posted
[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. [/QUOTE ]The Chinese historical literature indicates that the Tocharian speakers were called Kushana or Yueh chih and originated in China. Winters (1990) has argued that their ancestral culture was the Qijia culture of western China.
posted
The speakers of IE and Altaic languages settled Central Asia at different times. The Kingdom of Bactria was garrisoned by 30,000 Greek mercenaries. In Bactria there grew a distinctive Greek culture. This culture existed for over 100 years.
30,000 Greeks would have left a strong genetic imprint in the region.
The Greeks ruled Bactria after the conquest of the region by Alexander. The dominant population in the area at this time was probably Dravidian speaking.
Bactria was a strong point of Alexander's empire. It later became a part of the Seleucid empire.
The Seleucid administration was staffed by Greeks. In 245 B.C. with the decline of the Seleucid empire, the Bactrian Greeks established an independent kingdom.
By 183 B.C., the Greeks conquered India. As a result they ruled an area from Bactria to the Upper Ganges river.
Bactria was ruled directly by the Greeks. This administration contrasted sharply with that of Greek rule in India. In India, the Greeks tried to encourage cooperation between Indians and Greeks, and printed bilingual coinage.
Greek methods of administration encouraged the decline of Dravidian among the urban Bactrians. The elite dominance model may explain the decline of Dravidian, in central Asia.
The elite dominance model implies the arrival of a small militarily effective population into a new territory, speaking a new language, that successfully subjugates and dominates the existing population. We usually can assume in such a situation as this that the spoken language in this area is replaced by another language brought into the region by a new population from a different region. Application of this model to explain the decline of Dravidian as a lingua franca in central Asia probably corresponds to the Greek conquest and colonization of Bactria.
In 130 B.C., Slavic speaking Saka nomads attacked the Greeks. Tashkend, Ferganah and Kashgar were occupied by the Saka. The Saka forced the Greeks out of Bactria and Tokharestan.
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
.
The Kushana first occupied Transoxiana about 160 B.C., and established themselves in Oxus Valley (Bagchi 1955:8). The Kushana/Tocharians later drove the Haumavorka Saka, from Bactria and founded the Kushana dynasty which lasted until the 3rd century A.D.
The homeland of the Altaic speakers, especially the Turkic people was central and Western Mongolia. The dispersal of the Turkic speakers began during the 6th and 7th centuries of our era. They did not enter Central Asia until the 8th century A.D. (Bagchi 1955).
The presence of Dravidian loan words in the Altaic group suggest that although the Greeks dominated Bactria for generations, remnants of the ancient widespread distribution of Dravidian settlements in central Asia existed up until the Turks arrived in the region .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: 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.
The reason why IE has a single origin is because linguistically all IE languages share not merely typological but genetic features i.e. similarity in vocabulary and word formation due to descent from a common 'ancestor' and by ancestor I mean original language spoken by a particular people. There can be no "dual" origin since all languages stem from ancestors that are now lost. As a perfect example, of all the European languages Vedic Sanskrit resembles the most is Old Lithuanian to the point that there may be some (though not perfect) mutual intelligibility between a Vedic Sanskrit speaker and Old Lithuanian speaker. Yet in terms of names and aspects of deities, Vedic Sanskrit shows the most resemblance to those of Celtic speaking peoples of western Europe, while the religious rituals match those of Slavic peoples. In this case we have evidence going beyond just language but religious thought and customs. You see, language like religious belief and custom are all memes or intellctual ideas or notions that can be propagated from one person to another without necessarily migration or biological propagation or admixture which is why though archaeology and biology of populations may be linked, then again they don't have to. The propagation or spread of memes is called memetics, while that of genes or biology is genetics.
An example of this would be the fact that predynastic Egyptians of the neolithic farmed crops like emmer and animals like goats and pigs which stem from Western Asia yet the names for all these domestic organisms are Egyptian and not Semitic or other Asiatic words. Yet Semitic language itself is the only Afroasiatic language historically found outside Africa indicating that Proto-Semitic's ancestor originated in Africa.
In the case of India, the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka are Indo-Aryan speakers though they largely possess ASI ancestry in some cases more so than the Dravidian speaking Tamils.
quote: interesting. Which do you support?
Hard to say. The archaeology shows that region (Kashmir and Baltistan) to be home to a particular culture since neolithic times though the mountainous terrain including mountains plants like soma, mountain valleys, and tribes associated with valleys and highlands strongly implies this region. Not to mention groups like the Chitrali and Kalash peoples who preserve Vedic customs and even some modern Kashmiris.
quote: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.
I don't like to get into race typology especially with terms like "caucasian" but I meant nothing racial at all by Central Asian tribes. You have to realize that Central Asia was in a literal sense a central point of confluence in Eurasia or human populations throughout history. As such, the populations were heterogeneous and varied depending on the time period. During the neolithic expansions from the Middle East, you had populations from Iran (who did not look the same as modern Iranians) who expanded into both Central Asia and India. These people in my opinion were dark-skinned. Then you had IE speaking people from the north who very well might have been 'white' or "caucasian" in appearance, followed by Turks and Mongols from the east in later periods. Mind you there were also expansions from India which explains populations like the so-called "black Huns" of whom were the ancestors of the Dom and Roma i.e "Gypsies".
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The topic is what are the ancestral origins of Europeans?
Was it not you who wanted to elaborate on the deeper meaning of the art? Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
The reason why IE has a single origin is because linguistically all IE languages share not merely typological but genetic features i.e. similarity in vocabulary and word formation due to descent from a common 'ancestor' and by ancestor I mean original language spoken by a particular people. There can be no "dual" origin since all languages stem from ancestors that are now lost. As a perfect example, of all the European languages Vedic Sanskrit resembles the most is Old Lithuanian to the point that there may be some (though not perfect) mutual intelligibility between a Vedic Sanskrit speaker and Old Lithuanian speaker. Yet in terms of names and aspects of deities, Vedic Sanskrit shows the most resemblance to those of Celtic speaking peoples of western Europe, while the religious rituals match those of Slavic peoples.''
Yes maybe a single origin but very unlikely that the dating of the speaking of the indo european language in south asia and indo european speaking tribes who emigrated to south asia correlate with each other.
''In this case we have evidence going beyond just language but religious thought and customs. You see, language like religious belief and custom are all memes or intellctual ideas or notions that can be propagated from one person to another without necessarily migration or biological propagation or admixture which is why though archaeology and biology of populations may be linked, then again they don't have to. The propagation or spread of memes is called memetics, while that of genes or biology is genetics.''
Yes. Beliefs, religion, customs, values are ideas that can spread without migration/inter mixing between different groups. However there is no smoke without fire, I find hard to believe that for example in the case of india where you find so much european influence. You see it in the genes of Top Bollywood actors many of whom have european admixture (Katirn kaif, Nargis Fakhri, Karish/kareena Kapoor/ Arjun Rampal/Ayesha Takia/ Dia Mirza etc....) Aishwarya rai clearly has some european european and mongloid ancestry likely of ancient origin. On top bollywood actors when they marry out are know to marry europeans. Older time actor Shasho Kapoor married Jennifer Kendal who was european. Priety Zinta married a european guy. Priyank Chopra has been romantically linked to one or two european actors. Then a lot of bollywood music videos have european dancers. Even some of there top Bollywood songs have one or two lines/the odd word sung in the english language. Then you have the European sonia Ghandi in the indian political elite. List goes on......I mean you there is a line between propogation/transfer of beliefs, ideas,customs and culture which occur without migration or biological propogation and those that got established in a region/people due to emigration of intermixing of another group into there gene pool. In the case of India the european influence/ideas, customs and culture we find in India is a bit too much for it not to be the result of some degree of intermixing occurring between the two groups. Contrary to what people like to say looking at indian culture. The Indians and Europeans appear quite comfortable with each other. This is what makes the whole indo european question (language and genes) so difficult to understand because indo european speaking tribes ( northern european types) have indeed historically migrated to india. With regards to your point. You are right it can work either way but there is a line, a degree to which one culture can influence another without emigration or intermixing occurring between both groups. Your example above how Vedic Sanskrit resembles the most Old Lithuanian yet in terms of names and aspects of deities the language shows stronger relation to celtic speaking people shows how culture and genes are not always correlated. That a group may indeed share similar similar customers, beliefs to another group and believe they must therefore be related only to find that on another level they completely differ. Not just yours but many examples show how culture and genetics are not always correlated. You have two different groups who share a certain cultural feature but something is always missing in one group that breaks the idea of any genetic relation between the two.
''In the case of India, the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka are Indo-Aryan speakers though they largely possess ASI ancestry in some cases more so than the Dravidian speaking Tamils.'' Yes Kalash speak indo european but are said to have no european admixture. When two groups share something a strong cultural feature, something as strong as a shared language and neither groups genes shows any influence/intermixture from the other then is is obvious there is a third hand at play. This is why it is important to know the genetic impact europeans (authentic european admixture) have made in south asia in order to resolve, come to a better understanding of the indo european question. However determining a group/people's ancestry is not an easy task especially in a region like south asia which has historically seen many migrations in to the land.
quote: interesting. Which do you support?
Hard to say. The archaeology shows that region (Kashmir and Baltistan) to be home to a particular culture since neolithic times though the mountainous terrain including mountains plants like soma, mountain valleys, and tribes associated with valleys and highlands strongly implies this region. Not to mention groups like the Chitrali and Kalash peoples who preserve Vedic customs and even some modern Kashmiris.
Archeaology should show if a culture or particular region was homogeneous/heterogeneous. Obviously a group that belonged to the same race would likely express a homogeneous/similar culture. That is a shared language, customs,religious beliefs,view of the world/life. If archaeology shows homogeneity in this region then it likely means these people were genetically same/similar/close. However like the Indo european language how do you determine where something began or the homeland of something? They say human race comes from/began in Africa because oldest bones have been found in Africa. Africans have the most ethnic diversity from all groups. How do you connect a language to a geographic region? If the earliest indo aryan speakers were indigenous to kashmir/swat vally then this region should hold a lot of vital information about these people. When you say the earliest indo aryan speakers then who are later indo aryans speakers you are speaking of? Is it the ''the spread of Neolithic culture from Southwest Asia, namely Iran'' you mean.
I don't like to get into race typology especially with terms like "caucasian" but I meant nothing racial at all by Central Asian tribes. You have to realize that Central Asia was in a literal sense a central point of confluence in Eurasia or human populations throughout history. As such, the populations were heterogeneous and varied depending on the time period. During the neolithic expansions from the Middle East, you had populations from Iran (who did not look the same as modern Iranians) who expanded into both Central Asia and India. These people in my opinion were dark-skinned. Then you had IE speaking people from the north who very well might have been 'white' or "caucasian" in appearance, followed by Turks and Mongols from the east in later periods. Mind you there were also expansions from India which explains populations like the so-called "black Huns" of whom were the ancestors of the Dom and Roma i.e "Gypsies". [/QB][/QUOTE]
I agree racially the term caucasian has no meaning. Like the term Mediterranean it is used to lump people a large group or people who broadly share the similar traits together. This was my point that what/who is central asian when that region has historically been settled by many different groups. So when you said ''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.''Although it does appear most central asian influence in india is of a later date but we do not know the totality of who/what groups existed back then.There were many migrations back n forth from out of/into that region. There probably are groups whose existence we know nothing of today that have gone extinct that we know nothing about.
The reason the indo european question is so popular especially amongst europeans with whom there is almost like a religious following over it is because europeans a like everyone else are seeking to understand the history of there people. Even if we take away the language (indo european) connection between south asia and european we are still left with genetic aspect. That is the genetic impact europeans have made in South Asia. Europeans are aware they have historically been migrating to india. The degree of european influence you find in India compared to other regions is a testimony to this.
''Mind you there were also expansions from India which explains populations like the so-called "black Huns" of whom were the ancestors of the Dom and Roma i.e "Gypsies". [/QB][/QUOTE]''
Not heard of the ''Black Huns'' from india. Any information on this group.
This is all interesting stuff but time consuming to learn about. When wanting to find the right answer you have to go so far n deep into things that you naturally end up getting lost or going round and round in circles that you forget what it is you wanted to know in the first place. I find this becomes exhausting but I guess if you want to know the truth. There is no easy way to get to the bottom of things.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: Yes maybe a single origin but very unlikely that the dating of the speaking of the indo european language in south asia and indo european speaking tribes who emigrated to south asia correlate with each other.
The problem is that we have yet to find an exact genetic component correlating to Indo-Aryan in India. Again, the best place to start would be the northernmost part of the subcontinent, but that does not explain the spread of the language itself, which was a cultural phenomenon rather than a biological one. The irony is that we have more genetic evidence of Proto-Semitic's origins in Africa which is far older than for Indo-Aryan.
quote:Yes. Beliefs, religion, customs, values are ideas that can spread without migration/inter mixing between different groups. However there is no smoke without fire, I find hard to believe that for example in the case of india where you find so much european influence. You see it in the genes of Top Bollywood actors many of whom have european admixture (Katirn kaif, Nargis Fakhri, Karish/kareena Kapoor/ Arjun Rampal/Ayesha Takia/ Dia Mirza etc....) Aishwarya rai clearly has some european european and mongloid ancestry likely of ancient origin. On top bollywood actors when they marry out are know to marry europeans. Older time actor Shasho Kapoor married Jennifer Kendal who was european. Priety Zinta married a european guy. Priyank Chopra has been romantically linked to one or two european actors. Then a lot of bollywood music videos have european dancers. Even some of there top Bollywood songs have one or two lines/the odd word sung in the english language. Then you have the European sonia Ghandi in the indian political elite. List goes on......I mean you there is a line between propogation/transfer of beliefs, ideas,customs and culture which occur without migration or biological propogation and those that got established in a region/people due to emigration of intermixing of another group into there gene pool. In the case of India the european influence/ideas, customs and culture we find in India is a bit too much for it not to be the result of some degree of intermixing occurring between the two groups. Contrary to what people like to say looking at indian culture. The Indians and Europeans appear quite comfortable with each other. This is what makes the whole indo european question (language and genes) so difficult to understand because indo european speaking tribes ( northern european types) have indeed historically migrated to india. With regards to your point. You are right it can work either way but there is a line, a degree to which one culture can influence another without emigration or intermixing occurring between both groups. Your example above how Vedic Sanskrit resembles the most Old Lithuanian yet in terms of names and aspects of deities the language shows stronger relation to celtic speaking people shows how culture and genes are not always correlated. That a group may indeed share similar similar customers, beliefs to another group and believe they must therefore be related only to find that on another level they completely differ. Not just yours but many examples show how culture and genetics are not always correlated. You have two different groups who share a certain cultural feature but something is always missing in one group that breaks the idea of any genetic relation between the two.
Well from what I've heard from my Indian friends, other than the Euro-mixed families most of the fair-skinned families of Bollywood descend from northernmost areas like Punjab, Kashmir, and even as far away as Iran and Afghanistan. Fair-skin even in the Punjab is the result of more recent history since we even have evidence from ancient Persian writings describing the inhabitants of the Punjab as very dark in color. And even ancient Greek descriptions compare Indus peoples' complexion to the Egyptians. So again, the occurrenc of fair skin may very well be due to immigration from Central Asia during the Medieval Period. Yet I find it funny how Bollywood even in its ancient historical portrayals still use fair-skinned actors to portray peoples as ancient as the Harappan Civilization!
quote:Yes Kalash speak indo european but are said to have no european admixture. When two groups share something a strong cultural feature, something as strong as a shared language and neither groups genes shows any influence/intermixture from the other then is is obvious there is a third hand at play. This is why it is important to know the genetic impact europeans (authentic european admixture) have made in south asia in order to resolve, come to a better understanding of the indo european question. However determining a group/people's ancestry is not an easy task especially in a region like south asia which has historically seen many migrations in to the land.
LOL Who said they have no European admixture?? Last time I checked many sources especially from the Greeks try to claim the Kalash as relatives via Alexander the Great's men due to DNA findings. Suffice to say this genetic tie to European pre-dates ancient Greece.
quote: Archeaology should show if a culture or particular region was homogeneous/heterogeneous. Obviously a group that belonged to the same race would likely express a homogeneous/similar culture. That is a shared language, customs,religious beliefs,view of the world/life. If archaeology shows homogeneity in this region then it likely means these people were genetically same/similar/close. However like the Indo european language how do you determine where something began or the homeland of something? They say human race comes from/began in Africa because oldest bones have been found in Africa. Africans have the most ethnic diversity from all groups. How do you connect a language to a geographic region? If the earliest indo aryan speakers were indigenous to kashmir/swat vally then this region should hold a lot of vital information about these people. When you say the earliest indo aryan speakers then who are later indo aryans speakers you are speaking of? Is it the ''the spread of Neolithic culture from Southwest Asia, namely Iran'' you mean.
Before the spread of Neolithic culture i.e. sendentary farming, human groups were always nomadic spreading from area to area. Neolithic culture in India was indeed in part derived from Southwest Asia via Iran but after its dissemination in India there evolved localized subcultures including ones in Kashmir. But most archaeologists associate Indo-Aryan speakers with Painted-Grayware culture of the Iron Age in India.
[/qb][/QUOTE]I agree racially the term caucasian has no meaning. Like the term Mediterranean it is used to lump people a large group or people who broadly share the similar traits together. This was my point that what/who is central asian when that region has historically been settled by many different groups. So when you said ''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.''Although it does appear most central asian influence in india is of a later date but we do not know the totality of who/what groups existed back then.There were many migrations back n forth from out of/into that region. There probably are groups whose existence we know nothing of today that have gone extinct that we know nothing about.[/qb][/quote] Precisely my point. The Indian historian Romila Thapar puts it very succinctly in this part of an interview here.
quote:The reason the indo european question is so popular especially amongst europeans with whom there is almost like a religious following over it is because europeans a like everyone else are seeking to understand the history of there people. Even if we take away the language (indo european) connection between south asia and european we are still left with genetic aspect. That is the genetic impact europeans have made in South Asia. Europeans are aware they have historically been migrating to india. The degree of european influence you find in India compared to other regions is a testimony to this.
Yes but modern Europeans are not the same as the Vedic Aryans, proto-Indo-Aryans, or even proto-Indo-Euroepans.
quote:Not heard of the ''Black Huns'' from india. Any information on this group.
Actually it is not known exactly where the 'black Huns' are from. Of the three main groups called 'Huns', the black Huns were the most remote in historical records. The original Huns who invaded Europe were described as having tanned complexions compared to Europeans, the later 'white Huns' or Hepthalites had pale complexions similar to Europeans and from among them arose the Kushana who conquered Afghanistan and the Punjab. These white Huns were obviously Iranic speakers. But the black Huns who were likely smaller in number and made no great conquests were known from only as a nomadic group similar to the other two Hun groups except very dark or 'black' in complexion. It is deduced that they come from India as Indians are the only black people within the vicinity of Cenral Asia who could take up horse nomadic culture unless you go the Afronut route of Clyde Winters and suggest they were Africans. LOL
quote:This is all interesting stuff but time consuming to learn about. When wanting to find the right answer you have to go so far n deep into things that you naturally end up getting lost or going round and round in circles that you forget what it is you wanted to know in the first place. I find this becomes exhausting but I guess if you want to know the truth. There is no easy way to get to the bottom of things.
It takes a lot of time and research.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Well from what I've heard from my Indian friends, other than the Euro-mixed families most of the fair-skinned families of Bollywood descend from northernmost areas like Punjab, Kashmir, and even as far away as Iran and Afghanistan. Fair-skin even in the Punjab is the result of more recent history since we even have evidence from ancient Persian writings describing the inhabitants of the Punjab as very dark in color. And even ancient Greek descriptions compare Indus peoples' complexion to the Egyptians. So again, the occurrenc of fair skin may very well be due to immigration from Central Asia during the Medieval Period. Yet I find it funny how Bollywood even in its ancient historical portrayals still use fair-skinned actors to portray peoples as ancient as the Harappan Civilization! ''
OK. My point was simply that although yes ideas, culture, customs beliefs etc... can be transferred from one group to another without the two group intermixing. There is still a limit to the degree of influence one group can impart on another without any inter mixing. I used india as an example to show that the degree of european influence there is in india to the point where there political elite has a full european (Sonia Ghandi) is indicative of a stronger closer relationship where some intermixing between the two must have occurred. Bollywood using fair skinned actors to portray darker skinned people could be more a business decision. Directors may feel giving the role to actors who have a large scale appeal amongst the audience may increase the chance of the film doing well at the box office. Whereas other actors may better phenotypically portray what the ancients looked like but due to there lack of large scale recognition amongst the audience this may work against them getting the role.Bollywood is just as much a fantasy as the image it portrays.
''LOL Who said they have no European admixture?? Last time I checked many sources especially from the Greeks try to claim the Kalash as relatives via Alexander the Great's men due to DNA findings. Suffice to say this genetic tie to European pre-dates ancient Greece.'' The genetic findings so far show Kalash to have no European admixture. Claims of the Kalash and even Kashmiris being descendents of Alexander the Great's army have so far been dismissed by genetic findings. It is very unlikely kalash have european admixture. There is nothing culturally even in present day times to connect them to europeans. They have lived pretty much in a isolated region for thousands of years. They are not known to have mixed much with even the local groups around them. If the Kalash had european admixture surely there would be some clues in there phenotype and culture that point to this. Phenotypically aside from there light phenotypes they look distinct from europeans. There face shapes do not look european or part european. There nasal features, general air of the face do not in my opinion show/exhibit european influence. We see no cultural european influence in there region. I mean europeans are not know to settle in there area or marry them.
Sure european tribes have historically settled far and wide and spread there genes far and wide too but still not every group on the planet carries there genes. The reason the indo european question is like a nagging thorn in india is because many european tribes are historically known to have migrated to india and because indo european speaking peoples include european ethnic types. The european agenda amongst some to associate the indo european language in south asia with the emigration these indo european speaking people into south asia has created a lot of confusion because we have to understand even if we agree there is no correlation between the spread of indo european language and genes in South Asia we are still left with finding out the degree to which the indo european (authentic european genes) mixed with the population of South Asia when they emigrated to this region in ancient times. The indo europeans were northern european types. They were basically white people. They would have been recognised/considered white/european today.The degree of the genetic impact europeans (authentic european admixture) have made in South Asia is what we are not sure of. It has nothing to do with the Indo European language per se.
The Kalash do now show this Northern european component that I mentioned before that DNA tests have shown many in particular North Indians to show. However as I stated earlier too I do not believe this Northern European component is authentic european admixture in all Indian/South Asians. We really know nothing about these genes they are linking to europeans. Are they an exact or just a similar match to genes found in Europe? Are the genes of this northern european component that south asians are said to show exactly the same amongst all south asians?. In other words is it the one same gene we are talking about or is/does this gene associated with northern europeans vary/differ in the type of gene it is amongst south asians? Also humans share a lot of genes. Is it not possible that in some cases it could just a be the same gene popping up both populations without any derived ancestry from the other. This northern european component has popped up in a lot of south asian groups supposedly the indo european speaking groups. Do people honestly believe that all these individuals from these groups have european admixture? If they do that means europeans no doubt have made a big genetic impact in south asia. Remember just because many european tribes have migrated to india/south asia this does not automatically mean/guarantee that overall they made a huge genetic impact. Look at modern times. Despite large scale foreign emigration to Europe still many foreigners refuse to assimilate. Therefore large scale movement of one group into the area of another alone does not automatically mean a huge genetic impact will be/has been made.
You can pick up a lot on who a group/people have likely historically mixed with by looking at there culture and the ethnic groups they tend to marry with when it comes to mixing with other foreign groups.
''Yes but modern Europeans are not the same as the Vedic Aryans, proto-Indo-Aryans, or even proto-Indo-Euroepans.'' Modern europeans will not be so different ethnically/phenotypically from ancient europeans. People who belong to the same race will look like they belong to the same race now and in ancient times. That is what makes them a race. Whoever modern day europeans were in ancient times is who they are now. Obviously europeans have historically mixed with various different tribes but these tribes were genetically similar/related people. That is why people look at indians as a mixed race but not europeans because historically indians are known to have mixed with ethnically distinct elements but europeans are not. At least in there own land (Europe). That is why India's racial history is much more complex than that of Europe's. There is/has historically been more ethnic diversity in India than Europe.
''The original Huns who invaded Europe were described as having tanned complexions compared to Europeans, the later 'white Huns' or Hepthalites had pale complexions similar to Europeans and from among them arose the Kushana who conquered Afghanistan and the Punjab. '' The Huns are another confusing lot. I have seen coins of the hepthalites. Even if they had light features they do not look european to me. They have more of a west asian look. The kashmiris might be mixed with the Kushana. If the Kushana arose out of the Hepthalite who are said to have settled Northern India as some people claim that kashmiris mixed with hepthalites. Kashmir and Kushana have the 'Kush'' that Clyde mentioned ealier. There might be a connection. I take it your mean the hepthalite and Kushana were two seperate groups of people ethnically/genetically related or the exact same group who later split in to two separate groups?
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: OK. My point was simply that although yes ideas, culture, customs beliefs etc... can be transferred from one group to another without the two group intermixing. There is still a limit to the degree of influence one group can impart on another without any inter mixing. I used india as an example to show that the degree of european influence there is in india to the point where there political elite has a full european (Sonia Ghandi) is indicative of a stronger closer relationship where some intermixing between the two must have occurred. Bollywood using fair skinned actors to portray darker skinned people could be more a business decision. Directors may feel giving the role to actors who have a large scale appeal amongst the audience may increase the chance of the film doing well at the box office. Whereas other actors may better phenotypically portray what the ancients looked like but due to there lack of large scale recognition amongst the audience this may work against them getting the role. Bollywood is just as much a fantasy as the image it portrays.
The degree of influence a select few may have on the majority depends on the medium or media of influence i.e. propaganda. When a small minority imposes its will or influence on a majority it is known as superstratification. In ancient times, superstratification may be accomplished through things like technology, religion, etc. In more modern times superstratification is easier with more advanced forms of media such as movies and television. Things like "appeal" in cinemas and movies depend on the culture. In normal circumstances a people would not be appealed by actors who don't look like them unless they've been condition to.
quote:The genetic findings so far show Kalash to have no European admixture. Claims of the Kalash and even Kashmiris being descendents of Alexander the Great's army have so far been dismissed by genetic findings. It is very unlikely kalash have european admixture. There is nothing culturally even in present day times to connect them to europeans. They have lived pretty much in a isolated region for thousands of years. They are not known to have mixed much with even the local groups around them. If the Kalash had european admixture surely there would be some clues in there phenotype and culture that point to this. Phenotypically aside from there light phenotypes they look distinct from europeans. There face shapes do not look european or part european. There nasal features, general air of the face do not in my opinion show/exhibit european influence. We see no cultural european influence in there region. I mean europeans are not known to settle in their area or marry them.
Of course the Kalash or any group in Chitral and Kashmir have NO Macedonian or Greek ancestry whatsoever. The funny thing is people point to features like blonde hair and light colored eyes despite the fact that most Greeks and Macedonians have dark hair and eyes. You say there is nothing culturally to connect them to Europeans but that is not true. Read the below article.
Finally, in terms of genetic data to say the Kalash have no European ancestry depends on what you consider "European". According to your first source: The comparison of the DNA of Kalash people with the DNA of ancient hunter-gatherers and European farmers showed that the Kalash people have greater genetic affinity with paleolithic hunter-gatherers in Siberia and it is likely that they are an ancient tribe of northern Eurasia.
This ancestral component spoken of is known as ‘Ancient Northern Eurasian’ or ANE which is actually a significant component in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe and is now associated in large part to the spread of Indo-European languages. Take a look at the sources below.
posted
''You say there is nothing culturally to connect them to Europeans but that is not true. Read the below article.'' when I said that I was talking about what I said earlier ''My point was simply that although yes ideas, culture, customs beliefs etc... can be transferred from one group to another without the two group intermixing. There is still a limit to the degree of influence one group can impart on another without any inter mixing. I used india as an example to show that the degree of european influence there is in india to the point where there political elite has a full european (Sonia Ghandi) is indicative of a stronger closer relationship where some intermixing between the two must have occurred. '' My point was Kalash are an example of people where even if european cultral transference has occurred genetic transference of european genes in to there gene pool has not. Therefore even if kalash share/show similarity to some aspects of european culture or a cultural connection could be made with europeans any such influence must have been limited because there is no evidence they have mixed with europeans even in present times. I stated in my previous comment ''europeans are not know to settle in there area or marry them''. Genes/Blood bind you to the race your genes/blood belong to forever. You can't wash your genes away. You can not wash away a genetic bond. You are bound to it forever.If there was a genetic connection/bond between the people of this region and europeans it no doubt would have manifested in some way today by the presence of europeans in there region even in small numbers but it does not.
''You also say they don't look European or have no European looking physical traits but I disagree.'' I know what Kalash and what europeans look like. You have linked me a bunch of pictures of the kalash but gave no explanation on what phenotypic traits of there's makes you believe them to look the same/similar to europeans. I can easily tell the difference between the two. The kalash do not look european to me. They are clearly distinct from them (vice versa). You may not be able to see that distinction but just because you or someone else can not tell the difference between two things that in itself does not mean no difference exists or that someone else may not be able to perceive that difference. An important point you have to remember is you can not get an accurate picture of an individual/group's appearance on the basis of images/photo's because there are certain phenotypic traits such as real life skin/hair texture that images/photo's can not capture. Lighting/camera flash dilutes the skin colour and the skin texture. The most accurate way to judge two/different groups is to see them side by side, face to face in real life. I did state''aside from light phenotypes'' but it is on the basis of light phenotypes that a lot of people associate them with europeans and not on there more important phenotypic traits such as nasal features, face shapes etc.... Where are all the european mixes (those with significant european admixture) all around the world (hispanics, latonis, anglo indians, black n white mullatos etc.......) with light hair, skin and eye colour like the kalash? From the european-non european mixes I have see most do not tend to display light phenotypes in all three degrees (hair, skin, eyes). Most europeans too do not have blonde hair whereas kalash display a relative high percentage of blonde hair relative to the numbers that make up there group.
The reality is Kalash look very different from europeans in many aspects of there phenotypes. I gave you two very important ones to show how they phenotypically differ from europeans ''There face shapes do not look european or part european. There nasal features, general air of the face do not in my opinion show/exhibit european influence.'' I have seen many photos of kalash. There faces shapes are nothing like europeans. Neither are there nasal features. The same I feel about the ethnic kashmiris (those who have no known or visible/obvious admixture). There face shapes and nasal features too are nothing like europeans. However I only need one feature to distinguish kalash/kashmiris from europeans. Although there are many more from which I can tell the two apart . That feature is skin texture (not skin colour). This is why I said images are not the best way to judge. This might sound offensive but it is supported by a lot of evidence. You can do a quick google search and you will find that many non-whites can clearly tell europeans apart on the basis of there skin texture. That is european skin texture is very different from south asian (non-white) skin texture. Europeans have a animalistic /mutated pig skinned skin texture. That is very obviously different from non white skin texture. In candid photos taken in very natural light you can sometimes see what european skin looks like in real life compared to in there photos of them. People who have never seen europeans in real life will not know but those who have are easily able to tell the difference between the european animalistic mutated pig skin and non white skin. On the basis of this feature alone if I was to see a group of kalash and europeans in real life I would be able to clearly tell they belong to two distinct seperate groups. You might want/wish the kalash even ethnic kashmiris to have european admixture but the reality is it is very unlikely for both groups. If anything it is obvious neither groups do. You might just simply find it harder to tell caucasion groups apart than others. You would have to have a very detailed understanding of biological ethnic group differences which most people do not have. It is therefore no surprise to see many people connect two groups together (due to there lack of knowledge about ethnic differences) who can otherwise clearly be told apart.
The european influence in this burusho girl is obvious. This is a pretty candid photo in natural light. You can see her real skin texture clearly. I can tell on the basis of just her skin texture she is a european mix. She has a semi pinkish mutated animalistic skin texture similar to europeans no doubt from her european ancestry. She also has clear european blandness to her face. Her nasal features and her face shape exhibit european influence too. It is obvious she clearly has european admixture. I have read the burusho are ancient european/south asian mixes. https://camarilloacupuncture.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/noor.jpg
Here is another example of two burusho girls. There skin texture too looks so obviously european. Even the little darker skin colour of the one of the girls does nothing to take away the obvious european influence on her skin texture.
Sorry but it is very likely kalash, even ethnic kashmiris have european admixture. If it is determined ethnic kashmiris have no european admixture. This would make kashmiris unique compared to a lot of mainland indians in terms of lacking a lot of the major lineages present in that region (australoid, negrito, mongloid, european). This is not to say you would not find these lineages in kashmir. You would but in a small percentage. As I stated there is no doubt european admixture in kashmir because there is european presence in the region in present times. Kashmiris are know to marry europeans and no douht have historically married them too.However I personally see nothing in the culture/phenotypes of kashmiris that suggests they have mixed with europeans on a large/larger scale but only that some percentage of the population has european admixture. The three main ways European genes could have got into the kashmiri gene pool is via kashmiris directly mixing with europeans, via indians/pakistanis who are carriers of european genes (european hybrids in other words) who have mixed with ethnic kashirmiris. For the first there would have to have been direct large scale mixing between europeans and kashmiris. I see nothing apart from speculation to support this. The Northern european component (the so called indo european genes) that north indians are said to have including kashmiris is around 10-15% on average. 10-15% is not a minute/insignificant amount. It is somewhat significant and most certainly would express in phenotype to the point of being able to somewhat easily see this influence. Imagine a european with 10-15% mongloid or african admixture. The only difference is mongloid/african admixture in a caucssion is easier for many to detect than caucasion/caucasion admixture. In the case of european cultural influence in kashmir in there political elite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farooq_Abdullah). Mongrel european mixed leaders in there political elite are no surprise considering kashmir is under domination of india which itself has historically seen a lot of european influence and till present times continue to exhibit a lot of european influence (Sonia Ghandi). Since kashmiris are under indian control/domination it is only natural you would find similar cultural influence in there region. That would explain a lot about the mongrel leaders of kashmir. Kashmir is also said to have been historically an independent region for just over half of it's history. http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/kashmir-as-a-separate-country/251636.html Do you honestly believe that in times kashmiris ruled over themselves, in times they were independent as a region they would have had mongrel european mixed political leaders like Omar/Farooq abdullah or that they were marrying europeans to the extent they do today?
''Finally, in terms of genetic data to say the Kalash have no European ancestry depends on what you consider "European" Yes it does. This is exactly what am saying. This is why if you have ready my argument properly you will notice I keep emphasising/pointint out ''authentic european admixture''. That is not admixture that is perceived to be european but actual european admixture.European genes are european genes. Non european genes can not be european genes (vice versa) in terms of genetic fact/reality but they can be european genes (vice versa) in terms of perception. Am not talking about perceptions. Am talking about reality. Genetic reality/fact. So when I say kalash and even likely kashmiris have no european asmixture am talking about genetic facts not genetic perception. If they had european admixture in the case of kashmiris at the rate 10-15% that is the northern european component attributed to them this would no doubt clearly exhibit in there phenptypes. What am saying is I see no such influence. That is why am questioning if the 10-15% northern european component present in north indians is ALL true authentic european admixture because as you have pointed out there is what is percieved to be ''european'' and what is ''european''.
By now you should know if you have understood my argument regards the kalash/kashmiris properly that I base my opinion of them having no european admixture mainly on the basis of there appearance/phenotypes along with a lack of a direct cultural connection to europeans and not on DNA test results. DNA tests likely can determine ancestry but genetics is very very complicated and people are subject to interpret the same genes differently and assign there origin to different groups. In other words DNA test results can be manipulated by interpretation. Phenotypes can not be manipulated (except by plastic surgery which is obviously only applicable in a small amount/number and even then continuous generations would have to have plastic surgery to keep the look up) hence are far more reliable.
It not a case of me finding it difficult to see european influence. I have seen what appeared to me as european influence in many people whom I later have found out actually do have european ancestry. Many well know indians (Arjun Rampal/Arun Nayor,Aishwarya rai, Aditi Govitrikar) show clear european influence. The burusho girls mentioned earlier are another example where I can see obvious european influence. You can disagree all you like but it is more than obvious these people have european ancestry/admixture. From skin texture, face shapes, the european like blandness of there face, there intermediate hair texture which is intermediate looking to south asians and europeans. Hair that is neither too thin and fine but neither thick-very thick like south asians etc....a variety of traits those who appear to show european influence share with many european mixes none of which I see in Kalash/Kashmiris.
If I did not know Katrina Kaif was half european. I still would not have believed she was fully ethnic kashmiri. I can see genetic influence in her that looks clearly european to me. This same influence I see in many european mongrels. Again this is in her very candid photos/images of which is hard to get hold of but there are some around. Again her skin texture looks clearly intermediate between european and south asian. In her candid photos you can see her skin texture more clearly. She has blandness oin her face reminiscent of euroopeans. Her thinner lips, hair texture again that looks intermediate between south asian and european hair texture. European hair texture is thin and fine. South asian tends to be a little thicker/coarser compared to europeans. In her case though her nose and face shape is more south asian. The point being to be able to spot european admixture requires only being able to connect a group/individual on the basis of at least just one feature that is unique to europeans and no other group to be sure that they have european admixture. European skin and hair texture is very different from south asian. The problem arises if/where phenotypes overlap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZuP8njscmo
''The comparison of the DNA of Kalash people with the DNA of ancient hunter-gatherers and European farmers showed that the Kalash people have greater genetic affinity with paleolithic hunter-gatherers in Siberia and it is likely that they are an ancient tribe of northern Eurasia.
This ancestral component spoken of is known as ‘Ancient Northern Eurasian’ or ANE which is actually a significant component in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe and is now associated in large part to the spread of Indo-European languages. Take a look at the sources below.'' I was going to mention this because I take it you are referring to the same thing I mean. I did read that kalash have had a significant contribution (30-35%) from a northern european like population at some point back in there ancestry. However as I said as far as what present genetic findings state on them this component has not been attributed as european in origin just european-like. There is a difference between genetic affinity/similarity and authentic admixture. Phenotype can overlap in humans so you have ethnically different groups who may exhibit the same phenptype yet not have inter-mixed with each other. Then it is entirely possible genes can overlap too. Where you have two ethnically distinct groups sharing similar/same genes without this being a result of inter-mixture. Do you honestly believe if Kalash had 30-35% european admixture, a significant percentage that this influence would not be very obvious in there phenotypes to the point there would express phenotypes that are characteristic of european mixes? Historcally there have been many examples of these mixes and to this day are and they all share certain similar phenptypic traits that tie them back to europeans. It is more likely this affinity is admixture from a population that was genetically similar to europeans. That is non-european. The same with kashmiris. I feel this 10-15% northern european component attributed to them is not authentic european admixture but likely from a genetically european-like group. As I stated before many migrations in to south asia occurred back then likely too from groups we do not know of today. There very likely were european-like groups too who migrated to the South Asia region. Therefore to go back to what you said earlier '' in terms of genetic data to say the Kalash have no European ancestry depends on what you consider "European" . No it does not. It does not depend on what you consider european. That is not what am talking about as I keep re-iterating. Am talking about ''authentic european admixture. This admixture is not based on perception but on genetic facts/reality. The difference between perception and genetic reality. Given the lack of european influence in the phenotypes of kalash/kashmiris. No evidence of large scale mixing with europeans in there region in recent times like for example in the way the colonial british mixed with the indians when they colonised the region. It is more likely this northern european like admixture attributed to kashmiris and kalash is likely from a european like group as opposed to authentic european admixture. It is likely only labelled european or european-like today because europeans are the closest people who exhibit likely genetic similarity to the genes or it is possible other groups do exhibit genetic similarity to these genes too but for the sake of argument they have been labelled european. You have to remember even those who conduct DNA test studies make it clear genes are only attributed to the population/group that shows the highest frequency of that gene. That is no way necessarily means that group is the origin of that gene. DNA studies are hardly accurate means to assign ancestry even as stated by those who conduct these tests. Now I can not state what I have said is the last word on this matter because until we know more about the specific regions of south asia/india the indo europeans settled, the numbers that migrated, what degree of genetic impact they made etc....we are limited on information to base our case off. This northern european like admixture in kashmiris is speculated to be indo european genes/admixture. That is admixiture from indo european speaking tribes/people that migrated to south asia. It has not been established without a trace of doubt that it is indo-european admixture (european). It is just speculation.
Sorry if it dissappoints you but Kalash and Kashmiris very unlikely have european admixture. They are both groups who have lived in geographically isolated regions for many thousands of years. The kalash have not seen much gene flow into there region for a long time. Kashmiris have historically mixed with europeans however gene flow into Kashmir too has been controlled. It if had not been ethnic kashmiris would not have retained there look today. They would look more like typical indians. When a small group (kashmiris) absorbs a large group (indians) this alters the phenotype significantly.
I do not state this as the last word on the matter because it is still fairly early days as far as genetics goes but given the significant percentage 10-35% european/european-like admixture that is attributed to these groups. This is not a minute amount. It is somewhat significant to significant. There is no way admixture of any type if it has not been diluted out to remain ancestral to a group would not exhibit in the phenptypes of any group said to have such admixture. If the Kalash/Kashmiris do have European admixture then 10% at a minimum is more than enough for it to exhibit in there phenotypes. It is there phenptypes that need to be studied more carefully because the clues evidence has to be there.
I have seen in many european mixes. Some of whom I have known were european mixes. Others whom I did not know were mixed with european genes. However with many of the one's I did not know were mixed with european genes I still felt they exhibited some european type influence in there looks only to later find out that they did indeed have european admixture/ancestry. Case in point is Arjun Rampal above.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Here is another example of two burusho girls. There skin texture too looks so obviously european. Even the little darker skin colour of one of the girls does nothing to take away the obvious european influence on her skin texture. https://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/hunzagirls_.jpg?w=460&h=345Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Kalash women and girls from the Hunza Valley, come from Pakistan--not India. They are probably of European origin, namely descendants of the Greeks, and later Saka tribes.
The existence of European types in this area can be explained by history.
Here I discuss in detail the history of Greeks in Pakistan
posted
@dejhuti where is that second highlighted quote from? As I have no problem with the message but it sounds like a lie is being created, whites suggests the movement was from Africa to the Levant and then to Europe if the these white tribes in Asian have a closer connection to Siberian and Eastern Europe who do southern and Western European have genetic connection to? Because if north Africa is eliminated then only place to make sense of movement would be the Americas.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
The Kalash Genetic Isolate: Ancient Divergence, Drift, and Selection
Qasim Ayub,1,7,∗ Massimo Mezzavilla,1,2,7 Luca Pagani,1,3 Marc Haber,1 Aisha Mohyuddin,4 Shagufta Khaliq,5 Syed Qasim Mehdi,6 and Chris Tyler-Smith1
Abstract The Kalash represent an enigmatic isolated population of Indo-European speakers who have been living for centuries in the Hindu Kush mountain ranges of present-day Pakistan. Previous Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers provided no support for their claimed Greek descent following Alexander III of Macedon's invasion of this region, and analysis of autosomal loci provided evidence of a strong genetic bottleneck. To understand their origins and demography further, we genotyped 23 unrelated Kalash samples on the Illumina HumanOmni2.5M-8 BeadChip and sequenced one male individual at high coverage on an Illumina HiSeq 2000. Comparison with published data from ancient hunter-gatherers and European farmers showed that the Kalash share genetic drift with the Paleolithic Siberian hunter-gatherers and might represent an extremely drifted ancient northern Eurasian population that also contributed to European and Near Eastern ancestry. Since the split from other South Asian populations, the Kalash have maintained a low long-term effective population size (2,319–2,603) and experienced no detectable gene flow from their geographic neighbors in Pakistan or from other extant Eurasian populations. The mean time of divergence between the Kalash and other populations currently residing in this region was estimated to be 11,800 (95% confidence interval = 10,600−12,600) years ago, and thus they represent present-day descendants of some of the earliest migrants into the Indian sub-continent from West Asia.
Whereas the Kalash have recently been reported to have European admixture, postulated to be related to Alexander’s invasion of South Asia,6 our results show no evidence of admixture. Although several oral traditions claim that the Kalash are descendants of Alexander’s soldiers, this was not supported by Y chromosomal analysis in which the Kalash had a high proportion of Y haplogroup L3a lineages, which are characterized by having the derived allele for the PK3 Y-SNP and are not found elsewhere.7 They also have predominantly western Eurasian mitochondrial lineages and no genetic affiliation with East Asians.
We observed that the Kalash share a substantial proportion of drift with a Paleolithic ancient Siberian hunter-gatherer, who has been suggested to represent a third northern Eurasian genetic ancestry component for present-day Europeans.36,37 This is also supported by the shared drift observed between the Kalash and the Yamnaya, an ancient (2,000–1,800 BCE) Neolithic pastoralist culture that lived in the lower Volga and Don steppe lands of Russia and also shared ancestry with MA-1.36,37 Thus, the Kalash could be considered a genetically drifted ancient northern Eurasian population, and this shared ancient component was probably misattributed to recent admixture with western Europeans.
The genetically isolated Kalash might be seen as descendants of the earliest migrants that took a route into Afghanistan and Pakistan and are most likely present-day genetically drifted representatives of these ancient northern Eurasians. A larger survey that includes populations from their ancestral homeland in Nuristan, Afghanistan, would provide more insights into their unique genetic structure and origins and help explain the complex history of the peopling of South Asia.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Sorry but it is very unlikely kalash, even ethnic kashmiris have european admixture.(above)
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Kalash women and girls from the Hunza Valley, come from Pakistan--not India. They are probably of European origin, namely descendants of the Greeks, and later Saka tribes.
The existence of European types in this area can be explained by history.
Here I discuss in detail the history of Greeks in Pakistan
The burusho I read are european-south asian mixes. Phenotypically I can see traits in them that look european derived. It would not surprised me if burusho had Saka descent. The saka are associated with europeans.
Kalash I doubt have european origin.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
''The Kalash Genetic Isolate: Ancient Divergence, Drift, and Selection[/b][b]the Kalash share genetic drift with the Paleolithic Siberian hunter-gatherers and might represent an extremely drifted ancient northern Eurasian population that also contributed to European and Near Eastern ancestry''
This then would mean shared ancestry. It does not mean these genes are european just because europeans have this ancestry. They could be authentic near eastern genes. Genes of non-european origin which european just happen to have ancestral to them.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
''The Kalash Genetic Isolate: Ancient Divergence, Drift, and Selection[/b][b]the Kalash share genetic drift with the Paleolithic Siberian hunter-gatherers and might represent an extremely drifted ancient northern Eurasian population that also contributed to European and Near Eastern ancestry''
This then would mean shared ancestry. It does not mean these genes are european just because europeans have this ancestry. They could be authentic near eastern genes. Genes of non-european origin which european just happen to have ancestral to them.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
The Kalash Genetic Isolate: Ancient Divergence, Drift, and Selection We observed that the Kalash share a substantial proportion of drift with a Paleolithic ancient Siberian hunter-gatherer, who has been suggested to represent a third northern Eurasian genetic ancestry component for present-day Europeans.36,37 This is also supported by the shared drift observed between the Kalash and the Yamnaya, an ancient (2,000–1,800 BCE) Neolithic pastoralist culture that lived in the lower Volga and Don steppe lands of Russia and also shared ancestry with MA-1.36,37 Thus, the Kalash could be considered a genetically drifted ancient northern Eurasian population, and this shared ancient component was *probably misattributed to recent admixture with western Europeans*.
My point exactly! This ancestral component is the Indo-European component shared by Europeans. This was likely the component initially mistaken for "Greek" or Macedonian ancestry even though this component in the Balkans is not as high as it is in northeastern Europe which interestingly also correlates with blonde hair and light eyes as which I cited from this wiki piece here: The genetic variations for lactase persistence and greater height came with the Yamna people. The derived allele of the KITLG gene (SNP rs12821256) that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans is found in populations with Eastern but not Western Hunter Gatherer ancestry, suggesting that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population and may have been spread in Europe by individuals with Steppe ancestry. Consistent with this, the earliest known individual with the derived allele is a ANE individual from the Late Upper Paleolithic Afontova Gora archaeological complex.
Doing a cursory wiki search on Kalash genetics we find this: Genetic analysis of Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) by Firasat et al. (2007) on Kalash individuals found high and diverse frequencies of these Y-DNA Haplogroups: L3a (22.7%), H1* (20.5%), R1a (18.2%), G (18.2%), J2 (9.1%), R* (6.8%), R1* (2.3%), and L* (2.3%).
Genetic analysis of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) by Quintana-Murci et al. (2004) stated that "the western Eurasian presence in the Kalash population reaches a frequency of 100%" with the most prevalent mtDNA Haplogroups being U4 (34%), R0 (23%), U2e (16%), and J2 (9%). The study asserted that no East or South Asian lineages were detected and that the Kalash population is composed of western Eurasian lineages (as the associated lineages are rare or absent in the surrounding populations). The authors concluded that a western Eurasian origin for the Kalash is likely, in view of their maternal lineages.
The clades I emboldened are ones shared by Europeans, especially Eastern Europeans-- R1a paternally and U4 maternally, though note that altogether the majority of clades on both parental lines are common to South and Southwest Asia. Which is why in the same wiki piece it cites previous studies in Kalash autosomally having the most affinities to Central and South Asians than Europeans.
Again, I recommend everyone interested in the issue to read the 2015 Haak & Lazaridis et ales. paper Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe to get a better idea of this ancestry associated with the Yamnaya Culture of ancient Russia. The Yamanaya possessed ancestry that was a combination of ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) and another component originating from the Caucasus.
But getting back specifically to the Kalash, here is another study from last year by Rotimi et al. which holds great relevance to the issue of Northeast African genetics:
Ancient Human Migration after Out-of-Africa Four f3 statistics supported Kalash ancestry as significantly admixed (Supplementary Table S2). Using the f4 statistics (Southern European, Khoisan; Kalash, Indian) and (Southern European, Khoisan; Northern European, Indian), we estimated a median mixture proportion of 0.490 (IQR 1.604), indicating that Kalash ancestry is a mixture of 49.0% Northern European and 51.0% Indian ancestries. Similarly, we estimated mixtures of 37.1% Arabian and 62.9% Indian ancestries or 49.4% Levantine-Caucasian and 50.6% Indian ancestries. It is possible that Arabian, Levantine-Caucasian, Northern European, and Southern European ancestries are proxies for one ancestry. However, the distribution of Y DNA haplogroups in the Kalash people consists of 20.5% H and 25.0% L, common in India and South Asia, respectively, mixed with 18.2% G, 9.1% J, and 18.2% R1a, common in the Levant and the Caucasus, the Middle East, and Northern Europe, respectively10. Thus, our results based on autosomal data are consistent with Y DNA haplogroup data indicating multi-way admixture in the history of Kalash ancestry.Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Coolnight since your response was long I'll be brief as I can.
You say the Kalash don't look European, well as explained the Kalash are not European though they do share ancestry with some Europeans which is why overall they look no different from their close neighbors-- other Chitrali, the Burusho, even Pashtuns and some Kashmiris but you cannot deny that there is an Eastern European look to many of them even the ones with dark hair and eyes.
Actually if any anything, the Kalash look more Kurdish and Azeri than they do eastern European though that wouldn't be surprise considering they share even more ancestry with these Iranic people.
I notice you had nothing to say about the source I cited which show the Kalash religion and culture to bear a striking resemblance to pagan Slavic culture with the Kalash winter Chaumosh festival almost identical to the Slavic winter Bodzik festival. The attire of the Kalash women bearing a striking resemblance to Slavic women's black boho dresses with light colored embroidery, cylindrical kokoshnik headdresses, and beaded necklaces and jewelry. All of this cannot be explained by some pagan Slavic colonialism of Chitral, Pakistan.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To Coolnight since your response was long I'll be brief as I can.
''You say the Kalash don't look European, well as explained the Kalash are not European though they do share ancestry with some Europeans which is why overall they look no different from their close neighbors-- other Chitrali, the Burusho, even Pashtuns and some Kashmiris ''
Yes but my focus/attention is on authentic european admixture/genes. I said kalash have no european admixture/ancestry. Shared ancestry unless those shared genes are authentic european genes does not mean they have european ancestry/admixture. If these shared genes are not european genes then so what if they have shared ancestry? I never claimed they could not or otherwise. Even if kalash and europeans look similar due to this shared ancestry if it is not european ancestry/admixture which as I keep pointing out is what am focusing on (authentic european genes) then that still does not dismiss my point which was the kalash do not have european admixture/ancestry. In this case this shared ancestry would mean europeans have non-european ancestry/admixture. The kalash would not be the only group who share some ancestors with others. I would say the Kalash look more closer to Kashmiris/Pathans or some west asians types in appearance than they do to europeans. This is likely due to a closer stronger genetic tie to these groups than to europeans.
I have no problem with kalash looking european or with people who think they do. My position is simple. That for me, in my opinion they do not. I do not find it difficult to tell them apart from europeans in spite of there light features which is not enough to override there distinct differences in appearance to europeans. There face shapes, nasal features, hair structure, the look/air of there face are clearly distinct from europeans amongst many of there other features.
''but you cannot deny that there is an Eastern European look to many of them even the ones with dark hair and eyes.''
I think there light phenotypes give a pseudo european look. I have seen the darker phenotyped one's and for me they look distinctly different to even eastern eruopeans/europeans in general.Sure you may find some who share/look similar to some europeans/eastern europeans but as a general rule for me they do not. If I saw both groups in real life face to face I have no doubt in most cases I would be able to tell the two apart with little difficulty. This is what it boils down too. The judgement of the observer. It is the knowledge in the degree of ethnic differences the one who is looking at both groups has which determine his/her judgement. The less the observer knows about the ethnic biological differences between two different groups it is only natural/expected he/she will conclude the groups look similar. Humans have a tendency to lump everyone under one large category even if there may be significant differences between the people.
''Actually if any anything, the Kalash look more Kurdish and Azeri than they do eastern European though that wouldn't be surprise considering they share even more ancestry with these Iranic people.''
Yes I would agree they look close to some west asian types than they do to europeans.
''I notice you had nothing to say about the source I cited which show the Kalash religion and culture to bear a striking resemblance to pagan Slavic culture with the Kalash winter Chaumosh festival almost identical to the Slavic winter Bodzik festival. The attire of the Kalash women bearing a striking resemblance to Slavic women's black boho dresses with light colored embroidery, cylindrical kokoshnik headdresses, and beaded necklaces and jewelry. All of this cannot be explained by some pagan Slavic colonialism of Chitral, Pakistan.
''
I did respond to this when I stated that two ethnically different groups can share customs, beliefs, values (cultural transference) which one group may have genuinely derived from direct/indirect contact with the other. However that there are limits to cultural transference without gene transference. So what if there culture bears a resemblance to europeans. What is the point? Unless you are trying to hint at some type of ethnic connection. You can find similarities between cultures all over the world. No one group is independent from the influence of another. We are all inter-connected. We are all affected by each other and affect each other. But again you have to be very careful when assigning ancestry to people on the basis of using shared/similar culture. I have come across many europeans online who are into Indian language, music/dance and even clothing. Who like to imitate indian style. If I did not know these people were ethnic europeans and came across them in real life dressed in indian clothing, listening to indian music and speaking an indian language. I might against my better judgement even knowing otherwise from even there phenotypes still assume/conclude 'oh they must be indians''. As I said in my previous comment you can not wash away your genes by taking on another cultures dress, customs, beliefs, language, way of living etc... just in the same way you can take on another's genes by doing these same things. Race is not a perception. People have an inheraent awareness of the genes they possess. Genetic/biological differences are a genetic fact/reality. You can live in denial of your genes/race. You can live in a false perception of your racial/ethnic identity but you can not change, manipulate the genes you are born with. They are who you are by your very existence. Again I do not deny there may be shared cultural similarites between kalash and europeans. This cultural similarity likely goes back to there shared genes but again the point is these shared genes are not ethnically european which is what we are talking about. The genetic impact europeans (authentic european genes) have made in south asia. That is genes that are recognised as ethnically european by europeans themselves and by the world. That is genes that originate from groups who looked phenotypically european. Who would phenotypically fit in with europeans today. The scythians are one group. There skeletal remains showed they were a northern european looking people.These are authentic european genes. People in south asia with these genes would be classed as having european admixture/ancestry.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Brokpa tribe are quite interesting. They have a very distinct unique look about them. They look similar yet still quite distinct from Kalash/Kashmiris. Quite unusual looking features. Very tall (some of them), well built sharp featured people.
Again another claim for another south asian group of them being decendents of Alexander the Great's army.
The Kalash Genetic Isolate: Ancient Divergence, Drift, and Selection
Qasim Ayub,1,7,∗ Massimo Mezzavilla,1,2,7 Luca Pagani,1,3 Marc Haber,1 Aisha Mohyuddin,4 Shagufta Khaliq,5 Syed Qasim Mehdi,6 and Chris Tyler-Smith1
.
Whereas the Kalash have recently been reported to have European admixture, postulated to be related to Alexander’s invasion of South Asia,6 our results show no evidence of admixture. Although several oral traditions claim that the Kalash are descendants of Alexander’s soldiers, this was not supported by Y chromosomal analysis in which the Kalash had a high proportion of Y haplogroup L3a lineages, which are characterized by having the derived allele for the PK3 Y-SNP and are not found elsewhere.7 They also have predominantly western Eurasian mitochondrial lineages and no genetic affiliation with East Asians.
We observed that the Kalash share a substantial proportion of drift with a Paleolithic ancient Siberian hunter-gatherer, who has been suggested to represent a third northern Eurasian genetic ancestry component for present-day Europeans.36,37 This is also supported by the shared drift observed between the Kalash and the Yamnaya, an ancient (2,000–1,800 BCE) Neolithic pastoralist culture that lived in the lower Volga and Don steppe lands of Russia and also shared ancestry with MA-1.36,37 Thus, the Kalash could be considered a genetically drifted ancient northern Eurasian population, and this shared ancient component was probably misattributed to recent admixture with western Europeans.
.
,
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
But getting back specifically to the Kalash, here is another study from last year by Rotimi et al. which holds great relevance to the issue of Northeast African genetics:
Ancient Human Migration after Out-of-Africa Four f3 statistics supported Kalash ancestry as significantly admixed (Supplementary Table S2). Using the f4 statistics (Southern European, Khoisan; Kalash, Indian) and (Southern European, Khoisan; Northern European, Indian), we estimated a median mixture proportion of 0.490 (IQR 1.604), indicating that Kalash ancestry is a mixture of 49.0% Northern European and 51.0% Indian ancestries. Similarly, we estimated mixtures of 37.1% Arabian and 62.9% Indian ancestries or 49.4% Levantine-Caucasian and 50.6% Indian ancestries. It is possible that Arabian, Levantine-Caucasian, Northern European, and Southern European ancestries are proxies for one ancestry. However, the distribution of Y DNA haplogroups in the Kalash people consists of 20.5% H and 25.0% L, common in India and South Asia, respectively, mixed with 18.2% G, 9.1% J, and 18.2% R1a, common in the Levant and the Caucasus, the Middle East, and Northern Europe, respectively10. Thus, our results based on autosomal data are consistent with Y DNA haplogroup data indicating multi-way admixture in the history of Kalash ancestry.
Aren't these contradictory?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No it's not contradictory. The first study dispells the fable of 'Alexander's army' by showing that the Kalash have no ancestry from the Balkans i.e. Southeast Europeans while the second study shows they share ancestry with Northeast Europeans.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: The Brokpa tribe are quite interesting. They have a very distinct unique look about them. They look similar yet still quite distinct from Kalash/Kashmiris. Quite unusual looking features. Very tall (some of them), well built sharp featured people.
Again another claim for another south asian group of them being decendents of Alexander the Great's army.
Hard to find information on DNA test studies on these people.
The Brokpa are one tribe of a group of people called the Shina who live in the Ladakh area of eastern Kashmir/western Tibet. I remember from reading a book about Tibet years ago how the author points out certain customs and traditions the Shina practice which is strikingly similar to those of Iranian peoples like the Persians. For example during spring time the Shina celebrate their New Year similar to the Persian Nowruz complete with a ritual where 15 year old boys run around naked.
As far as their physical features or appearance is concerned, I think they are a mix sharing ancestry with Kashmiris in Baltistan to the west as well as Tibetans from the east. In dress styles for instance, the women wear headdresses similar to Tibetan women with Tibetan flowers but dresses and cowry shell jewelry similar to other Kashmiri women. So I won't be surprised if the genetic studies show this.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*just in the same way you can not take on another's genes by doing these same things (above)
Yeah they likely do share ancestry with kashmiris. There head dress reminds me of the Kalash but more for its colours than design. I noticed a lot of north indians/pakistani groups have fancy colourful headdress. Kalash, Kashmiris, Pathans, Brokpa all look kinda of similar. All seem to have fancy colourful traditional headdress too. Many north indians/pakistani people share this similar kinda look. Like there from the same ethnic group or groups who are genetically very similar to each other.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: *just in the same way you can not take on another's genes by doing these same things (above)
Of course you cannot take on another's genes through behavior but only through inheritance. It's clear from the sources I cited above that the Kalash and others in northernmost Pakistan and India share common ancestry with Europeans. Of course they share ancestry with other peoples as well but there is no denying a link with Europe beyond their Indo-European languages. Meanwhile in other parts of India including the far south, there are those who speak languages and practice Indo-Euroepean traditions but do not possess the ancestral component shared with eastern Europeans that the Kalash and others in the northernmost area do.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: *just in the same way you can not take on another's genes by doing these same things (above)
Of course you cannot take on another's genes through behavior but only through inheritance.
As I ams reading this, I am looking a this BBC documentary about Transgentics and cloning.
You are correct, behavior cannot be cloned. Behavior is unique to social experience and environmental behavior, which equals experiences inheritance passed down.
It's clear from the sources I cited above that the Kalash and others in northernmost Pakistan and India share common ancestry with Europeans [/QB][/QUOTE]
They may be but that is through shared ancestry not through being ethnically/genetically related to them independently of sharing ancestors. Kalash are not a european people. What your discussing has nothing to do with what the point I was making which is Kalash have no European admixture. Regards the shared ancestral connection between Kalash and Europeans the point is these people were not ethnically european people. All this means is europeans have non-european ancestry which is no surprise because like I said we are all inter-connected. Europeans are not free from being connected to non-whites. But I got your point. They share ancestors. I do not deny that.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
It's clear from the sources I cited above that the Kalash and others in northernmost Pakistan and India share common ancestry with Europeans [/QB]
They may be but that is through shared ancestry not through being ethnically/genetically related to them independently of sharing ancestors. Kalash are not a european people. What your discussing has nothing to do with what the point I was making. Kalash have no European admixture. Regards the shared ancestral component the point again is these people were not ethnically european people. This is not a european component. These people/group/population were not europeans. All this means is europeans have non-european ancestry. But I got your point. They share ancestors. [/QB][/QUOTE]
''Meanwhile in other parts of India including the far south, there are those who speak languages and practice Indo-Euroepean traditions but do not possess the ancestral component shared with eastern Europeans that the Kalash and others in the northernmost area do.''
Again what is your point? Are you just trying to show Kalash and Europeans are connected? I never denied Kalash are connected to europeans on any basis other than direct authentic european admixture/ancestry. They might be connected via shared ancestry but this shared ancestral connection between Kalash and europeans is not ethnically european in origin which is what am talking about.It is like modern day blacks who have european ancestry. Only difference is this shared ancestry some modern day blacks share with europeans is ethnically european in origin which means blacks who have european admixture/ancestry. They possess genes that are ethnically directly related to Europeans and are derived directly from European people. This means Europeans can lay claim to those genes as there own. My whole point is simple. What are ethnic European genes? Which groups in South Asia possess them.
''there are those who speak languages and practice Indo-Euroepean traditions but do not possess the ancestral component shared with eastern Europeans that the Kalash and others in the northernmost area do.''
Obviously not all indians have european ancestry or probably even a indirect connection to europeans such as shared ancestry like with the kalash. South Asia is a big place which has historically seen many migrations. It will take a lot of research to determine an group/individuals ancestry.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I think you're confused. I never said the Kalash or other peoples of Central Asia/northernmost South Asia are "Europeans". Obviously, they are not native to Europe but to the region I just described. They obviously do share ancestry with some Europeans via their ANE ancestry but they also share ancestry with South Asians and Southwest Asians as well. But you cannot deny that their ANE ancestry is proof of their Indo-European links.
This genetic ancestral component in my opinion is the smoking gun so to speak in regards to Indo-European origins of Vedic culture although to be fair the Vedic culture is comprised of other non-Indo-European components as well.
Getting back more to the topic. The goddess Danu in Vedic belief is a mother of demonic beings like Vritra and Vala while the goddess Danu is the mother of the benevolent gods in Celtic culture as far west as Ireland. The Vedic fire god is Agni, while the Celtic fire goddess is Agnes. Surya is the sun god of the Vedic tribes while Sulis is the sun goddess of the Celts. The Celts worshiped Dagda while the Vedic tribes worshiped Daksha.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
''I think you're confused. I never said the Kalash or other peoples of Central Asia/northernmost South Asia are "Europeans".
I never claimed you said ''Kalash or other peoples of Central Asia/northernmost South Asia are "Europeans. Earlier in the posts I clearly was arguing on the point Kalash have no european admixture/ancestry. You are the one who lolled at the idea of Kalash having no european admixture/ancestry. You pointed out the ''Alexander the Great-Greek'' supposed connection. To which I responded so far genetics has not supported this claim. You then bought my simple point about kalash having no europeand admixture to this supposed shared ancestry which again I do not deny they may share but this has not relation to my original argument/point which was very clearly kalash have no european admixture/ancestry. If anything this supposed shared ancestry shows europeans to be connected to the kalash not kalash to be connected to europeans because this shared ancestry is not ethnically european and kalash have so far shown to have no european admixture.
''They obviously do share ancestry with some Europeans via their ANE ancestry but they also share ancestry with South Asians and Southwest Asians as well. But you cannot deny that their ANE ancestry is proof of their Indo-European links.''
Their ANE ancestry probably is the connection to their Indo-European links. But again what does indo european links mean? You mean ANE represents an Ethnic link/connection? This may be right but people can be linked in many ways directly/indirectly or simply be linked/connected as a result of mixing between two groups. Is this ANE ancestry ethnically european? If not then it only represents a language and genetic connection for europeans (one way) not for Kalash because if kalash have no european admixture they can not be directly genetically connected to europeans. They would not even be connected to europeans via there ANE ancestors. It would be europeans who are connected to Kalash via the ANE or both groups are connected to ANE but the ANE population was ethnically distinct from both europeans and kalash so in this case neither kalash or eurppeans are connected to each other. They simply share ancestors. It is very complicated. For two people/groups to be connected to each other they both have to share the same ancestors but those ancestors have to also represent the genes/ethnic racial identity of at least one group. The example I gave you of blacks with european ancestry. Blacks in this case not only share ancestry with europeans but are also genetically connected with europeans because these shared genes are ethnically european. Now if this shared ancestry between europeans and blacks represented a completely difference/distinct group from both blacks and europeans then one can say both blacks and europeans are not directly connected or even just connected to each other. They simple share the same ancestors. This is the same point I mean about ANE. If this group/population was neither ethnically european or kalash then both europeans and kalash would share ancestry but neither would be directly connected to each other because neither has the genes of the other they only shared genes of a group that is distinct from both. If the ANE was ethnically european (vice versa-kalash) then kalash (vice versa- europeans) would be directly connected to the europeans.
I guess what am trying to say then is to understand the genetic relation between different groups be it europeans and kalash or any other group when it comes to shared ethnic components. We need to know more about the ethnic/genetic identity of the ancestral components both groups share. For example which group/people this shared ancestral component derives from or is closet to? Or if this shared ancestral component is completely distinct from the groups that share these genes. So if the ANE were ethnically closest to south asian groups then it simply means europeans have south asian ancestry or ancestry that is genetically closest/related to south asians. This shared component would not mean south asians have european ancestry or ancestry that is genetically close/related to europeans. If the component was ethnically european or genetically close to europeans more than south asians it would mean south asians have european ancestry or ancestry that is closely related to europeans. Not that europeans have south asian ancestry. If the component was etnically distinct from both south asians and europeans it would mean they simple share ancestors/share ancestry.
So when we talk about groups being related/connected etc... we need to know/define the racial identity of the group we are talking about in relation to the groups that have that ancestry. There are also different ways in which people can be related/connected. For example mixed race black/europeans or mixed race europeans/chinese groups/individuals are related/connected to both ethnic sides but is this connection/relation only a result of there being mixed race or are chinese/europeans or blacks/europeans related/connected independently, before they mixed with each other?
Again I do not deny the indo european link between south asians/europeans. Am just trying to get a more specific understanding regards the genetics/language. Trying to get a clearer understanding on exactly what point and the exact nature of this connection.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: I never claimed you said ''Kalash or other peoples of Central Asia/northernmost South Asia are "Europeans. Earlier in the posts I clearly was arguing on the point Kalash have no european admixture/ancestry. You are the one who lolled at the idea of Kalash having no european admixture/ancestry. You pointed out the ''Alexander the Great-Greek'' supposed connection. To which I responded so far genetics has not supported this claim. You then bought my simple point about kalash having no europeand admixture to this supposed shared ancestry which again I do not deny they may share but this has not relation to my original argument/point which was very clearly kalash have no european admixture/ancestry. If anything this supposed shared ancestry shows europeans to be connected to the kalash not kalash to be connected to europeans because this shared ancestry is not ethnically european and kalash have so far shown to have no european admixture.
If you recall my point about 'Alexander's army' is that the claim was totally fictional. Yes there is a connection to the Greeks but it is NOT due to any Greek or Macedonian ancestry but to a shared ancestry between the Greek/Macedonians and Kalash that pre-dates both groups and that actually this ancestry is quite low among Balkans like the Greeks/Macedonians and is much greater among northeast Europeans. As far as your claim of Europeans being connected to Kalash and not the other way around, this preposition makes no sense whatsoever as 'shared ancestry' implies kinship through a shared ancestor NOT on group deriving from another. The shared ancestry between the Kalash and Europeans is due to Ancient North Eurasian ancestry.
quote:Their ANE ancestry probably is the connection to their Indo-European links. But again what does indo european links mean? You mean ANE represents an Ethnic link/connection? This may be right but people can be linked in many ways directly/indirectly or simply be linked/connected as a result of mixing between two groups. Is this ANE ancestry ethnically european? If not then it only represents a language and genetic connection for europeans (one way) not for Kalash because if kalash have no european admixture they can not be directly genetically connected to europeans. They would not even be connected to europeans via there ANE ancestors. It would be europeans who are connected to Kalash via the ANE or both groups are connected to ANE but the ANE population was ethnically distinct from both europeans and kalash so in this case neither kalash or eurppeans are connected to each other. They simply share ancestors. It is very complicated. For two people/groups to be connected to each other they both have to share the same ancestors but those ancestors have to also represent the genes/ethnic racial identity of at least one group. The example I gave you of blacks with european ancestry. Blacks in this case not only share ancestry with europeans but are also genetically connected with europeans because these shared genes are ethnically european. Now if this shared ancestry between europeans and blacks represented a completely difference/distinct group from both blacks and europeans then one can say both blacks and europeans are not directly connected or even just connected to each other. They simple share the same ancestors. This is the same point I mean about ANE. If this group/population was neither ethnically european or kalash then both europeans and kalash would share ancestry but neither would be directly connected to each other because neither has the genes of the other they only shared genes of a group that is distinct from both. If the ANE was ethnically european (vice versa-kalash) then kalash (vice versa- europeans) would be directly connected to the europeans.
Again you seem to be implying the unproven hypothesis of the Indian/South Asian origins of Indo-European when no evidence-- linguistic, archaeological, or otherwise supports this. ANE which means Ancient Northern Eurasian is an ancestral component that differs from those of South Asia which is comprised of Ancient South Indian (ASI) and Ancient North Indian (ANI) as well as the Southwest Asian component associated with the introduction of neolithic culture which you cited here. Is this ANE ancestry associated with any one ethnic or cultural group? The answer is no because it predates many cultural groups including Indo-European and even today not only does it include Indo-European speakers but also Uralic speakers like Hungarians and others in the Ural Mountains but NOT South Asians.
quote:I guess what am trying to say then is to understand the genetic relation between different groups be it europeans and kalash or any other group when it comes to shared ethnic components. We need to know more about the ethnic/genetic identity of the ancestral components both groups share. For example which group/people this shared ancestral component derives from or is closet to? Or if this shared ancestral component is completely distinct from the groups that share these genes. So if the ANE were ethnically closest to south asian groups then it simply means europeans have south asian ancestry or ancestry that is genetically closest/related to south asians. This shared component would not mean south asians have european ancestry or ancestry that is genetically close/related to europeans. If the component was ethnically european or genetically close to europeans more than south asians it would mean south asians have european ancestry or ancestry that is closely related to europeans. Not that europeans have south asian ancestry. **If the component was etnically distinct from both south asians and europeans it would mean they simple share ancestors/share ancestry.**
Again, not only what I typed just above but your very last sentence in your quote above was my point precisely.
quote:So when we talk about groups being related/connected etc... we need to know/define the racial identity of the group we are talking about in relation to the groups that have that ancestry. There are also different ways in which people can be related/connected. For example mixed race black/europeans or mixed race europeans/chinese groups/individuals are related/connected to both ethnic sides but is this connection/relation only a result of there being mixed race or are chinese/europeans or blacks/europeans related/connected independently, before they mixed with each other?
The genetic sources I cited were very clear about that. The Kalash are a mixture of different ancestries with one ancesty--ANE-- being shared with Europeans.
quote:Again I do not deny the indo european link between south asians/europeans. Am just trying to get a more specific understanding regards the genetics/language. Trying to get a clearer understanding on exactly what point and the exact nature of this connection.
Again, everything was already presented to you.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
'' As far as your claim of Europeans being connected to Kalash and not the other way around, this preposition makes no sense whatsoever as 'shared ancestry' implies kinship through a shared ancestor NOT on group deriving from another. ''
I never disagreed. Read my comment again. I have clearly stated that when it comes to the concept of shared ancestry/a shared ancestral component between groups we need to understand if the shared ancestral component is ethnically distinct from the groups that share this ancestry or if the component derives from one group to understand the relation/connection between the groups. I have clearly and categorically stated this aboce. Europeans are connected to Kalash and not vice versa if the shared ancestral component ANE was ethnically/genetically kalash in origin or very closely related to kalash (or vice versa if the ANE was ethnically/genetically european). Otherwise it would simply mean they share ancestors. If the ANE were distinct from both europeans and kalash then I do not disagree that kalash and europeans simply share ancestors.There is nothing to argue on over this point.
''Again you seem to be implying the unproven hypothesis of the Indian/South Asian origins of Indo-European when no evidence-- linguistic, archaeological, or otherwise supports this. ANE which means Ancient Northern Eurasian is an ancestral component that differs from those of South Asia which is comprised of Ancient South Indian (ASI) and Ancient North Indian (ANI) as well as the Southwest Asian component associated with the introduction of neolithic culture which you cited here. Is this ANE ancestry associated with any one ethnic or cultural group? The answer is no because it predates many cultural groups including Indo-European and even today not only does it include Indo-European speakers but also Uralic speakers like Hungarians and others in the Ural Mountains but NOT South Asians.
Again you seem to be misunderstand what am saying. I never claimed indo european is south asian in origin. I asked ''But again what does indo european links mean?'' am trying to be specific and clear on what we are discussing when we talk indo european. Are we discussing genes? language? if we are discussing genes then which group represents indo european genes? which group represents in do european language? which group represents indo european genes and language? What is so difficult for you to understand about this point? Am simply trying to be black and white, clear cut what this indo european nonsense is about?
There is no such thing as indo european. There is only indian and european. Indo european is ambiguous term deliberately designed to cause confusion. Indians are not ethnically or genetically europeans but many have historically mixed/hybradised with europeans. Europeans are not ethnically/genetically indians but many have historically mixed/hybradised with indians. So from an ethnic/racial point of view where does indo european fit into these two clear cut ethnically distinct groups indians and europeans? I mean who is this third party the indo europeans from a genetic point of view? Do they fit into the indian group? european group? a seperate group? both groups?
I have made it very clear in my comment abocve what am trying to understand from a genetic/ethnic point of view '' For two people/groups to be connected to each other they both have to share the same ancestors but those ancestors have to also represent the genes/ethnic racial identity of at least one group.'' But I made it clear with the example of blacks and europeans that if the ancestry does not derive from one group i.e it is ethnically/racially distinct/seperate group then it would mean they simply share ancestry with no direct connection to each other''If this group/population was neither ethnically european or kalash then both europeans and kalash would share ancestry but neither would be directly connected to each other because neither has the genes of the other they only shared genes of a group that is distinct from both.''
Nowhere have I claimed a south asian origin for indo european. for me the term indo european is valuless. It has no meaning. No such thing as indo european. Either you are directly connected or you share ancestry. Or you share lanuages. These concepts can be stated clearly and simply without invoking nonsense like indo european which have people arguing over nothing. I was talking about how we should understand the relationship between difference groups who share ancestry in general and not specifically about indo european.
If you understood my comment to mean ''Again you seem to be implying the unproven hypothesis of the Indian/South Asian origins of Indo-European'' no I want not. I was if you read over my comment again trying to understand exactly what stated next the ethnic/genetic distinction between the groups ''ANE which means Ancient Northern Eurasian is an ancestral component that differs from those of South Asia which is comprised of Ancient South Indian (ASI) and Ancient North Indian (ANI) as well as the Southwest Asian component associated with the introduction of neolithic culture which you cited here. '' We dont really disagree on much in this comment which you yourself have noted ''Again, not only what I typed just above but your very last sentence in your quote above was my point precisely.'' Just seems to be misunderstandings but then there is bound to be some disagreement too.
''The genetic sources I cited were very clear about that. The Kalash are a mixture of different ancestries with one ancesty--ANE-- being shared with Europeans.'' Did not disagree.
This is why I do not like terms like Indo- European which connect two or several different population groups under one label. It is such a cause for confusion. Things can be/should be just stated simply and clearly.
Thanks for your contribution. Has been good engaging with you.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
coolnight Don’t let anyone tell you there were no Greeks living in South Asia.
There were ethnic Greeks living in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Greeks were in Ghandahar > Kandahar during Achaemenid times and after the conquest of India by Alexander (Billions,1995; Mairs, 2008). The first Greeks were deposited in Ghandahara (which was situated near the Indus River near Peshawar), Pakistan and Bactria in 494 BC (Mairs, 2008). These Greeks were descendants of the Branchidae guardians of the oracle of Apollo at Didyma near Miletos, situated on the coast of Asia Minor (Mairs, 2008). There was a massive emigration of Greeks and Macedonians following Alexander’s conquest of Asia between 335-250 BC (Billons, 1995). These Greeks settled many areas already occupied by Greeks exiled to Afghanistan by the Persians like Shahr-i Kohna (Old Kangahar) (Sherwin-White & Kuhrt, 1993). Shahr-i Khona had been an Achaemenid fortified city before Alexander’s conquest (Sherwin-White & Kuhrt, 1993). The Greeks also built or successfully occupied many urban centres in India, especially Bactria including Ai Khanum, Begram and Arachosia (Kandahar) (Helms, 1982; Sagar, 1993; Singh, 2008). Consequently, there was a large Greek population in the area. Greek sources claim that Greek-Bactrians ruled 1000 cities (Helms, 1982). See: http://www.federatio.org/joes/EurasianStudies_0310.pdf see pages 70-77.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL! Is there even such a thing as "Caucasian" except for the people who use to live on the Caucasus Mountain? Plus, there is no "white" unique genes, except for those that are found in all albinistic humans and animals. So how can you even begin to differentiate between modern day white Europeans and their ancestral Indian counterparts?
-------------------- “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Posts: 195 | From: Southern Africa(Azania) | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one is talking about genes being ''unique'' here. Europeans genes do not have to be ''unique'' to be European. They just have to be European. That is how you differentiate between European and Non-European genes.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: No one is talking about genes being ''unique'' here. Europeans genes do not have to be ''unique'' to be European. They just have to be European. That is how you differentiate between European and Non-European genes.
And what are these "European genes"?
-------------------- “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Posts: 195 | From: Southern Africa(Azania) | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your response makes no sense just like your initial comment. How can genes be ''what''? Please Do not answer. You might not have a concept of Europeaness or even of a racial identity which if your Indian that would make sense. Considering present day Indians are Mongrels but European people do.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: Your response makes no sense just like your initial comment. How can genes be ''what''? Please Do not answer. You might not have a concept of Europeaness but European people do.
Ancient European genes or modern European genes - which is the genes of "whites" from Central Asia and has nothing to do with ancient Europe.
-------------------- “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Posts: 195 | From: Southern Africa(Azania) | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Vedic Origins of the MODERN Europeans: the Children of Danu (Questions)"
That should've been the name of this topic.
-------------------- “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Posts: 195 | From: Southern Africa(Azania) | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
No that should not have been the name of this topic but you are welcome to start your topic on a new page if you want.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Ancient European genes or modern European genes - which is the genes of "whites" from Central Asia and has nothing to do with ancient Europe.''
What are you talking about? Again please do not answer. European genes are European genes ancient or modern. European genes remain european genes wherever they settled in the world. What is so difficult for you to understand in something as simple as this.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: ''Ancient European genes or modern European genes - which is the genes of "whites" from Central Asia and has nothing to do with ancient Europe.''
What are you talking about? Again please do not answer. European genes are European genes ancient or modern. European genes remain european genes wherever they settled in the world. What is so difficult for you to understand in something as simple as this.
What don't you understand, the original settlers of Europe were Africans, the whites invaded later after civilization was already well on its way in Europe. These are clearly two different groups of people. . .
-------------------- “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Posts: 195 | From: Southern Africa(Azania) | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not have to understand anything I have NOT claimed/Denied. No one is claiming Non-European genes as European genes. You are talking thousand and thousands of years of history. We do not know the totality of the history of the European race. It will take a lot of research over a long period of time. That is the whole point of research and websites like this.
Posts: 42 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: No one is talking about genes being ''unique'' here. Europeans genes do not have to be ''unique'' to be European. They just have to be European. That is how you differentiate between European and Non-European genes.
The problem is that Europeans carry genes that are not unique to Europe. For example, Europeans carry lineages and genes from the Neolithic Middle East as well as North Eurasia which again is shared with folk like the Kalash and other Central Asians.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Autshumato: What don't you understand, the original settlers of Europe were Africans, the whites invaded later after civilization was already well on its way in Europe. These are clearly two different groups of people. . .
The above is nonsense. The Africans who originally settled Europe were not more African than the first settlers of Eastern Asia and everywhere else in Eurasia. If you care to discuss the above I suggest the Deshret section of the forum.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are you talking about?Arabia is included as a part of Eurasia the first modern humans were Africans and we know what the first European looked like on top of that descriptions of the first people of east Asian showed that they were not like the modern population yet.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I'm referring to Autshumato's silly 'replacement' claim that blacks lived in Europe until they were replaced (killed off?) by invading whites. The whites of Europe today descend directly from the first Europeans along with other groups who integrated and mixed in. Yes one could argue that all humans were originally 'black' at one point in time and the species originated in Africa but does this mean Europeans are equally as African as those humans who never left Africa??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: ''Ancient European genes or modern European genes - which is the genes of "whites" from Central Asia and has nothing to do with ancient Europe.''
What are you talking about? Again please do not answer. European genes are European genes ancient or modern. European genes remain european genes wherever they settled in the world. What is so difficult for you to understand in something as simple as this.
What don't you understand, the original settlers of Europe were Africans, the whites invaded later after civilization was already well on its way in Europe. These are clearly two different groups of people. . .
.
. You are correct. We know they were Africans because they were 1) dark skinned; 2) used African tools and ceramics; 3)African substratum languages are found in the Indo-European languages.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neanderthals appeared in Europe before humans The earliest humans in Europe mated with them By around 30,000 years ago there were no pure Neanderthals left
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Autshumato: [QUOTE]]What don't you understand, the original settlers of Europe were Africans, the whites invaded later after civilization was already well on its way in Europe. These are clearly two different groups of people. . .
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic