenu tribes.

The Tehenu was composed of various ethnic groups. One of the Tehenu tribes was identified by the Egyptians as the Hatiu or Haltiu.

During the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (2563-2423), namely during the reign of Sahure there is mention of the Tehenu people. Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader “Hati Tehenu” .(3) These Hatiu, may correspond to the Hatti speaking people of Anatolia. The Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas or Kaskas.

The Hatti controlled the city state of Kussara. Kussara was situated in southern Anatolia.

The earliest known ruler of Kussara was Pitkhanas. It was his son Anitta (c. 1790-1750 BC) who expanded the Kussara empire through much of Anatolia.

Many researchers get the Hittites (Nesa) mixed up with the original settlers of Anatolia called Hatti according to Steiner “.[T]his discrepancy is either totally neglected and more or less skillfully veiled, or it is explained by the assumption that the Hittites when conquering the country of Hatti adjusted themselves to the Hattians adopting their personal names and worshipping their gods, out of reverence for a higher culture” .(4)

Neshili, was probably spoken by the Hatti, not the IE Hittite. Yet, this language is classified as an IE langauge. Researchers maintain that the Hatti spoke 'Hattili' or Khattili “language of the Hatti”, and the IE Hittites spoke "Neshumnili"/ Neshili .(5) Researchers maintain that only 10% of the terms in Neshumnili is IE. This supports the view that Nesumnili may have been a lingua franca.

It is clear that the Anatolians spoke many languages including:Palaic, Hatti, Luwian and Hurrian, but the people as you know mainly wrote their writings in Neshumnili. The first people to use this system as the language of the royal chancery were Hatti Itamar Singer makes it clear that the Hittites adopted the language of the Hatti .(6) Steiner wrote that, " In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia, in the 2nd Millennium B.C. with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca [i.e., Neshumnili), whenever commercial transactions or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale" .(7)

•The Hatti language which provided the Hittites with many of the terms Indo-Aryan nationalists use to claim and Aryan origin for the Indus civilization is closely related to African languages including Egyptians. For example:
Big, mighty, powerful protect, help upper
  • Hattic ur $uh tufa
    Egyptian wr swh tp
    Malinke fara solo dya, tu ‘raising’
    Head stretch (out) prosper to pour
    Hattic tu put falfalat duq

    Egyptian tup pd
    Malinke tu ‘strike head’ pe, bemba fin’ya du
    Eye hand Place King, term of respect
The Malinke-Bambara and Hatti language share other cognates and grammatical features. For example,in both languages the pronoun can be prefixed to nouns, e.g., Hatti le ‘his’, le fil ‘his house’; Malinke-Bambara a ‘his’, a falu ‘his father’s house’. Other Hatti and Malinke- Bambara cognates include:
Hattic b’la ka -ka Kaati Malinke n’ye teke -ka ka, kuntigi ‘headman’

Good hypothesis generation suggest that given the fact that the Malinke-Bambara and Hatti languages share cognate terms, Sumerian terms may also relate to Hatti terms since they were also Kushites. Below we compare a few Hatti, Sumerian and Malinke Bambara terms:
  • Mother father lord,ruler build, to set up
    Hattic na-a ša tex
    Malinke na baba sa te
    Sumerian na ‘she’ aba tu ‘to create’
    To pour child,son up, to raise strength,powerful land
    Hatti dug pin,pinu tufa ur -ka
    Malinke du den dya, tu fara -ka
    Sumerian dub peš dul usu ki
Conclusion

In summary, the Hattic speaking people were members of the Kushite tribe called Tehenu. They were probably called Hati ( pl. Hatiu), by the Egyptians.

The language of the Hittites was more than likely a lingua franca, with Hattic, at its base. In Western Anatolia many languages were spoken including Hattic, Palaic, Luwian and Hurrian used Nesa as a lingua franca. For example, the king of Arzawa, asked the Egyptian in the Amarna Letters, to write them back in Nesumnili rather than Egyptian .(8)

Steiner notes that “In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia in the 2nd Millennium B.C., with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca whenever commercial transaction or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale” .(9)

This led Steiner to conclude that “moreover the structure of Hittite easily allowed one to integrate not only proper names, but also nouns of other languages into the morphological system. Indeed, it is a well known fact the vocabulary of Hittite is strongly interspersed with lexemes from other languages, which is a phenomenon typical of a “lingua franca” .(10)

Footnotes


1. Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), pp.119-149.

2 Gerd Steiner, The role of the Hittites in ancient Anatolia, Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), 119-149.

3 El Mosallamy,A.H.S. Libyco-Berber relations with ancient Egypt:The Tehenu in Egyptian records. In (pp.51-68) 1986, p.55; and L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Sahure. Vol. II, Table 1.

4 Steiner, p.160.

5 I.M. Diakonoff and P.L. Kohl, Early Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

6. Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the Beginning of the Second Millennium BC,Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (pp.119-149).

7 Ibid., p.162.

8 Ibid., p.161.

9 Ibid., p.162

10 Ibid., p.165.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''A historical presence means that we have documents associated with their appearance, like the Saka.'' from what I have read about the Scythians there Skeletol remains showed them to be a very Northern European looking people. Even scythian coins show them to look european. As far as am aware they were europeans. They invaded/migrated to India in ancient times. Europeans went by a lot of fancy names back then.In those times they were not known as ''European'' but ethnically/racially they were of European ethnic stock. No surprise to find Turks and Iranians claim links to Scythians. Turks (before admixture/the less admixed caucasion type Turks) themselves are linked to the European race.Therefore it is not surprise to find scythians connected to Turks who are connected to Europeans.

Turkey is part of Europe...in both geography and blood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgh8HrMbI9s

They look pretty european to me -
http://drakenberg.weebly.com/scythians.html

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CS%5CC%5CScythians.htm

http://www.anythinganywhere.com/commerce/coins/coinpics/indi-scyth.htm

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clyde Can you paraphrase/explain your recent comment in simple english for me please. I do apologise am not well read/well informed in this field as you lot are. I struggle to understand a lot of this stuff.

''This is the reason behind the presence of the K s h element in many place names in Asia e.g., Kashgar, HinduKush, and Kosh. The HinduKush in Harappan times had lapis lazuli deposits.''

Is Kashmir ''Kush'' named after/from the Kushites too? There must be a connection between Kashmir and all the ''Kush' in this overall region

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -
Bodhisattva Maitreya Kushan period 2nd-3rd century CE from the ancient region of Gandhara
Pakistan Schist


 -

The Gift of Anathapindada, Kushan period, 2nd–3rd century
Pakistan, ancient region of Gandhara
Schist with traces of gold foil


 -
Panel with the god Zeus/Serapis/Ohrmazd and Worshiper Kushan Empire Bactria 3rd century CE Terracotta gouache

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolnight
-
Member # 22805

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolnight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
[/qb]

Well from the linguistic perspective, the way IE languages are distributed geographically--- with the majority of IE language subfamilies found in the European subcontinent from an early date with the Balto-Slavic subfamily of eastern Europe being the largest and most diverse; and the largest and most diverse subfamily of all being Indo-Iranian of Iran, Afghanistan, and India and originally including most of Central Asia, it becomes apparent that the homeland of Proto-IE had lie somewhere in the Russian steppes between Europe and Central Asia. The glottochronology i.e. time depth of IE as well as the reconstruction of Proto-IE words for flora and fauna and environmental aspects also support the Russian steppes.

But the genetic perspective is somewhat more complicated and not as straightforward. The other competing major hypothesis is that of Collin Renfrew's 'Anatolian Origin' which attempts to tie Proto-IE with the spread of agriculture into Europe. The major problem with this hypothesis is that it conflicts with all the major linguistic evidence I just cited above not to mention the fact that the Anatolian Origin hypothesis only fits IE speakers in Europe but not speakers from other areas of Western Eurasia. However considering the recent genetic findings supporting the Steppe origins including Ukraine just north of Anatolia, it becomes clear that the spread of IE in Europe was closely associated or rather entangled with Anatolians and others in the Balkan area.

As for South Asia i.e. the Indian subcontinent neither of the two major ancestral components--ASI and ANI seem to have any direct ties with IE languages. ANI if anything has to with the spread of Neolithic culture from Southwest Asia, namely Iran, while ASI is an even older aboriginal component. Many geneticsts agree that if anything Indo-Aryan languages in India post-date ANI by at least several centuries and have their origin further north in Central Asia and linguistic evidence shows that instead of entering India via the Khyber pass from Pakistan, instead the earliest Indo-Aryan speakers came from the Kashmir and Swat Valley area. Genetically there is actually very little if any influence from these Central Asians among Vedic Indians, and that most of the Central Asian genetic influence among Indians today actually date to later historical times post-Vedic era. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I have no idea where the Indo European languages originate from or where the PIE homeland could be. Would the Indo European language have to originate from a single place? What if there are two seperate origins for the Indo European language spoken in Europe and South Asia and the connection between the same/similar/shared language spoke between both groups (Europeans/South Asians) is Indirect rather then direct. I mean rather than a single origin. A single separate homeland from where the indo european language originated. Could there have been two homelands? Both somehow indirectly connected to the other. Or Maybe Europeans and South Asians got indo european language from the Same source independent of each other rather than each other or one from the other. Because the Europeans try and spin it as if they own the indo european language. As if they are the source of it and the presence of the indo european language in South Asia therefore means a direct connection to them (Europeans). When it may be the homeland/the source of this language was not European in origin. I mean just cos europeans found out they speak the same language as some other groups in the world it does not mean it came from them. Although that that is what they try to portray. From what I have read of xyyman's comments he is one on here who disagrees with the Kurgan/Steppe hypothesis.

''linguistic evidence shows that instead of entering India via the Khyber pass from Pakistan, instead the earliest Indo-Aryan speakers came from the Kashmir and Swat Valley area. '' interesting. Which do you support?

''that most of the Central Asian genetic influence among Indians today actually date to later historical times post-Vedic era'' yes this appears to be the case. However by central asian influence what/who do we mean? Do we mean various ethnically distinct/different tribes that belonged to a seperate race but who were settled in central asia at some point or other or are we talking about central asian in terms of tribes/groups who were genetically/ethnically closely related to each other. I mean europeans were also once settled in central asian. That region has seen many groups emigrate out and many outsiders have settled in. Is it likely some of the central asian influence is old and some or a more recent origin. The caucasion element in South Asia is the most complex to figure out. Nobody gets confused with the non-caucasion elements.

Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
.

The Yuezhi were the Kushana, a Black population that spoke Tamil.

The Kushana and the Yuezhi are one and the same. The Kushana- Yuezhi association is discussed in Chinese and Dravidian literature. V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen hundred years ago note that in the Sanskrit literature the Ramayana and Matsya, the Yuezhi were called Yakshas or Kosar. The Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana.

The Chinese called the Blacks of China Yueh. The Yueh people were also called Yuezhi or Kuishuang [Kushana]. The Yueh of North China established Xia. According to the Yi Xia Dong Xi Shuo, by Fu Ssumein. The li Qiang Black Qiang of Shang were united with the Yueh people of southwest China.
Tochari is a Turkic word for Western European whites in Central Asia. The Greeks called the Yuezhi: Kushana in the Karosthi inscriptions, and Kocano, not Tochari. In the Chinese sources the Kushana were called Koei-shuang or Kwei-shwang = Yuezhi .


[b]The Kushana conquered the Sakas and Parthians and took control of an empire stretching from the Oxus river in Afghanistan, to the Ganges plains of India. This unite under one authority the former dominions of the Indo-Greeks and the Sunga dynasts.


The Kushana/Yuezhi made fine sculptures and engraved beautiful carved sheets of ivory. Their plaques are some of the finest art pieces in India.

.
 -
.
 -

.
The Kushana/ Yuezhi were at this time in control of the Silk Road, which took Chinese goods to the West. It was also under the Kushana that Buddhism entered China. The Kushana ruled India for almost 200 years.

 -
.


The Yuezhi made many murals. The Yuezhi originally lived in Gansu Province of China, before the Chinese pushed them into Central Asia.
.
 -
.
Here is a beautiful mural from Ajanta.

 -

.

An early Kushan site in China was Dunhuang, Gansu. At this site the Kushans left many interesting murals. See: http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/9060503?width=3000&height=3000 .Note on this mural were later artists tried to make the Kushan noses appear long and narrow like those of Europeans.

Here is a Kushan mural from Magao cave.

 -

 -

Even before the Turks took control of Central Asia, Western European whites were mating with the mongoloids as illustrated in this cave mural dating to 432–538 AD.

.

 -


If you notice the pigment of the mongoloid people on the Tarim mural above make the people in the mural light skinned. This is in sharp contrast to the people depicted in the Dunhuang mural.
.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
 -
Bodhisattva Maitreya Kushan period 2nd-3rd century CE from the ancient region of Gandhara
Pakistan Schist


 -

The Gift of Anathapindada, Kushan period, 2nd–3rd century
Pakistan, ancient region of Gandhara
Schist with traces of gold foil


 -
Panel with the god Zeus/Serapis/Ohrmazd and Worshiper Kushan Empire Bactria 3rd century CE Terracotta gouache

These statues date to after the Saka defeated the Kushana.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thereal
Member
Member # 22452

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thereal     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So who are the dark Chinese looking people in the mural,a negrito group or a branch of the kushan as they look different from how the kushan are depicted.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thereal:
So who are the dark Chinese looking people in the mural,a negrito group or a branch of the kushan as they look different from how the kushan are depicted.

 -
(left figure) Early mural revealed after later over-painting had been partly removed. The flesh tones of the figure
with its pigments protected from oxidation contrast with the darkened tone of buddhas in later painting seen on the right. Cave 253, Northern Wei.

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 11 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Outstanding Universal Value

Brief synthesis

The Lord Buddha was born in 623 BC in the sacred area of Lumbini located in the Terai plains of southern Nepal, testified by the inscription on the pillar erected by the Mauryan Emperor Asoka in 249 BC. Lumbini is one of the holiest places of one of the world's great religions, and its remains contain important evidence about the nature of Buddhist pilgrimage centres from as early as the 3rd century BC.

The complex of structures within the archaeological conservation area includes the Shakya Tank; the remains within the Maya Devi Temple consisting of brick structures in a cross-wall system dating from the 3rd century BC to the present century and the sandstone Ashoka pillar with its Pali inscription in Brahmi script. Additionally there are the excavated remains of Buddhist viharas (monasteries) of the 3rd century BC to the 5th century AD and the remains of Buddhist stupas (memorial shrines) from the 3rd century BC to the 15th century AD. The site is now being developed as a Buddhist pilgrimage centre, where the archaeological remains associated with the birth of the Lord Buddha form a central feature.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666/

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gandhara art, style of Buddhist visual art that developed in what is now northwestern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan between the 1st century bce and the 7th century ce. The style, of Greco-Roman origin, seems to have flourished largely during the Kushan dynasty and was contemporaneous with an important but dissimilar school of Kushan art at Mathura (Uttar Pradesh, India).


The Gandhara region had long been a crossroads of cultural influences. During the reign of the Indian emperor Ashoka (3rd century bce), the region became the scene of intensive Buddhist missionary activity. And in the 1st century ce, rulers of the Kushan empire, which included Gandhara, maintained contacts with Rome. In its interpretation of Buddhist legends, the Gandhara school incorporated many motifs and techniques from Classical Roman art, including vine scrolls, cherubs bearing garlands, tritons, and centaurs. The basic iconography, however, remained Indian.

The materials used for Gandhara sculpture were green phyllite and gray-blue mica schist which in general, belong to an earlier phase, and stucco, which was used increasingly after the 3rd century ce. The sculptures were originally painted and gilded.

Gandhara’s role in the evolution of the Buddha image has been a point of considerable disagreement among scholars. It now seems clear that the schools of Gandhara and Mathura each independently evolved its own characteristic depiction of the Buddha about the 1st century ce. The Gandhara school drew upon the anthropomorphic traditions of Roman religion and represented the Buddha with a youthful Apollo-like face, dressed in garments resembling those seen on Roman imperial statues. The Gandhara depiction of the seated Buddha was less successful. The schools of Gandhara and Mathura influenced each other, and the general trend was away from a naturalistic conception and toward a more idealized, abstract image. The Gandhara craftsmen made a lasting contribution to Buddhist art in their composition of the events of the Buddha’s life into set scenes.

https://www.britannica.com/art/Gandhara-art

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The topic is
what are the ancestral origins of Europeans?

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mindovermatter
Member
Member # 22317

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mindovermatter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gandhara art was of Indian origin, not Greco-Roman origin; the Greco-Romans didn't have an original style; much of their style was merely transplanted and appropriated clothing forms and art forms from Ancient Egypt, Persia/Babylon, and India; even their statue making. The Kushans had Indian names, followed Indic customs, and followed Indian religions, there was very little Greco-Roman anything about them, except for maybe coinage traditions.


Indic religions and culture customs extended all the way to Ancient Etruria and Greece, before the existence of the Roman empire; scenes from Ancient Indian texts and Indian style clothing have been found in Greco-Roman tombs. Hercules was basically the Hindu deity Krishna appropriated in an Greco-Roman context.

Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
the Greco-Romans didn't have an original style;

 -

 -

A lot of Greco-Roman sculpture had action poses.
The Egyptians generally preferred more stately authoritative poses.
A lot of it does not resemble other cultures sculptures

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3