We have noted Danu or Danava as a term for an inimical people or even an anti-god, like Deva and Asura, probably reflects some split in the Aryan peoples. This could be the conflict the Purus, the main Rig Vedic people located on the Sarasvati river near Delhi, and the Druhyus, who were located in the northwest by Afganistan, who fought quite early in the Rig Vedic period.
Certainly we can only equate the Proto-Europeans with the northwest of India or greater India that extends into Afghanistan and Central Asia. If they can be connected to any group among the five Vedic peoples it must be the Druhyus.
However, we do find Druhyu kingdoms continuing for some time in India and giving names to regions like Gandhara (Afghanistan) and Aratta (Panjab) connected more with Iranian or Scythian people. Yet, we do note a connection between the Scythians and the Celts, whose Druid priests connect themselves with the Scythians at an early period. The Scythians also maintained a trade from India to Europe that continued for many centuries. In this regard the Proto-Europeans could have been a derivation of Aryan India by migration, cultural diffusion, or what is more likely, a combination of both.
Though the Druhyus and Proto-Europeans may be connected, it is difficult to confirm, particularly as the Europeans were a very different ethnic type (Nordic and Alpine) than most of the Indians and Iranians, who were of the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasian race.
However, it is possible that European ethnic types were living in ancient Afghanistan or Central Asia, even Kashmir, where we do find some of these types even today. The evidence of the Tokharians suggests this. The Tokharians (Tusharas) were a people speaking an Indo-European language closer to the European (a kentum-based language), and also demonstrate Nordic or Alpine, blond and red-haired ethnic traits. They lived in the Tarim Basin of western China that dominated the region to the Muslim invasion up to the eighth century AD, by which time they had become Buddhists. They may be related to the European featured mummies found in that area dating back to 1500 BCE. They were also present in Western China around Langchou in the early centuries BCE. The Tokharian language is possibly related to the Celtic and Italic branches, just as their physical features resemble northern Europeans. The Tarim Basin region was later regarded as the land of the Uttara Kurus and as a land of the gods. So such groups were not always censured as barbarians at the borders but were sometimes honored as highly advanced and spiritual.
The evidence does not show an Aryan invasion/migration into India in ancient times, certainly not after the Harappan era (c. 3000 BCE) and probably not before. No genetic or skeletal or other hard evidence has been found to prove this. Similarly, we do not find evidence of migration of interior Indic peoples West, the dark-skinned people that were prominent on the subcontinent to the northwest. But if the same ethnic types as the Europeans were present in Western China, Afghanistan or in northwest Iran, like the Fergana Valley (Sogdia), such a migration west would be possible, particularly given their familiarity with horses. In this case the commonality of Indo-European languages would not rest upon a common ethnicity with the interior Indo-Aryans but on a common ethnicity with peripheral Aryans on the northwest of India.
It is also possible that the European people derived their Aryan culture from the influence of Vedic peoples, probably mainly Druhyus but also Scythians (who might themselves be Druhyus), who migrated to Central Asia and brought their culture to larger groups of Europeans already living in Europe and Central Asia. The Europeans could have picked up an Aryan influence indirectly from the contact with various rishis, princes or merchants, without any significant genetic or familial linkage with Indic peoples. Or some combination may have existed. Such peoples with more Vedic cultures like the Celts could derive mainly from migration, while those others like the Germans might derive mainly from cultural diffusion. In any case, various means of Aryanization existed that can explain the spread of Vedic culture from the Himalayas to Europe, of which actual migration of people from the interior of India need not be the only or even primary factor.
We do note the names of rivers like the Don, Dneiper, Dneister, Donets and Danube to the north of the Black are largely cognate with Danu. This could reflect such a movement of peoples from West or Central Asia, including migrants originally from regions of greater India and Iran. At the end of the Ice Age, as Europe became warmer, it became a suitable land for agriculture. This would have made it a desirable place of migration for people from the east and the south, which were flooded or became jungles.
European and Iranian Peoples of Central Asia and Europe: Sycthians and Turanians
The northern Iranian peoples, called Turanians or Scythians, dominated the steppes of Central Asia from Mongolia to Eastern Europe. By the early centuries BC they had set up kingdoms from the Danube in the West to the Altai Mountains in the East. They were the main enemies of the Persians. Unlike the Persians, their religions had more Devic elements and affinities to the Vedic with a greater emphasis on Devas, Sun worship, drinking of Soma and a greater variety of deities like the Vedic. We could call these Turanians or Scythians the main Proto-European Aryans. Some would identify them with the original Slavic peoples as well, who were likely always the largest and dominant Indo-European group in Europe.
Curiously in the early centuries AD we find the Scythians entering into north India and creating some kingdoms there, with both Hindu and Buddhist influence. It is possible that such contacts with India were transmitted to Central Asia and West, much as from previous Vedic eras.
It is probable that the Danavas, Scythians and Turanians were largely the same group of people with Vedic affinities and connections to Vedic culture through various kings, rishis, traders and movements of both people and cultures. Later the Turks came into Central Asia and displaced the Scythian peoples driving them south and west.
Western Indo-European scholarship is obsessed with these eastern Scythian and other possible European elements. Some like Parpola even see the Vedic peoples of the Rig Veda as a migration of the Scythians into India. However, these Central Asian Vedic people were just one branch of a greater Vedic people that included several branches within India itse.f
Much of the search for a Proto-Indo-European language or PIE could be more correctly regarded as a search for the proto-European people. What has been reconstructed through it is more the homeland of the Danava-Druhyu branch of the Vedic people after their dispersal from India rather than all the Indo-European speakers. It is at best only a recontruction of the western branch of the Vedic peoples and even that in a limited and distorted manner.
Therefore, we need not stop short with reconstructing Scythian and Central Asian Aryan culture, we must take it into India itself, where other Vedic branches existed using many of the same cultural forms like Fire worship, Sun worship, the sacred plant or Soma cult, the cult of the sacred cow and horse, symbols like the sacred tree and swastika, worship of rivers as Goddesses. The philosophical, medical and astronomical knowledge that we find in European peoples like the Celts and the Greeks also mirrors that of India such as we find in the Upanishads, Ayurvedic medicine and Vedic astrology.
Questions(Appreciate any detailed answers backed by evidence/links):
1. ''However, it is possible that European ethnic types were living in ancient Afghanistan or Central Asia, even Kashmir, where we do find some of these types even today.'' Leading to the question if there are ethnically similar types to European ethnic types in this region is there presence a result of these groups intermixing/hybridization with authentic European types (people)? (excluding the known European admixture in this region of which there is some. More in regards to speculated admixture such as Indo-European admixture. The Indo European-genetic admixture argument. That Indo-European speaking South Asians have Indo European admixture. Although the Kalash speak Indo-European but are said to have no European admixture.
2. ''The evidence of the Tokharians suggests this. '' Does it?
3. ''But if the same ethnic types as the Europeans were present in Western China, Afghanistan or in northwest Iran, like the Fergana Valley (Sogdia), such a migration west would be possible, particularly given their familiarity with horses. In this case the commonality of Indo-European languages would not rest upon a common ethnicity with the interior Indo-Aryans but on a common ethnicity with peripheral Aryans on the northwest of India.'' Is this arguing these groups of people (Kashmiris, Afghanistan) have Tocharian admixture? Tocharians are said to be an Indo-European people. If so, is this correct?
4.''Therefore, we need not stop short with reconstructing Scythian and Central Asian Aryan culture, we must take it into India itself, where other Vedic branches existed '' What are these other branches?
Struggling to understand just how much of a genetic impact the Europeans have made on the South Asian population. In particular in terms of ancient admixture. This whole Aryan/Indo European argument floating around the internet makes it sound/seems as if the whole of South Asia is mixed with European genes.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Here are answers to your questions.
.
1. ''However, it is possible that European ethnic types were living in ancient Afghanistan or Central Asia, even Kashmir, where we do find some of these types even today.'' Leading to the question if there are ethnically similar types to European ethnic types in this region is there presence a result of these groups intermixing/hybridization with authentic European types (people)? (excluding the known European admixture in this region of which there is some. More in regards to speculated admixture such as Indo-European admixture. The Indo European-genetic admixture argument. That Indo-European speaking South Asians have Indo European admixture. Although the Kalash speak Indo-European but are said to have no European admixture. Yes there were modern ethnic Europeans living in Central Asia. After 1000 BC, Europeans began to invade Western Europe. Greeks speaking Europeans rebelled against Persian rule. The Persians exiled Greeks to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
2. ''The evidence of the Tokharians suggests this. '' Does it? No. Tokharians called themselves Kushana. The Kushana were not Indo-Europeans, they spoke Dravidian languages. During kushana rule, there were multiple ethnic groups living in Central Asia. As a result Tocharian was a Dravidian trade language https://www.academia.edu/8491572/Is_Tocharian_a_Dravidian_Trade_Language
3. ''But if the same ethnic types as the Europeans were present in Western China, Afghanistan or in northwest Iran, like the Fergana Valley (Sogdia), such a migration west would be possible, particularly given their familiarity with horses. In this case the commonality of Indo-European languages would not rest upon a common ethnicity with the interior Indo-Aryans but on a common ethnicity with peripheral Aryans on the northwest of India.'' Is this arguing these groups of people (Kashmiris, Afghanistan) have Tocharian admixture? Tocharians are said to be an Indo-European people. If so, is this correct? The Indo-European languages are not based on a common ethnicity. The Indo-European languages are connected based on the relationship between the Greek language and Sanskrit, and Greek loan words in other European languages that agree with the Greek words in Sanskrit. The Greek words in Sanskrit, result from the Greek presence in Afghanistan-Pakistan when Panini wrote the grammar for Sanskrit, which was a lingua franca. The Greek language influenced other European languages when these Europeans were ruled by the Greeks, and the Roman use of Greek as a lingua franca when the Romans ruled many parts of Europe. See: Greek influence on Sanskrit, https://www.academia.edu/1898458/Greek_influence_on_Sanskrit
4.''Therefore, we need not stop short with reconstructing Scythian and Central Asian Aryan culture, we must take it into India itself, where other Vedic branches existed '' What are these other branches?
You are right people should stop trying to reconstruct an Aryan culture, because there never was a Aryan Culture. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Kushana
.
. Central Asia was called Kush by the ancient people. The Armenians made it clear that the ancients called Persia, Media,Elam Aria, and the entire area between the Tigris and Indus rivers Kush.Bardesones, writing in his Book of the Laws of Countries, in the 2nd Century said that the "Bactrians who we called Qushani (or Kushans)".The Armenians, called the earlier Parthian: Kushan and acknowledged their connection with them. Homer, Herodotus, and the Roman scholar Strabo called southern Persia AETHIOPIA. The Greeks and Romans called the country east of Kerma: Kusan.
First, I would like to make it clear that the probable language of the Kushana was Tamil. According to Dravidian literature, the Kushana were called Kosars=Yakshas=Yueh chih/ Kushana. This literature maintains that when they entered India they either already spoke Tamil, or adopted the language upon settlement in India. In pinyin Yueh chih is pronounced: Yuezhi
The Kushana and the Yueh chih/ Yuezhi were one and the same. In addition to North Indian documents the Kushana-Yueh chih association are also discussed in Dravidian literature. V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen hundred years ago, note that in the Sanskrit literature the Yueh chih/ Yuezhi were called Yakshas, Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana.
Many of the Yueh people were Dravidian speakers. The Yueh people were also called Yuehchih or Kuishuang (Kushana). In ancient times the Yueh chihs controlled Central Asia and much of China until the first century BC. In the Pali Chronicles, the Ramayana and Matsya, the Yuehchih were called Yakshas or Kosar. The Yueh of North China established Xia. According to the Yi Xia Dong Xi Shuo, by Fu Ssumein, the li Qiang (Black Qiang) of Shang were united with the Yueh people of southwest China. . . The Yuezhi allegedly arrived in India during the 2nd century BC. He makes it clear that the Yuezhi / Kushana as noted on their coins worshipped Siva as seen on the coins of Kanishka. This is why we have a coin of a Kushana king from Taxila, dated to AD 76 that declares that the king was maharaja rajatiraja devaputra Kushana "Great King, King of kings, Son of God, the Kushana".
The term Tochara has nothing to do with the Yuehchih, this was a term used to describe the people who took over the Greek Bactrian state, before the Kushana reached the Oxus Valley around 150 BC . There is no reason the Kushana may not have been intimately familiar with the Kharosthi writing at this time because from 202BC onward Prakrit and Chinese documents were written in Kharosthi.
The Kushana and the Yuezhi were one and the same. In addition to North Indian documents the Kushana- Yuezhi association are also discussed in Dravidian literature.V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen hundred years ago note that in the Sanskrit literature the Yueh chih were called Yakshas, Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana.
Some researchers believe that the Ars'i spoke Tocharian A, while Tocharian B was the "Kucha language" may have been spoken by the Kushana people. I don't know where you read that the speakers of Tocharian A were called Ars'i. These names: Ars’i and kucha, have nothing to do with ethnic groups, they refer to the cities where Tocharian text were found: Tocharian A documents were found around Qarashar and Turfan, thusly these text are also referred to as Turfanian or East Tocharian; Tocharian B documents were found near the town of Kucha, thusly they are sometimes called Kuchean or West Tocharian.
Linguist use the term Tochari to refer to these people, because they were given this title in Turkic manuscripts . As a result, the word Tochari has nothing to do with the Kushana people. The observable evidence make it clear that the terms used to label the Tocharian dialects are not ethnonyms, they are terms used to denote where the Tocharian records were found. The use of the term Ars'i does not relate to the Kushana people. The terms: Asii, Pasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli, refer to the white nomads that took Bactria away from the Greeks—not the Yuezhi .
These white nomads came from the Iaxartes River that adjoins that of Sacae and the Sogdiani .The Kushana people took over Bactria much later. It is a mistake to believe that Ars'i and Kucha were ethnonyms is understandable given your lack of knowledge about Tocharian. And I will agree that there were a number of different languages spoken by people who wrote material in Tocharian. It is for this reason that I have maintained throughout my published works on Tocharian, that this was a trade language. See: Tocharian is a Dravidian trade language https://www.academia.edu/8491572/Is_Tocharian_a_Dravidian_Trade_Language
This Tocharian/Kushan language was used by the Central Asians as a lingua franca and trade language due to the numerous ethnic groups which formerly lived in central Asia". Kharosthi was long used to write in Central Asia. It was even used by the Greeks. The use of the Kharosthi writing system in Central Asia and India, would place this writing contemporaneous with the tradition, recorded by the Classical writers of Indians settling among the Kushana.
There were many people who probably used Tocharian for purposes of communication including the Kushana and the "Ars'i/Asii". They probably used Tocharian as a lingua franca. You make it clear in your last post that numerous languages were spoken in Central Asia when the Tocharian was written in Kharosthi. Most researchers believe that a majority of the people who lived in this area were bilingual and spoke Bactrian ,Indian languages among other languages. I agree with this theory, and believe that the Kushana Kings may have spoken a Dravidian language. Due to the possibility that the Kushana spoke a Dravidian language which is the substratum language of Tocharian; and the presence of a number of different terms in Tocharian from many languages spoken in the area-led me to the conclusion that Tocharian was a trade language. The Kushana always referred to themselves as the Kushana/Gushana. The name Kushana for this group is recorded in the Manikiala Stone inscription (56BC?), the Panjtar Stone inscription of 122 AD and the Taxila Silver Scroll.
The Greeks called them Kushana in the Karosthi inscriptions, and Kocano. In the Chinese sources they were called Koei-shuang or Kwei-shwang= Kushana, and Yueh chih .
As you can see the term Kushana had been used to refer to these people long before Kujula Kadphises used the term as a personal name. This was over a hundred years after the Kushana had become rulers of Bactria. It would appear from the evidence that the nation of the Kushana was called Kusha.
In 176 B.C., the Huns fell upon the in western Gansu,defeated their army and murdered their King. This battle led to the Kushana migration into Nanshan region, and thence to Bactria and North India. (Bagchi 1955, p.4)
The Kushana first occupied Transoxiana about 160 B.C. and established themselves in the Oxus Valley (Chi 1955, p.8) They later drove the Haumavorka Indo-European Saka people, from Bactria and founded the Kushana dynasty which lasted until the 3rd century A.D.
It was Kujuula Kadphises who united the Kushana people and made them into a single nation. Kadphises conquered India as far as the Indus. His capital was Purushapura near Peshwar, in Pakistan. Later Wiima Kadphises extended Kushana rule into the Punjab.
The Kushana conquered the Sakas and Parthians and took control of an empire stretching from the Oxus river in Afghanistan, to the Ganges plains of India.. This unite under one authority the former dominions of the Indo-Greeks and the Sunga dynasts.
The greatest king of the Kushana was Kaniska. Kaniska came to power between A.D. 78-144. (Thapar 1972, p.92)
Kaniska ruled an empire extending from Central Asia, to Varansi in the Ganges Valley. He supported the arts and repaired many Kushana monuments and cities.
Kaniska had two capitals. The capital in Central Asia was Bergraam or Kupura in Afghanistan, while in India the capital was established at Muthura.
The Kushana were not Vedic worshippers. As among the Egyptians and Nubians, the Kushana raised past kings to the status of "gods", and they dedicated temples to them.
The Kushana were great patrons of the Buddhists. They supported the Mahavana (Great Vehicle) school of Buddhism. Under the Kushana the Buddha, was depicted in the form of the Muthuras school. These Muthura school Buddhas had strong negroid features.
The Kushana king was called the raja or Maharajatiraja "king of Kings".
Another famous Kushana king, Kujula imitating the Roman denares (coins) was the first Asians to circulate coins in central Asia. It was Kaniska, who first put Buddha on Indian coins.
The Kushana made fine sculptures and engraved beautiful carved sheets of ivory. Their plaques are some of the finest art pieces in India.
. .
. The Kushana were at this time in control of the Silk Road, which took Chinese goods to the West. It was also under the Kushana that Buddhism entered China. The Kushana ruled India for almost 200 years.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Modern European languages, the so-called Indo-European, are derived from the Indian languages of the Dravidians, plus the East Asian languages of people like the Persians, plus whatever the Aryans and other White Central Asians spoke, plus the languages of the native Black Europeans that they melded with.
Point being, that modern languages are modern combinations of ancient languages - the English language is a perfect example. Therefore a case can be made for just about any connection. [/qb][/QUOTE]The relationship between English and ancient language is mainly due to literacy, not the combination of ancient and modern languages. Speakers of the Germanic languages (which) include English) lexicalized many Greek and Roman terms as they became literate in these languages.
Blacks spread civilization around the world. As other people came in contact with these bLacks they adopted cultural traditions and the terms that came along with the new way of life introduced to Europeans by the Blacks. This is evident in the relationship between Greek, and the two major lingua francas of Central asia and South Asia: Tocharian and Sanskrit.
It is important to remember that the relationship between Indo-European and Indo-Aryan language, especially Sanskrit is via the Greek language. Greek influenced other European languages because it was recognized as a language of culture and civilization by the Romans.
It was in Pakistan that the Greek language was probably incorporated into Sanskrit. Many of the rules for Sanskrit were codified by Panini, who was born in Salatura, in Northwest Pakistan. Panini’s grammar contains 4000 rules.
When Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, it was spoken by the elites in the area. Greek was also popular when Panini wrote the Sanskrit grammar. The Greeks were called Yunani or Yavana. Thus we learn from Agrawala (1953) that the Yavanani lipi (edict) was well known in Gandahara, and even Panini mentions the Yavana in his grammar . The term Yauna meant Ionian (Woodcock, 1966).
The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).
Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions.
Greek was used for commercial purposes and served as a patrician lingua franca of the Kabul valley and of Gandhara. During the rule of Pushyamitra many Greeks settled in India. Due to the long history of Greeks in India, Ashoka had some of his edicts written in Greek and Aramaic bilinguals. In 44 A.D., Appolonius of Tyana when he visited Taxila found that merchants and kings learned Greek “as a matter of course” (Rahman, 2004; Woodcock,1966).
Given the popularity of Greek in the region it is not surprising that Sanskrit would show such a strong relationship to the Indic languages, since it was spoken throughout the area of a couple of hundred years. Commenting on the Greek rulers of India, Kulke and Rothermund (1998), said that “They are referred to as ‘Indo-Greeks’, and there were about forty such kings and rulers who controlled large areas of northwestern India and Afghanistan….They appear as Yavanas in stray references in Indian literature, and there are few but important references in European sources. In these distant outposts, the representatives of the Hellenic policy survived the defeat of their Western compatriots at the hands of the Parthians for more than a century” (p.70). The greatest of the Indo-Greek rulers was Menander, who is mentioned in the famous Milindapanho text. The Shakas adopted many elements of Indo-Greek culture which they perpetuated in India for over 100 years (Rahman, 2004).
It is impossible to argue for a genetic relationship between Vedic and Greek languages based on the fact that speakers of these languages formerly lived in intimate contact in historical times. Secondly, we know the Dravidians were in Greece before the Indo-Europeans enter the country. These non-I-E speakers were called Pelasgians. As a result, Anna Morpurgo Davies, The linguistic evidence:Is there any?, in Gerald Cadogan, The End of the early Bronze Age in the Agean (pp.93-123), says that only 40% of Greek is of Indo-European etymology (p.105). Since only 40% of the Greek terms are of I-E origin, many of the Greek terms that agree with the Indic languages may be from the 60% of the Greek lexical items that came from non-I-E speakers which as noted by Lahovary in Dravidian origins and the West, were people who spoke either Dravidian languages, or other languages from Africa, genetically related to the Dravidian group.
In conclusion, as a result of the Greek influence in Bactria and India-Pakistan , Indians and Bactrians had to acquire "Greek Culture" to enhance their position and opportunity in North India and Bactria during Greek rule. Greek rule placed prestige on status elements introduced into the region by the Greeks, especially the Greek language. Status acquired by Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis was thus centered around acquisition of Greek language and Greek culture. This supported by the evidence that Indian elites used Greek in business and government (Rahman, 2004). This would have inturn added pressure on the Bactrians to incorporate Greek terms into a Bactrian lingua franca (i.e., Tocharian).
Given the fact that Greek administrators in Bactria and Northern India-Pakistan ,refused to fully integrate Bactrians and Indians into the ruling elite, unless they were “well versed in Greek culture and language) led to subsequent generations of native Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis to progressively incorporate more Greek terms into their native language. This would explain why Tocharian has many features that relate to certain IE etymologies and Panini’s Sanskrit grammar, present many terms that are associated with the Greeks, but illustrates little affinity to Indo-Iranian languages which are geographically and temporally closer to Tocharian.
Some researchers might dispute the influence of the Greek language on Sanskrit because Panini’s grammar was suppose to have been written around 400 B.C. This date for the grammar might be too early, because Rahman (2004) and Agrawala (1953) maintains that Greek was spoken in Gandahara in Panini’s time.
The influence of colonial Greeks in Central Asia would explain why the most important evidence of an I-E relationship with Sanskrit. The historical connections between the so-called Indo-European languages probably respect an areal linguistic relationship—not genetic relationship.
Here I discuss in detail the relationship between Greek and Sanskrit
see pages 70-77.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The history of Aryan people is quite interesting. First lets discuss the history of the Aryan Invasion Theory. The AIT was formulated by the Europeans who read the Rig Veda and recognized that the ancestors of the Indo-Aryan speakers came to India as nomads, attacked Desa cities, and eventually dominated North India.
AIT was supported by the fact that many speakers of Dravidian languages remain in North India.Secondaly, we find that the original North Indians from Harappan times down to 1000BC used red-and-black pottery, Around 1000 BC, we see that populations in many North Indian urban areas were replaced by people using Plain Grey Ware. Archaeologists have assumed that the PGW people were probably Indo-Aryan speakers. The PGW people first invaded india around 1200-1000 BC. They made another invasion around 800 BC and we see the red-and- black(BRW) pottery users begin to migrate southward, into centers where the megalithic building Dravidian speakers were also using BRW.
Hittites(probably white people) forced the Kushites (Kaska , Mittani-Hurrian) into Iran. The Kushites living in Iran invaded India and founded the Indo-Aryan speakers in 1000BC. In 800 BC, nomadic people from Iran begin the domination of India and the original Indo-Aryan speaking population and mated with the original Dravidian and Munda speaking populations . It wasat this time that the white Iranians began to dominate India.
The Persians conquered India and Europe. The Persians exiled Greek (Ionians) into what is now Pakistan. Here the ionians prospered. Alaxander the Great conquered India and more Greeks entered what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. Soon this region was made up of populations speaking Greek, Indo-Aryan dialects and Dravidian languages. To unite the people a grammarian named Pannini, wrote a grammar of a lingua franca that became Sanskrit. Because Sanskrit included elements of Greek, Indo-Aryan and dravidian languages , Europeans began to develop the idea of the Indo-Europeans.
The Indo-Europeans included the Europeans led by the Greeks and the Indo-Aryan speakers of Iran and India. The Europeans and Indo-Aryans are unified via the Sanskrit language. In reality, the European and Indo Aryan languages are not related, except through Sanskrit, which modern European linguist did not know was a lingua franca.
Aryan is not a racial term.
--- In Ta_Seti@yahoogroups.com, "ulagankmy" <ulagankmy@y...> wrote: Dear Dr Winters
As you are aware, the word 'aariyan' is a Tamil word, an ancient one at that and which has been borrowed by many tribes in deep past. Probably the root is Su. a and Ta. aal, to spread out, powerful, strong etc.
Sumerian a-ri-a and Tamil aariyan
The noun aal-al ( >aaRRal) which means strength, capacity and so forth is still in use in Tamil . The following note may help out to destroy the myth that Europeans were the Aryans.
Related to this is that the whole of Rig Veda and related literature in Rigkrit is another variant of SumeroTamil. As such it has nothing to do with any "Aryan' family of languages - it is a pure fiction
The word "aryan " that has acquired a racial connation has become one of the most important words to divide of Indian into Aryan and Dravidian with vrious antagonisms along racial lines. The growth of 19th century Dravidian movements in Tamil Nadu which has become political in the 20th cent. and the cultural movements to purify Tamil by cleaning it of the so-called Sanskrit terms are related to this. The replacemnt of Tamil as the language of Temple Worship among the tamils however has a different historical basis. It was something introduced by Ramanuja and on philosophical grounds. The Sanskrit literature , under the impact of Sankara became predominantly Advaitic Vedantic and hence was seen as detrimental to the growth of Bakthi and for which reason Ramaunuja installed the recitation of Thruvaymozi in the temples in place of Vedic mantras. One can see the present movement of the Saivites to give the place of honour to Tamil particularly the Thevaram corpus as something like that of Ramanuja, who incidently was a Brahamin and who wrote only in Sanskrit despite being a brilliant Tamil scholar.
At the moment and perhaps mainly due to IndoEuropean scholarship the excitment and arrogance with which the Brahmins in Tamil Nadu received this, which is mainly a hypothesis , and who started to call themseves the scions of these Aryans is that which unnderlies the Brahmin-bashing that continues to this day. I have a colletion of litwrature in Tamil towards the end of 19th ,where the Smartha brahmins called themselves Aryans and went on to criticise severely Saiva Sidddhanta and many other philosophies of the Tamils. The Dravidian identity was fostered by Bihop Caldwell with his epoch making "Comparative study of Dravidian Languages" which was well received by the Tamil scholars but vehemently challenged by the Smartha Brahmins.
This association of Tamil Brahmins with Aryanism and also Sanskrit along with it, still continues and will continue perhaps for a long time. It is certainly unfortunate for such a hatred for the TERM aryan is NOT to be met with in traditional India where the primary meaning of Aryan as used in Thevaram corpus Kamba Ramayan and so forth and perhaps also as Dhammapada did not have the racial sense at all rather that of "exceptional or brilliant individual" as in Tamil " ariyan'
In Sangam classics there are several uses of it .
1. aariyar tuvanRiya peerisai imayam: the famed Himalayas where dwell the Aryas. Here it certainly means a group of people bordering the Himalayas and in sense a generic term for all those who dwelt in the North of India
2. aariyak kuuttu: here it means a noisy kind of dance especially those like walking on ropes to the accopaniment of loud and boisterous music.
3. ariyamum tamizum: This phrase used by Appar and so forth applies to the Languages and here aariyam means certainly Sanskrit. Here we see the beginnings of the use of Aryan and Dravidian (=Tamil) in linguistic terms but without any anatogonistic emotional undertones. For both are recognised as languages founded by Siva.
Ariyan as the Brilliant , Resplendent Principle and hence another variant for Siva
We see the use of Aryan in this sense in the following verse of Tirumular
Tirumantiram 134.
puraiyaRRa paalinuL ney kalataaR pool tirai aRra cintaiyil aariyan ceppum uraiyaR RuNarvoor udambing kozitaaR karaiyaRRa cooti kalawthasat taame Meaning
BEING emerges but stands as the Unconscious in the mind that becomes unruffled by any earthly desires just like ghee being present invisibly in the pure milk. Those who transcend speech ( by transcending temporality) and LISTEN in DEEP SILENCE to the instructions on Absolute Illumination that BEING-the -Radiant instructs on (through the language of Cin Muttirai) will untie themselves from all attachments to the physical body and becoming FREE from it, plunge into Boundless Radiance and through that also become a Sat, an absolute (just like BEING)
Here Ariyan is used as anohter name for Civa, the Immensely Radiant BEING who illuminates all and helps the attainment of genuine freedom through the severances to all the bondages. The use of Aryan in the sense 'divine" that the above suggests is also available in Kampan's description of Rama as "aariya maintan". Here it may also mean the "royal, the kingly" etc.
Su. a -ri-a
The Tamil 'aariyan' that has has so many different meanings and hence possibly with different etymological roots also occurs in Sumerian in the sense "divine, royal " etc as the following line from Sulgis MutarIbuyam (Hymn B) would indicate.
11. lugal-e lugal-a-ri-a nin-e -tu-da -me-en I, the king of Royal descent, who a princess bore. Ta. uLukaLee uLugak aariya(ariya) ninnee todda maan
lu> uLu> aaLu, aaL: person. gal> kaL: great -e: -ee: the suffix that isolates that which is named ; the teeRRa eekaaram. a-ri-a> ariya (the rare) ; aariya: the royal , divine etc. nin> Nin, nan: the lofty: tu-da> todda; to bear , to give birth; me-en> maan: the person as in ceeramaan, atikaimaan etc The term" lugal-aria" is almost identical with the Tamil usage of Arya maintain such as that of Kamban. And this may be the sense in the use of Arya by Buddha in Dhammapada.
It is also interesting that in the long history of Tamil literature nowhere we come across the Brahmins being called or call themselves as Aryas. Even in Sangam epoch we have kapilar, known as a Brahamana calling himself AntaN and NOT Aryan. This term has been more in use with the royalties and as an alternative term for Siva , the Brilliant Principle, the supremely radiant BEING that illuminates all minds arising as the inner sun.
.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
Thank you for your details responses Clyde. Am just trying to understand about South Asian genetics/history. Even though historically many different groups migrated to South Asia for some strange reason everything seems to always seems to focus on the Aryans. It is almost like deliberate confusion is being caused to keep the history of South Asia covered by having everyone fight over the Aryans a group(s)
The term Aryan is far too ambiguous. It is used to refer to /being used by too many ethnically different groups (Iranians, Indians, Europeans) and is further confused by the term Indo-Aryan as opposed to just Aryan. For people who want a simple understanding of there roots this is all too confusing.
What am trying to understand is when the South Asians talk about the Indo Aryans. I understand they are referring to a people who migrated from Iran to South Asia. The ancestors of some/many South Asians. These people (Indo-Aryans) I understand to be Ethnically NON-EUROPEAN people.
I have then heard Europeans talk about how they are connected to the Aryans or refer to themselves as Aryans. Who are the Aryans Europeans are referring to when they call themselves Aryans?. Are they a ETHNICALLY EUROPEAN people they are referring to and IF so, then why are both South Asians and Europeans using the term Aryan to refer to TWO ETHNICALLY DISTINCT/DIFFERENT Racial groups?. Is it because there is a connection between the Indo-Aryans South Asians refer to (those who migrated from Iran) and the Aryans (Ethnic European people) Europeans refer to?
Then on top I read about the Indo-Europeans who again are connected to this all this Aryan stuff. By this I understand when they Europeans refer to themselves as Aryans they are referring to one of these Indo-European tribes. So then if the Indo Aryans the South Asians speak of are not ethnically the same as the Aryans the Europeans speak of why and what exactly are both groups fighting over?
Further to confuse matters is this whole claim that Indo-European languages were bought into South Asia by Indo-European speaking people. Therefore all South Asians who speak Indo European have Indo European genes which are basically European genes as there is no such thing as a Indo European.
On top to further confuse things is the presence of this whole R1a haplogroup which DNA tests show many many South Asians have and apparently Europeans have too. So if the Aryans Europeans and South Asians speak of are Ethnically Distinct/different groups then which group does this R1a haplogroup belong to? Does it belong to the Indo-Aryans the South Asians speak (Ethnically NON-European people) or does it belong to the Aryans Europeans speak of (Indo-European Aryan tribe who were Europeans)
If it belongs to the Indo-Europeans (Aryans-ethnic European types) then because so many why do so many South Asians have this gene? Is it because they ALL have european admixture? If it does not belong to the Indo European Aryans but to the Indo-Aryans (South Asian people) then why do Europeans have this gene?
If the Aryans South Asians speak of were ethnically distinct from the Aryans Europeans speak of then what are both sides always fighting over? Is there an actual connection between these two ethnically distinct groups both refer to. If so, what is that connection?
Am trying to understand the genetic impact of Europeans in South Asian (India/Pakistan). That is authentic european admixture.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
Clyde in answer to your response on number 1. Central Asia is not South Asia. Am aware there were ethnic European people living in Central Asia (Chinese Tocharian mummies) but Central Asia is not South Asia. What about Kashmir?
Number 2- yes I also do not believe the Indo European language being correlated with genes in South Asia that Europeans are claiming.
This is why I want to know the exact genetic impact Europeans made on South Asian history so I can be clear on South Asian history.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).
Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions. ''
Ethnically who were the ancient Greeks? Were they Ethnically European people? How much genetic impact did Alexander the Great leave in South Asia? There seems to be no reaL idea on which groups in South Asia are carries or Greek genes from Alexander the Great's time.
There have been attempts to claim groups like Kalash/Kashmiris are descendants of Alexander the Great’s but so far genetic research has dismissed these claims
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: Thank you for your details responses Clyde. Am just trying to understand about South Asian genetics/history. Even though historically many different groups migrated to South Asia for some strange reason everything seems to always seems to focus on the Aryans. It is almost like deliberate confusion is being caused to keep the history of South Asia covered by having everyone fight over the Aryans a group(s)
The term Aryan is far too ambiguous. It is used to refer to /being used by too many ethnically different groups (Iranians, Indians, Europeans) and is further confused by the term Indo-Aryan as opposed to just Aryan. For people who want a simple understanding of there roots this is all too confusing.
What am trying to understand is when the South Asians talk about the Indo Aryans. I understand they are referring to a people who migrated from Iran to South Asia. The ancestors of some/many South Asians. These people (Indo-Aryans) I understand to be Ethnically NON-EUROPEAN people.
I have then heard Europeans talk about how they are connected to the Aryans or refer to themselves as Aryans. Who are the Aryans Europeans are referring to when they call themselves Aryans?. Are they a ETHNICALLY EUROPEAN people they are referring to and IF so, then why are both South Asians and Europeans using the term Aryan to refer to TWO ETHNICALLY DISTINCT/DIFFERENT Racial groups?. Is it because there is a connection between the Indo-Aryans South Asians refer to (those who migrated from Iran) and the Aryans (Ethnic European people) Europeans refer to?
Then on top I read about the Indo-Europeans who again are connected to this all this Aryan stuff. By this I understand when they Europeans refer to themselves as Aryans they are referring to one of these Indo-European tribes. So then if the Indo Aryans the South Asians speak of are not ethnically the same as the Aryans the Europeans speak of why and what exactly are both groups fighting over?
Further to confuse matters is this whole claim that Indo-European languages were bought into South Asia by Indo-European speaking people. Therefore all South Asians who speak Indo European have Indo European genes which are basically European genes as there is no such thing as a Indo European.
On top to further confuse things is the presence of this whole R1a haplogroup which DNA tests show many many South Asians have and apparently Europeans have too. So if the Aryans Europeans and South Asians speak of are Ethnically Distinct/different groups then which group does this R1a haplogroup belong to? Does it belong to the Indo-Aryans the South Asians speak (Ethnically NON-European people) or does it belong to the Aryans Europeans speak of (Indo-European Aryan tribe who were Europeans)
If it belongs to the Indo-Europeans (Aryans-ethnic European types) then because so many why do so many South Asians have this gene? Is it because they ALL have european admixture? If it does not belong to the Indo European Aryans but to the Indo-Aryans (South Asian people) then why do Europeans have this gene?
If the Aryans South Asians speak of were ethnically distinct from the Aryans Europeans speak of then what are both sides always fighting over? Is there an actual connection between these two ethnically distinct groups both refer to. If so, what is that connection?
Am trying to understand the genetic impact of Europeans in South Asian (India/Pakistan). That is authentic european admixture.
I explained above that the term Aryan has nothing to do with Europeans or Indo-Europeans. It was the NAZIs that began to apply this term to Europeans. Some Hindu Nationalist have created animosity between Dravidians and Indo-Aryan speakers by claiming that politicians in South India are trying to divide India by claiming that Dravidian speakers were in India before the Indo-Aryan speaking Hindus. These Nationalist claim that genetics proves that Hindus speaking Aryan languages are the original inhabitants of India. This is false India, Scientific research has established the fact that India was settled by numerous populations and Indo-Aryan speakers only entered India around 1200 and 800 BC.
The archeological evidence indicated that the first settlers of India were probably Negritos and Austro-Asiatic, then Dravidian speakers and finally Southeast Asians . Geneticists maintain that the Dravidian speakers originated in India , but this is false Dravidian speakers come from Africa and belonged to the C-Group Culture of Nubia and the Fezzan. Because the Dravidians originated in Africa, haplogroup R1a probably originated in Africa were we find Africans that carry R1a and speak Tamil, a Dravidian language in Chad-Cameroon. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjk
Reich et al,claims that the Indian Cline divides Indians into two groups Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ANS).
The ANI are related to western Eurasians and speak Indo-Euopean languages. The ANS on the otherhand speak Dravidian languages.
‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans. The ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI) are the Dravidian speakers. The ASI, is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: Clyde in answer to your response on number 1. Central Asia is not South Asia. Am aware there were ethnic European people living in Central Asia (Chinese Tocharian mummies) but Central Asia is not South Asia. What about Kashmir?
Number 2- yes I also do not believe the Indo European language being correlated with genes in South Asia that Europeans are claiming.
This is why I want to know the exact genetic impact Europeans made on South Asian history so I can be clear on South Asian history.
There is no evidence of European influence on South Asian genetics. Most researchers claim South Indians spread R1a into Europe.
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: ''The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).
Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions. ''
Ethnically who were the ancient Greeks? Were they Ethnically European people? How much genetic impact did Alexander the Great leave in South Asia? There seems to be no reaL idea on which groups in South Asia are carries or Greek genes from Alexander the Great's time.
There have been attempts to claim groups like Kalash/Kashmiris are descendants of Alexander the Great’s but so far genetic research has dismissed these claims
These papers are fine but you will not understand the role of Pre-Alexander Greeks in Afghanistan and-Pakistan until you read the paper: Greek influence on Sanskrit, https://www.academia.edu/1898458/Greek_influence_on_Sanskrit Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''There is no evidence of European influence on South Asian genetics. '' C'mon Clyde. Forget the R1a there most definitely is european admixture in South Asia. The british colonialists were the most recent european tribes/people to migrate to India and they left there genetic impact in the region with the anglo indians. The Scynthians were another European (Northern european types) tribe who also migrated to india and again mixed and left a genetic impact. There is mention of the Huns too (not sure if these were european ethnic types). Then there is also the Indo European tribes who migrated to various part of South Asia. How much genetic impact they left in the region I guess is still being figured out. These are just tribes that we know of. But a certain percentage of present day South Asians most certainly do have authentic European ancestry/admixture. Even in remote regions like Kashmir, some individuals are known to have married/mixed with europeans.Even there political elite are mixed mongrels of european descent (Farooq Abdullah and his son Ex Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah) With all the evidence how can you even say there is no european influence on south asian genetics. There bollywood/entertainment industry is full of european mixed mongrels (katrina kaif, nargis fakhri, karishma/kareena kapoor, arjun rampal, diya mirza, lisa ray, Ayesha Takia etc...) These are well known top actors/actresses. I read even aishwarya rai's (another top name) face shape is in between europeans and mongloids pointing to her ancient european ancestry. Not hard to see the european and mongloid influence in her phenotypes. The europea influence in Arun Nayor, Elizebeth Jurley's Ex husband is obvious http://static2.bornrichimages.com/cdn2/500/500/91/c/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ar_thumb.jpg
I have seen a number of indian actors/actresses/models where I felt the indian influence was obvious.Bollywood celebs who marry out are known to marry europeans. Preity Zinta being the latest actress to have married a white man. This is nothing new. There political elite are also known to marry Europeans. Sonia Ghandi a political leader of India is fully European. Even in present times Goa in south india is known as one of the most popular tourist spots for european visitors. India is a popular place for europeans to visit and for some to settle down too. There is European influence all over south asian, india in particular. But I guess it would take a lot of investigation to figure out precisely how much genetic impact Europeans have made in South Asia which is what I would like to know.
Present day Indians are not a singular ethnically homogeneous group/people. India is a mixed place. India is ethnically diverse. Despite this diversity I do believe there are pockets of homogeneity throughout India amongst groups who have managed to restrict/control the degree of gene flow into there region/group. It would take a very lot of investigation to uncover this as India is large region.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''Reich et al,claims that the Indian Cline divides Indians into two groups Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ANS).
The ANI are related to western Eurasians and speak Indo-Euopean languages. The ANS on the otherhand speak Dravidian languages.'' yes but I have read ths ANI/ASI were not a singluar group but ANI encompasses a number of tribes/groups who were likely closely genetically related. I read the europeans fit into the ANI. The ASI I read were ethnically distinct from ANI and not related to any other group outside the subcontinent. I have read the ASI being connected/related to the Onga/Jarawa tribe/Andaman Islanders. However someone I have interacted with who shared the same ancestry as me has claimed because there DNA test shows no Melanesians/ Australoid inputs they believe the ASI theory to be a myth, In other words they believe there ancestors were not related to the Onga//Andaman Islanders. They have told me that feel that Reich et al is basically promoting a fraud theory/claim.
South Asia is large region maybe the ASI people were not a singular ethnically homogeneous group. Maybe all south asians do not share the same ancestors under the ASI group.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''I explained above that the term Aryan has nothing to do with Europeans or Indo-Europeans. It was the NAZIs that began to apply this term to Europeans'' so then why do europeans refer to there indo european tribes (ethnic eurpean types) as Aryan if Aryans were Non-European people who migrated from Iran to South Asia. I mean is there a supposed to be a connection between the Indo-Aryan ancestors of South Asians and these Indo european people? And am not talking about 'terms' here but the actual/real ethnic groups/tribes. This whole thing of mixing the ancestors of south asians with europeans via the term Aryan has made this so confusing.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: ''Reich et al,claims that the Indian Cline divides Indians into two groups Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ANS).
The ANI are related to western Eurasians and speak Indo-Euopean languages. The ANS on the otherhand speak Dravidian languages.'' yes but I have read ths ANI/ASI were not a singluar group but ANI encompasses a number of tribes/groups who were likely closely genetically related. I read the europeans fit into the ANI. The ASI I read were ethnically distinct from ANI and not related to any other group outside the subcontinent. I have read the ASI being connected/related to the Onga/Jarawa tribe/Andaman Islanders. However someone I have interacted with who shared the same ancestry as me has claimed because there DNA test shows no Melanesians/ Australoid inputs they believe the ASI theory to be a myth, In other words they believe there ancestors were not related to the Onga//Andaman Islanders. They have told me that feel that Reich et al is basically promoting a fraud theory/claim.
South Asia is large region maybe the ASI people were not a singular ethnically homogeneous group. Maybe all south asians do not share the same ancestors under the ASI group.
They say its a myth about ASI, but the Hindutva, present no genomic data to support this claim. Also, you have ignored the fact that the Dravidians didnot migrate to India from Africa until after 3000 BC and the Indo-Aryan speakers arrived in India after 1200BC.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: ''I explained above that the term Aryan has nothing to do with Europeans or Indo-Europeans. It was the NAZIs that began to apply this term to Europeans'' so then why do europeans refer to there indo european tribes (ethnic eurpean types) as Aryan if Aryans were Non-European people who migrated from Iran to South Asia. I mean is there a supposed to be a connection between the Indo-Aryan ancestors of South Asians and these Indo european people? And am not talking about 'terms' here but the actual/real ethnic groups/tribes. This whole thing of mixing the ancestors of south asians with europeans via the term Aryan has made this so confusing.
You still fail to understand that the term Aryan has nothing to do with any modern tribe. It was originally used by the Elamites/Persians and popularized by the NAZIs.
You are confusing the linguistic evidence. You see, the Indo-Aryan speakers are mainly Indian and Iranian speakers. The Indo European speakers are Europeans and Indian speakers. The Indo-Aryan languages are not related to Indo-European languages except for Sanskrit.
It is important to remember that the relationship between Indo-European and Indo-Aryan language, especially Sanskrit is via the Greek language. Greek influenced other European languages because it was recognized as a language of culture and civilization by the Romans.
It was in Pakistan that the Greek language was probably incorporated into Sanskrit. Many of the rules for Sanskrit were codified by Panini, who was born in Salatura, in Northwest Pakistan. Panini’s grammar contains 4000 rules.
When Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, it was spoken by the elites in the area. Greek was also popular when Panini wrote the Sanskrit grammar. The Greeks were called Yunani or Yavana. Thus we learn from Agrawala (1953) that the Yavanani lipi (edict) was well known in Gandahara, and even Panini mentions the Yavana in his grammar . The term Yauna meant Ionian (Woodcock, 1966).
The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).
Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions.
Greek was used for commercial purposes and served as a patrician lingua franca of the Kabul valley and of Gandhara. During the rule of Pushyamitra many Greeks settled in India. Due to the long history of Greeks in India, Ashoka had some of his edicts written in Greek and Aramaic bilinguals. In 44 A.D., Appolonius of Tyana when he visited Taxila found that merchants and kings learned Greek “as a matter of course” (Rahman, 2004; Woodcock,1966).
Given the popularity of Greek in the region it is not surprising that Sanskrit would show such a strong relationship to the Indic languages, since it was spoken throughout the area of a couple of hundred years. Commenting on the Greek rulers of India, Kulke and Rothermund (1998), said that “They are referred to as ‘Indo-Greeks’, and there were about forty such kings and rulers who controlled large areas of northwestern India and Afghanistan….They appear as Yavanas in stray references in Indian literature, and there are few but important references in European sources. In these distant outposts, the representatives of the Hellenic policy survived the defeat of their Western compatriots at the hands of the Parthians for more than a century” (p.70). The greatest of the Indo-Greek rulers was Menander, who is mentioned in the famous Milindapanho text. The Shakas adopted many elements of Indo-Greek culture which they perpetuated in India for over 100 years (Rahman, 2004).
It is impossible to argue for a genetic relationship between Vedic and Greek languages based on the fact that speakers of these languages formerly lived in intimate contact in historical times. Secondly, we know the Dravidians were in Greece before the Indo-Europeans enter the country. These non-I-E speakers were called Pelasgians. As a result, Anna Morpurgo Davies, The linguistic evidence:Is there any?, in Gerald Cadogan, The End of the early Bronze Age in the Agean (pp.93-123), says that only 40% of Greek is of Indo-European etymology (p.105). Since only 40% of the Greek terms are of I-E origin, many of the Greek terms that agree with the Indic languages may be from the 60% of the Greek lexical items that came from non-I-E speakers which as noted by Lahovary in Dravidian origins and the West, were people who spoke either Dravidian languages, or other languages from Africa, genetically related to the Dravidian group.
In conclusion, as a result of the Greek influence in Bactria and India-Pakistan , Indians and Bactrians had to acquire "Greek Culture" to enhance their position and opportunity in North India and Bactria during Greek rule. Greek rule placed prestige on status elements introduced into the region by the Greeks, especially the Greek language. Status acquired by Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis was thus centered around acquisition of Greek language and Greek culture. This supported by the evidence that Indian elites used Greek in business and government (Rahman, 2004). This would have inturn added pressure on the Bactrians to incorporate Greek terms into a Bactrian lingua franca (i.e., Tocharian).
Given the fact that Greek administrators in Bactria and Northern India-Pakistan ,refused to fully integrate Bactrians and Indians into the ruling elite, unless they were “well versed in Greek culture and language) led to subsequent generations of native Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis to progressively incorporate more Greek terms into their native language. This would explain why Tocharian has many features that relate to certain IE etymologies and Panini’s Sanskrit grammar, present many terms that are associated with the Greeks, but illustrates little affinity to Indo-Iranian languages which are geographically and temporally closer to Tocharian.
Some researchers might dispute the influence of the Greek language on Sanskrit because Panini’s grammar was suppose to have been written around 400 B.C. This date for the grammar might be too early, because Rahman (2004) and Agrawala (1953) maintains that Greek was spoken in Gandahara in Panini’s time.
The influence of colonial Greeks in Central Asia would explain why the most important evidence of an I-E relationship with Sanskrit. The historical connections between the so-called Indo-European languages probably respect an areal linguistic relationship—not genetic relationship. .
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''They say its a myth about ASI, but the Hindutva, present no genomic data to support this claim.'' Yes you are right they should present some evidence. Maybe in the future they might. Is it not possible to share genes without it being the result of admixture. South Asia is a large region maybe the ASI present in ALL South Asians is not a result of mixing between two ethnically distinct groups. Is it not possible it could be a little more complicated than that, might be shared genes. rel Do not get me wrong. You have a lot more expertise than me and am not questioning this. I know very little about this field. Am not claiming to know anything, to be right or wrong, just keeping an open view. Am on here to get answers about south asian history.
''Dravidians didnot migrate to India from Africa until after 3000 BC and the Indo-Aryan speakers arrived in India after 1200BC.'' You are right dates are very important but I have not read/seen anything online about the dating of ASI/ANI genes. As I said I have read ANI is a composite group of different groups which include European and not a single population. ASI in terms of the information available on it is being presented as a single population related to the Andamenese Islanders. However the evidence for the whole ASI being related to the Andamenese Islanders seems to rest on the genetic distance between the two groups but even if the distance is close this does not automatically mean the two groups are related ethnically.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''You still fail to understand that the term Aryan has nothing to do with any modern tribe. It was originally used by the Elamites/Persians and popularized by the NAZIs.''
Clyde I understand Aryan has no genetic relation to any modern day ethnic group and am not confused over that. Am confused over if there is genetic (not linguistic but genetic) relationship or connection of any sort between Europeans, Indo Aryans (ancestors of south asians) and the Indo Europeans(who were basically northern european types)
Am asking this because I always see terms like europeans, indo aryan, indo european, proto indo european, proto aryan always crop up in the same topic/thread on Aryans. This is what am trying to understand. If there is a genetic not linguistic connection/relation between these groups.
''You are confusing the linguistic evidence. You see, the Indo-Aryan speakers are mainly Indian and Iranian speakers. The Indo European speakers are Europeans and Indian speakers. The Indo-Aryan languages are not related to Indo-European languages except for Sanskrit.'' Thank you for clearing this up. Then it is this relationship between Sankskrit and Indo European that is causing all this confusion. On top no one seems to know how much genetic impact that Indo European people made in south asia. Indo europeans were ethnic groups who kigrated to south asia. Indo European is not just a linguistic terms it is just that the tribes known as indo european (northern european types) no longer exist as a seperate ethnic group today that the term indo european has come to be associated as a lingustic term only.
So when europeans talk about indo european speakers in india/South Asia are you saying they are referring to Sanskrit since you have said there is no other linguistic relation between the languages in this region other than with Sanskrit? Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems to be Europeans are claiming the Indo European migrations bought Sanskrit in to India and there is a supposed genetic link between these Sanskrit speakers and the indo european migrations.
Most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient rather than recent origin. This is what am trying to understand. How much genetic impact Europeans have made on South Asia for e.g 10%,15%,20% etc... That is authentic European admixture. No one seems to know this just a blurry picture is painted.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''Alaxander the Great conquered India'' again the narrative online suggests that Alexander did not conquer india. He came close but he turned around. he was defeated by Porus a small time king.
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: ''You still fail to understand that the term Aryan has nothing to do with any modern tribe. It was originally used by the Elamites/Persians and popularized by the NAZIs.''
Clyde I understand Aryan has no genetic relation to any modern day ethnic group and am not confused over that. Am confused over if there is genetic (not linguistic but genetic) relationship or connection of any sort between Europeans, Indo Aryans (ancestors of south asians) and the Indo Europeans(who were basically northern european types)
Am asking this because I always see terms like europeans, indo aryan, indo european, proto indo european, proto aryan always crop up in the same topic/thread on Aryans. This is what am trying to understand. If there is a genetic not linguistic connection/relation between these groups.
''You are confusing the linguistic evidence. You see, the Indo-Aryan speakers are mainly Indian and Iranian speakers. The Indo European speakers are Europeans and Indian speakers. The Indo-Aryan languages are not related to Indo-European languages except for Sanskrit.'' Thank you for clearing this up. Then it is this relationship between Sankskrit and Indo European that is causing all this confusion. On top no one seems to know how much genetic impact that Indo European people made in south asia. Indo europeans were ethnic groups who kigrated to south asia. Indo European is not just a linguistic terms it is just that the tribes known as indo european (northern european types) no longer exist as a seperate ethnic group today that the term indo european has come to be associated as a lingustic term only.
So when europeans talk about indo european speakers in india/South Asia are you saying they are referring to Sanskrit since you have said there is no other linguistic relation between the languages in this region other than with Sanskrit? Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems to be Europeans are claiming the Indo European migrations bought Sanskrit in to India and there is a supposed genetic link between these Sanskrit speakers and the indo european migrations.
Most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient rather than recent origin. This is what am trying to understand. How much genetic impact Europeans have made on South Asia for e.g 10%,15%,20% etc... That is authentic European admixture. No one seems to know this just a blurry picture is painted.
Researchers early recognized a relationship between Sanskrit and Greek. This was the foundation of Indo-European linguistics. Yes, the relationship between I-E languages is based on the relationship of Greek and Sanskrit, and Greek and the other language.
Indo-European was traditionally a linguistic term. Originally the I-E culture was recognized as a impoverished nomadic cultur, based on , domestication of the horse, herding, and the use of wheeled vehicles.
Mallory suggested that the I-E people belonged to the Yamnaya and Corded Ware folk in the late 1990's, and the traditional view that the I-E people were a nomadic horse culture, changed and they became known as a farming and agricultural culture because these features characterized the Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures.
In relation to I-E you are trying to get an understanding of a phenomena that deserves a great among of reading. Frederik Kortlandt ( web page ) , has noted that "Speculations about the linguistic affinity of a prehistoric culture are futile because it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of prehistoric linguistic groups have vanished without leaving a trace." This results from the fact that pots and skeletons can not tell us the language they spoke. Conversely ,a skeleton can tell, us the genes they carried and possibly its race, but it can not provide information on the language spoken by the individual skeleton.
No one was present 1000's of years ago to record written records we can read today and have absolute knowledge about past events. As a result much of what we write is speculative in relation to I-E because this is a linguistic term, applied to a racial group. The problem with its use is that when we look at contemporary Europeans we see Caucasians, but the skeletal remains associated with the ancient Yamnaya, Corded Ware cultures down to 1400 BC, are of Negroid or Sub-Saharan people. Thusly, there has been a racial change in the population of Europe beginning around 1400BC, as the I-E and Indo-Aryan speakers began to migrate out of Central Asia, into the South, East and West of Eurasia, down into North Africa.
You have some very good simple questions but the answers are complex because, some people are using the concept of I-E as a source of racial pride when we are talking about two different populations: a Negro population before 1400BC, and a Caucasian population after this date.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''some people are using the concept of I-E as a source of racial pride when we are talking about two different populations''
Yes this is right. This is why there is so much nonsense regards this Aryan/Indo-Aryan topic online that it is hard to get a clear understanding of even the basics of who these terms refer to independently because you have two very ethnically different groups South Asians and Europeans using the same terminology to describe themselves. Europeans with there understanding/usage of Aryan introduce a new concept Indo-European which further confuses things for someone who is objectively looking to understand who the Aryans/Indo-Aryans were. Then you have two sides south asians and europeans using the term in relation to there own ethnic groups history. Both of whom are ethnically different groups. On top you have people some of whom claim the term Aryan and understand it only as a linguistic term. Others in relation to there ethnicity to modern day/past ethnic groups. With two different groups using the term to argue two totally different histories it has become overused, manipulated and ambiguous. Lost meaning. If both parties were arguing over the same people it would not be so hard to understand. However with both south asians and europeans relating the terms to themselves/ there own ancestral history this whole thing is a mess to understand. When south asians discuss the aryans you have the europeans who have there input in the topic and when europeans discuss the aryans you have the south asians claiming europeans have nothing to do with them. Whole thing is a mess because there is no clear cut clarity or understanding between both groups on whom which ethnic group/region the other is referring to when they talk about the Aryans.
Yes for some people there is a source of racial pride. Some people have a kind of emotional attachment to the history of there region/people. This can sometimes not allow people to see things for what they are. I guess it is only natural to some extent. I have read Europeans argue over who has the most Indo European genes/admixture as if that is somehow a source of pride or not pride for them or as if somehow having more indo european genes/ancestry makes them more ethnically european. Anyway the genetic impact europeans have made on south asia is all I really wanted to understand. I concentrate on the ancient times as most european admixture in south asia is likely of ancient origin. I really find the ASI interesting. They are said to be a group unique to the subcontinent. Even little is known about the ANI. Who knows what mysteries they hold. I feel genetics is in a primitive state. Maybe one day when geneticists know more they will be able to enlighten us about the history of this region until then I guess a lot of things remain speculation. At least that is the impression am getting from a lot of the anthropology forums I have frequented. But then again race/ancestry is a very sensitive issues for some people which can cause a lot of discord on these anthropology threads. I guess I will have to wait it out to see if any new findings come to light about the ancient history of South Asia.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
correction to post above. Meant to write''I have seen a number of indian actors/actresses/models where I felt the european influence was obvious.''
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: ''They say its a myth about ASI, but the Hindutva, present no genomic data to support this claim.'' Yes you are right they should present some evidence. Maybe in the future they might. Is it not possible to share genes without it being the result of admixture. South Asia is a large region maybe the ASI present in ALL South Asians is not a result of mixing between two ethnically distinct groups. Is it not possible it could be a little more complicated than that, might be shared genes. rel Do not get me wrong. You have a lot more expertise than me and am not questioning this. I know very little about this field. Am not claiming to know anything, to be right or wrong, just keeping an open view. Am on here to get answers about south asian history.
''Dravidians didnot migrate to India from Africa until after 3000 BC and the Indo-Aryan speakers arrived in India after 1200BC.'' You are right dates are very important but I have not read/seen anything online about the dating of ASI/ANI genes. As I said I have read ANI is a composite group of different groups which include European and not a single population. ASI in terms of the information available on it is being presented as a single population related to the Andamenese Islanders. However the evidence for the whole ASI being related to the Andamenese Islanders seems to rest on the genetic distance between the two groups but even if the distance is close this does not automatically mean the two groups are related ethnically.
The population history of India involves more than just Dravidian and Indo-Aryan speakers. The articles below provides insight into this phenomena. See:
Thank you for the links Clyde. They look interesting. I will have a read of them. You are right ''The population history of India involves more than just Dravidian and Indo-Aryan speakers.'' This is something that many overlook. Due to the various ethnic elements in this region. To determine the ancestry of Indians/South Asians requires great detailed investigation. All south Asians share/do not share ancestry depending on the lineage making them either less/more native to the region and less/more ethnically homogeneous. For example the Australoids tribe/group in India appear to have remained pretty ethnically homogeneous. For a long time they have lived in relatively isolated conditions with limited gene flow into there group. As a result they have managed to preserve there racial make up to a great extent. The Kalash tribe of Pakistan are another example. They too have lived in relatively isolated conditions for a long time with limited gene flow into there region. As a result they too have managed to preserve there ethnic look. Both these groups are racially/ethnically distinct but yet both have remained relatively homogeneous. I believe there may be more pockets of homogeneity like this in this region. Although it would take a lot of investigation to find out a groups/Individuals ancestry. This would mean there may be some Indians/South Asians groups/individuals whose ancestry is very native to the early period of the region who have no ancestry that is clearly foreign to there group/the region as a whole (for example european, mongloid etc...)
In terms of the Non-Caucasion lineages in South Asia. These are the groups I have come across. Australoid, Melanesian, Veddoid, Austra Munda, Negrito, Sub Saharan, Polynesian, Mongloid.
I have read the Melanesian are the same as/Interchangeable with Australoid. Clyde if I have missed any if you could please let me know or if any of these lineages are not present in South Asia.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: Thank you for the links Clyde. They look interesting. I will have a read of them. You are right ''The population history of India involves more than just Dravidian and Indo-Aryan speakers.'' This is something that many overlook. Due to the various ethnic elements in this region. To determine the ancestry of Indians/South Asians requires great detailed investigation. All south Asians share/do not share ancestry depending on the lineage making them either less/more native to the region and less/more ethnically homogeneous. For example the Australoids tribe/group in India appear to have remained pretty ethnically homogeneous. For a long time they have lived in relatively isolated conditions with limited gene flow into there group. As a result they have managed to preserve there racial make up to a great extent. The Kalash tribe of Pakistan are another example. They too have lived in relatively isolated conditions for a long time with limited gene flow into there region. As a result they too have managed to preserve there ethnic look. Both these groups are racially/ethnically distinct but yet both have remained relatively homogeneous. I believe there may be more pockets of homogeneity like this in this region. Although it would take a lot of investigation to find out a groups/Individuals ancestry. This would mean there may be some Indians/South Asians groups/individuals whose ancestry is very native to the early period of the region who have no ancestry that is clearly foreign to there group/the region as a whole (for example european, mongloid etc...)
In terms of the Non-Caucasion lineages in South Asia. These are the groups I have come across. Australoid, Melanesian, Veddoid, Austra Munda, Negrito, Sub Saharan, Polynesian, Mongloid.
I have read the Melanesian are the same as/Interchangeable with Australoid. Clyde if I have missed any if you could please let me know or if any of these lineages are not present in South Asia.
The Veddoid is the same as Australoid. Negrito usually refers to the Munda.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
Clyde do you believe the ASI are a caucasion lineage? I do not see how North Indians in particular who have show on average around 30%-35% ASI in DNA tests which a significant amount could look as caucasion as they do if the ASI was a non-caucasion lineage.
Do you believe the ASI is ethnically related to the Andaman Islanders or do you believe the ASI were genetically/ethnically distinct from this group?
On page 2 someone on this link wrote about the Kalash ''^ It's interesting that the Kalash have no ANI. In fact they don't have any components other than West Asian and ASI. No ANI, no Northern European, no Southern European, no Southwest Asian, and very little East Asian. I'm not too familiar with the Kalash, but they are probably indigenous to their region and have preserved their genetic heritage, even though some have proposed that they came from the north and migrated south to their present area. Linguistically, they speak an Indo-Iranian language, Kalasha, and Indo-Iranian is a subfamily of Indo-European. But it is a very conservative one from what I've read from Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how to interpret that with respect to the Indo-Europeanization process that may have been brought upon them and their previous language. Can anyone enlighten us?''
How can the Kalash not have any ANI?. I was under the impression all South Asians were a composite of ASI and ANI. Both ANI and ASI not being a singular homogeneous group but a composite of groups. How exactly would the Kalash not have ANI if pretty much every other South Asian does?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
coolnight, are you Indian?? You seem to be making more posts on India than Egypt.
Also, one of the extremely rare instances when Clyde is right is that "arya" is a title that has no bearing on 'race'. The whole Vedic origin of Indo-European languages is a hypothesis that is not even supported by the languages themselves.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
I have made two posts. One on South Asia. One on India. I will make more posts on what am interested in finding out not on my interest per se.
'' is a title that has no bearing on 'race'. The whole Vedic origin of Indo-European languages is a hypothesis that is not even supported by the languages themselves.''
As I have stated several time I have no interest in Indo European from a lingusitic perspective.
I understand there are two components to Indo European. Linguistic and Genetic. The genetic- Indo-Europeans were a group of people who belonged to a certain ethnic/racial type (Northern Europeans/Nordic)
These Indo European people spoke a language which has been found to be related to a language spoken in South Asia and hence these languages fall under the Indo-European category.
Now the argument what I understand Europeans have presented is that the the Indo European language spoken in South Asia was bought there by the Indo-European people (Northern european types) whether through elite dominance/invasion or migration makes no difference to there claim that the Indo European speakers of South Asia had the language bought to them. With this argument the Europeans have bought in the genetic aspect. This is the aspect am trying to understand. Not the linguistic one. That is that DNA tests have shown a small Northern European component present in Many North indians. This Northern European component they claim are the Indo-Europeans genes. A result of the Indo European migrations into these parts of India and subsequent mixing of there genes into these parts of the population. This is the genetic connection Europeans speak about. The Indo European argument in relation to south asia is the connection between language and genetics.
I do not believe there is a Indo European language and Genetic connection in South Asia. This does not mean I deny Indo European migrations to India took place. I do not deny that. Historically many European tribes have migrated to India. That there is European influence in India is clear. However this whole idea that a group of people invaded/migrated to india and enforced there language on the people is too cut n dry. There are too many examples of people who speak a language that does not originate from there region and who also have no genetics from the group whom the language they speak originates from. The Kalash are Indo European speakers but they have shown to have no European admixture.The Burusho do not speak an Indo European language but are said to be Indo European people.
So am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is authentic European admixture. Am focusing on this whole Indo-European/Aryans argument because most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient origin and because the Northern European component found in many South Asians is being connected to the Indo-European migrations. Whereas as I stated before I do not deny Indo Europeans migrated to Indian/South Asia and no doubt admixture did occur. I do not believe this Northern European component found in many South Asians is reflective of these Indo European genes or authentic European genes of any other nature in ALL the groups/Individuals who supposedly show this component . DNA tests look at less than 1% of an individuals genes. A lot more has to be taken into consideration that is not when determining a groups/Individual's ancestry. As I said earlier many different groups migrated to South Asia not just the Indo Europeans in different time frames. If it is possible/can be shown populations/groups can/do share some of the same genes without this being a result of admixture this alone would raise doubts on relying on genetics alone to understand ancestry. I feel phenotypes/ethnic-biological differences between groups/Individuals are far more reliable an indicator of an Individual/Group's ancestry than DNA tests. Phenoptyopes can not be manipulated. Except through plastic surgery I guess but then most people do not have plastic surgery. Genetic data however can be interpreted and understood in many different ways. There is also the question of the origin of the genes when multiple populations/groups show the same gene. How do you determine where the gene began.
I find it hard to believe that ALL South Asians showing this Northern European component have European admixture/Indo European genes. Am not convinced. I believe there is more to this Northern European component than we know. DNA test companies give us no details on if these various South Asian groups show the same exact gene. Nor do they date the genes. We have no idea how far back/recent these genes go. Whereas no doubt there is European (plus other foreign) admixture in Kashmir. Both groups are known to inter marry. In particular the union tends to be Kashmiri males and European females. However I believe that in a remote region like Kashmir, European admixture (ancient/ recent) is limited to only a small percentage/some part of the populace. I find it hard to believe the whole populace has European admixture even if this is said to be mostly of ancient origins. Gene flow into this region has always been controlled/restricted. I have viewed hundreds of photos of ethnic Kashmiris (not the mixed European/Indian/Pakistan or any other foreign admixture mutts/mongrels. Nor those who are clearly migrants from these or any other outside group into the region but ethnic Kashmiris those whose roots/ancestry is indigeneous to the region). There West Asian/Central Asian affinity is visible (ANI). They are said to be around 30% -35% ASI on average. The ASI is hard to detect/pin down in South Asian phenotype/appearance because we have no evidence/image of what the ASI looked like to compare them to present day groups. This means if the ASI percentages/figures in South Asians are correct then no doubt this admixture is visible in them. We just are not able to pin point it down. The ASI are said to have affinities with the Jarawa/Andamanese Islanders who are the only group to show ASI admixture without ANI admixture. However even the genetic affinity of the ASI with the Andamese Islanders is said to be very distant. This means the Andaman islanders very likely do not represent what the ASI looked like. The ASI are also said to be genetically/ethnically distinct from the ANI . On top one the most important point that is overlooked is that the ASI like the ANI is said to be a conglomerate of different groups/tribes and not a singular homogeneous/racial ethnic group. This means the phenotype/appearance of the ASI ancestors of South Asian groups could have varied greatly. Hence the ASI ancestors of South Asians could just as well be bigger contributors to the stark differences in looks/appearances between different South Asians groups especially if it found to be the ASI did not share a similar/homogeneous appearance but varied in phenotype/appearance across the region.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:
So am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is authentic European admixture. Am focusing on this whole Indo-European/Aryans argument because most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient origin and because the Northern European component found in many South Asians is being connected to the Indo-European migrations. Whereas as I stated before I do not deny Indo Europeans migrated to Indian/South Asia and no doubt admixture did occur. I do not believe this Northern European component found in many South Asians is reflective of these Indo European genes or authentic European genes of any other nature in ALL the groups/Individuals who supposedly show this component .
After this long discussion you have learned nothing. As a result, you should just accept your personal opinion as valid and leave it at that.
This is because there in no such thing as Indo-European (I-E) genes, especially Northern European genes.You have read the literature, there was no migration of Northern Europeans into India. As a result, the questions you are asking will never be answered to your satisfaction, so just choose a side--but remember you can not "prove" the side you have chosen, because the ancient genes of Mesopotamia and Central Asia are Kushite genes and the Kushites came from Africa.
Persian records document the exile of whites from Europe into South Asia, and it was not in ancient times.
Population history via genetics can never be proven. It can't be proven because each person has his/her individual genetic make-up, and members of different ethnic groups can carry the same genes. As a result, only craniometrics can determine the racial ancestry of an individual.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: the ancient genes of Mesopotamia and Central Asia are Kushite genes and the Kushites came from Africa.
The Kushites from Africa lived in what is now Sudan.
The Arab presence is estimated at 70% of the Sudanese population.[10] Others include the Arabized ethnic groups of Nubians, Zaghawa, and Copts.
so which of these genes correspond to Mesopotamian and Central Asian genes ?
.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''After this long discussion you have learned nothing. As a result, you should just accept your personal opinion as valid and leave it at that. ''
No I do not want to accept my personal opinion as valid if it is wrong. Ok the reason I call these European tribes that migrated into South Asia Indo-europeaans is because they spoke an Indo European language. Clyde I do not care what you or anyone call the european. As I stated clearly in comment '' am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is AUTHENTIC EUROPEAN ADMIXTURE.''
You even deny European influence in India which is ridiculous because india is filled with european influence from there Bollywood being filled with mixed european-indian mongrels. Many of the bollywood music videos have european dancers. I can name several ''indian'' actors who married/dated white women/men. To there elite (Sonia Ghandi). Some of there elite are also know to marry Europeans./half Europeans. Even if we discard the term Indo European in a genetic sense we still are left with many European tribes that historically migrated India. This is the Northener european component am talking about that has shown in the DNA tests of many in particular Northern Indians. This component I do not believe is authentic European admixture in ALL cases. This is the ancient component showing in the DNA tests of many Indians/South Asians am trying to understand.
''You have read the literature, there was no migration of Northern Europeans into India.'' But European tribes have historically migrated into India. Who were the Saka/Scynthians if not Ethnically/Racially Europeans as there skeletal remains showed them to be a Northern European/Nordic type people. Also Europeans once lived in Central Asia. Why are you denying ancient European presence in India/South Asia when Europeans very clearly were present there.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: the ancient genes of Mesopotamia and Central Asia are Kushite genes and the Kushites came from Africa.
The Kushites from Africa lived in what is now Sudan.
The Arab presence is estimated at 70% of the Sudanese population.[10] Others include the Arabized ethnic groups of Nubians, Zaghawa, and Copts.
so which of these genes correspond to Mesopotamian and Central Asian genes ?
.
LOL. The Kushites long ago migrated out of the Sudan into West Africa. The Nuba and other groups only came into the Sudan during the Roman period.
In addition, the people in Central Asia are also recen t migrants to the area.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: ''After this long discussion you have learned nothing. As a result, you should just accept your personal opinion as valid and leave it at that. ''
No I do not want to accept my personal opinion as valid if it is wrong. Ok the reason I call these European tribes that migrated into South Asia Indo-europeaans is because they spoke an Indo European language. Clyde I do not care what you or anyone call the european. As I stated clearly in comment '' am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is AUTHENTIC EUROPEAN ADMIXTURE.''
You even deny European influence in India which is ridiculous because india is filled with european influence from there Bollywood being filled with mixed european-indian mongrels. Many of the bollywood music videos have european dancers. I can name several ''indian'' actors who married/dated white women/men. To there elite (Sonia Ghandi). Some of there elite are also know to marry Europeans./half Europeans. Even if we discard the term Indo European in a genetic sense we still are left with many European tribes that historically migrated India. This is the Northener european component am talking about that has shown in the DNA tests of many in particular Northern Indians. This component I do not believe is authentic European admixture in ALL cases. This is the ancient component showing in the DNA tests of many Indians/South Asians am trying to understand.
''You have read the literature, there was no migration of Northern Europeans into India.'' But European tribes have historically migrated into India. Who were the Saka/Scynthians if not Ethnically/Racially Europeans as there skeletal remains showed them to be a Northern European/Nordic type people. Also Europeans once lived in Central Asia. Why are you denying ancient European presence in India/South Asia when Europeans very clearly were present there.
I said there were no ancient Europeans in India, only people who have a historical presence. A historical presence means that we have documents associated with their appearance, like the Saka.
.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: the ancient genes of Mesopotamia and Central Asia are Kushite genes and the Kushites came from Africa.
quote: The Kushites long ago migrated out of the Sudan into West Africa. The Nuba and other groups only came into the Sudan during the Roman period.
LOL. this sounds like making up stuff-ism
So the Kushies left Sudan and went to Mesopotamia and Central Asia and then went to West Africa
or
the Kushites left Sudan and went to West Africa and then went to Mesopotamia and Central ?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: I have made two posts. One on South Asia. One on India. I will make more posts on what am interested in finding out not on my interest per se.
'' is a title that has no bearing on 'race'. The whole Vedic origin of Indo-European languages is a hypothesis that is not even supported by the languages themselves.''
As I have stated several time I have no interest in Indo European from a lingusitic perspective.
I understand there are two components to Indo European. Linguistic and Genetic. The genetic- Indo-Europeans were a group of people who belonged to a certain ethnic/racial type (Northern Europeans/Nordic)
These Indo European people spoke a language which has been found to be related to a language spoken in South Asia and hence these languages fall under the Indo-European category.
Now the argument what I understand Europeans have presented is that the the Indo European language spoken in South Asia was bought there by the Indo-European people (Northern european types) whether through elite dominance/invasion or migration makes no difference to there claim that the Indo European speakers of South Asia had the language bought to them. With this argument the Europeans have bought in the genetic aspect. This is the aspect am trying to understand. Not the linguistic one. That is that DNA tests have shown a small Northern European component present in Many North indians. This Northern European component they claim are the Indo-Europeans genes. A result of the Indo European migrations into these parts of India and subsequent mixing of there genes into these parts of the population. This is the genetic connection Europeans speak about. The Indo European argument in relation to south asia is the connection between language and genetics.
I do not believe there is a Indo European language and Genetic connection in South Asia. This does not mean I deny Indo European migrations to India took place. I do not deny that. Historically many European tribes have migrated to India. That there is European influence in India is clear. However this whole idea that a group of people invaded/migrated to india and enforced there language on the people is too cut n dry. There are too many examples of people who speak a language that does not originate from there region and who also have no genetics from the group whom the language they speak originates from. The Kalash are Indo European speakers but they have shown to have no European admixture.The Burusho do not speak an Indo European language but are said to be Indo European people.
So am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is authentic European admixture. Am focusing on this whole Indo-European/Aryans argument because most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient origin and because the Northern European component found in many South Asians is being connected to the Indo-European migrations. Whereas as I stated before I do not deny Indo Europeans migrated to Indian/South Asia and no doubt admixture did occur. I do not believe this Northern European component found in many South Asians is reflective of these Indo European genes or authentic European genes of any other nature in ALL the groups/Individuals who supposedly show this component . DNA tests look at less than 1% of an individuals genes. A lot more has to be taken into consideration that is not when determining a groups/Individual's ancestry. As I said earlier many different groups migrated to South Asia not just the Indo Europeans in different time frames. If it is possible/can be shown populations/groups can/do share some of the same genes without this being a result of admixture this alone would raise doubts on relying on genetics alone to understand ancestry. I feel phenotypes/ethnic-biological differences between groups/Individuals are far more reliable an indicator of an Individual/Group's ancestry than DNA tests. Phenoptyopes can not be manipulated. Except through plastic surgery I guess but then most people do not have plastic surgery. Genetic data however can be interpreted and understood in many different ways. There is also the question of the origin of the genes when multiple populations/groups show the same gene. How do you determine where the gene began.
I find it hard to believe that ALL South Asians showing this Northern European component have European admixture/Indo European genes. Am not convinced. I believe there is more to this Northern European component than we know. DNA test companies give us no details on if these various South Asian groups show the same exact gene. Nor do they date the genes. We have no idea how far back/recent these genes go. Whereas no doubt there is European (plus other foreign) admixture in Kashmir. Both groups are known to inter marry. In particular the union tends to be Kashmiri males and European females. However I believe that in a remote region like Kashmir, European admixture (ancient/ recent) is limited to only a small percentage/some part of the populace. I find it hard to believe the whole populace has European admixture even if this is said to be mostly of ancient origins. Gene flow into this region has always been controlled/restricted. I have viewed hundreds of photos of ethnic Kashmiris (not the mixed European/Indian/Pakistan or any other foreign admixture mutts/mongrels. Nor those who are clearly migrants from these or any other outside group into the region but ethnic Kashmiris those whose roots/ancestry is indigeneous to the region). There West Asian/Central Asian affinity is visible (ANI). They are said to be around 30% -35% ASI on average. The ASI is hard to detect/pin down in South Asian phenotype/appearance because we have no evidence/image of what the ASI looked like to compare them to present day groups. This means if the ASI percentages/figures in South Asians are correct then no doubt this admixture is visible in them. We just are not able to pin point it down. The ASI are said to have affinities with the Jarawa/Andamanese Islanders who are the only group to show ASI admixture without ANI admixture. However even the genetic affinity of the ASI with the Andamese Islanders is said to be very distant. This means the Andaman islanders very likely do not represent what the ASI looked like. The ASI are also said to be genetically/ethnically distinct from the ANI . On top one the most important point that is overlooked is that the ASI like the ANI is said to be a conglomerate of different groups/tribes and not a singular homogeneous/racial ethnic group. This means the phenotype/appearance of the ASI ancestors of South Asian groups could have varied greatly. Hence the ASI ancestors of South Asians could just as well be bigger contributors to the stark differences in looks/appearances between different South Asians groups especially if it found to be the ASI did not share a similar/homogeneous appearance but varied in phenotype/appearance across the region.
Well from the linguistic perspective, the way IE languages are distributed geographically--- with the majority of IE language subfamilies found in the European subcontinent from an early date with the Balto-Slavic subfamily of eastern Europe being the largest and most diverse; and the largest and most diverse subfamily of all being Indo-Iranian of Iran, Afghanistan, and India and originally including most of Central Asia, it becomes apparent that the homeland of Proto-IE had lie somewhere in the Russian steppes between Europe and Central Asia. The glottochronology i.e. time depth of IE as well as the reconstruction of Proto-IE words for flora and fauna and environmental aspects also support the Russian steppes.
But the genetic perspective is somewhat more complicated and not as straightforward. The other competing major hypothesis is that of Collin Renfrew's 'Anatolian Origin' which attempts to tie Proto-IE with the spread of agriculture into Europe. The major problem with this hypothesis is that it conflicts with all the major linguistic evidence I just cited above not to mention the fact that the Anatolian Origin hypothesis only fits IE speakers in Europe but not speakers from other areas of Western Eurasia. However considering the recent genetic findings supporting the Steppe origins including Ukraine just north of Anatolia, it becomes clear that the spread of IE in Europe was closely associated or rather entangled with Anatolians and others in the Balkan area.
As for South Asia i.e. the Indian subcontinent neither of the two major ancestral components--ASI and ANI seem to have any direct ties with IE languages. ANI if anything has to with the spread of Neolithic culture from Southwest Asia, namely Iran, while ASI is an even older aboriginal component. Many geneticsts agree that if anything Indo-Aryan languages in India post-date ANI by at least several centuries and have their origin further north in Central Asia and linguistic evidence shows that instead of entering India via the Khyber pass from Pakistan, instead the earliest Indo-Aryan speakers came from the Kashmir and Swat Valley area. Genetically there is actually very little if any influence from these Central Asians among Vedic Indians, and that most of the Central Asian genetic influence among Indians today actually date to later historical times post-Vedic era.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by coolnight: I have made two posts. One on South Asia. One on India. I will make more posts on what am interested in finding out not on my interest per se.
'' is a title that has no bearing on 'race'. The whole Vedic origin of Indo-European languages is a hypothesis that is not even supported by the languages themselves.''
As I have stated several time I have no interest in Indo European from a lingusitic perspective.
I understand there are two components to Indo European. Linguistic and Genetic. The genetic- Indo-Europeans were a group of people who belonged to a certain ethnic/racial type (Northern Europeans/Nordic)
These Indo European people spoke a language which has been found to be related to a language spoken in South Asia and hence these languages fall under the Indo-European category.
Now the argument what I understand Europeans have presented is that the the Indo European language spoken in South Asia was bought there by the Indo-European people (Northern european types) whether through elite dominance/invasion or migration makes no difference to there claim that the Indo European speakers of South Asia had the language bought to them. With this argument the Europeans have bought in the genetic aspect. This is the aspect am trying to understand. Not the linguistic one. That is that DNA tests have shown a small Northern European component present in Many North indians. This Northern European component they claim are the Indo-Europeans genes. A result of the Indo European migrations into these parts of India and subsequent mixing of there genes into these parts of the population. This is the genetic connection Europeans speak about. The Indo European argument in relation to south asia is the connection between language and genetics.
I do not believe there is a Indo European language and Genetic connection in South Asia. This does not mean I deny Indo European migrations to India took place. I do not deny that. Historically many European tribes have migrated to India. That there is European influence in India is clear. However this whole idea that a group of people invaded/migrated to india and enforced there language on the people is too cut n dry. There are too many examples of people who speak a language that does not originate from there region and who also have no genetics from the group whom the language they speak originates from. The Kalash are Indo European speakers but they have shown to have no European admixture.The Burusho do not speak an Indo European language but are said to be Indo European people.
So am seeking to understand the degree of genetic impact (not linguistic or any other type) Europeans have made on South Asia in general not specifically or just India. That is authentic European admixture. Am focusing on this whole Indo-European/Aryans argument because most European admixture in South Asia appears to be of ancient origin and because the Northern European component found in many South Asians is being connected to the Indo-European migrations. Whereas as I stated before I do not deny Indo Europeans migrated to Indian/South Asia and no doubt admixture did occur. I do not believe this Northern European component found in many South Asians is reflective of these Indo European genes or authentic European genes of any other nature in ALL the groups/Individuals who supposedly show this component . DNA tests look at less than 1% of an individuals genes. A lot more has to be taken into consideration that is not when determining a groups/Individual's ancestry. As I said earlier many different groups migrated to South Asia not just the Indo Europeans in different time frames. If it is possible/can be shown populations/groups can/do share some of the same genes without this being a result of admixture this alone would raise doubts on relying on genetics alone to understand ancestry. I feel phenotypes/ethnic-biological differences between groups/Individuals are far more reliable an indicator of an Individual/Group's ancestry than DNA tests. Phenoptyopes can not be manipulated. Except through plastic surgery I guess but then most people do not have plastic surgery. Genetic data however can be interpreted and understood in many different ways. There is also the question of the origin of the genes when multiple populations/groups show the same gene. How do you determine where the gene began.
I find it hard to believe that ALL South Asians showing this Northern European component have European admixture/Indo European genes. Am not convinced. I believe there is more to this Northern European component than we know. DNA test companies give us no details on if these various South Asian groups show the same exact gene. Nor do they date the genes. We have no idea how far back/recent these genes go. Whereas no doubt there is European (plus other foreign) admixture in Kashmir. Both groups are known to inter marry. In particular the union tends to be Kashmiri males and European females. However I believe that in a remote region like Kashmir, European admixture (ancient/ recent) is limited to only a small percentage/some part of the populace. I find it hard to believe the whole populace has European admixture even if this is said to be mostly of ancient origins. Gene flow into this region has always been controlled/restricted. I have viewed hundreds of photos of ethnic Kashmiris (not the mixed European/Indian/Pakistan or any other foreign admixture mutts/mongrels. Nor those who are clearly migrants from these or any other outside group into the region but ethnic Kashmiris those whose roots/ancestry is indigeneous to the region). There West Asian/Central Asian affinity is visible (ANI). They are said to be around 30% -35% ASI on average. The ASI is hard to detect/pin down in South Asian phenotype/appearance because we have no evidence/image of what the ASI looked like to compare them to present day groups. This means if the ASI percentages/figures in South Asians are correct then no doubt this admixture is visible in them. We just are not able to pin point it down. The ASI are said to have affinities with the Jarawa/Andamanese Islanders who are the only group to show ASI admixture without ANI admixture. However even the genetic affinity of the ASI with the Andamese Islanders is said to be very distant. This means the Andaman islanders very likely do not represent what the ASI looked like. The ASI are also said to be genetically/ethnically distinct from the ANI . On top one the most important point that is overlooked is that the ASI like the ANI is said to be a conglomerate of different groups/tribes and not a singular homogeneous/racial ethnic group. This means the phenotype/appearance of the ASI ancestors of South Asian groups could have varied greatly. Hence the ASI ancestors of South Asians could just as well be bigger contributors to the stark differences in looks/appearances between different South Asians groups especially if it found to be the ASI did not share a similar/homogeneous appearance but varied in phenotype/appearance across the region.
Well from the linguistic perspective, the way IE languages are distributed geographically--- with the majority of IE language subfamilies found in the European subcontinent from an early date with the Balto-Slavic subfamily of eastern Europe being the largest and most diverse; and the largest and most diverse subfamily of all being Indo-Iranian of Iran, Afghanistan, and India and originally including most of Central Asia, it becomes apparent that the homeland of Proto-IE had lie somewhere in the Russian steppes between Europe and Central Asia. The glottochronology i.e. time depth of IE as well as the reconstruction of Proto-IE words for flora and fauna and environmental aspects also support the Russian steppes.
But the genetic perspective is somewhat more complicated and not as straightforward. The other competing major hypothesis is that of Collin Renfrew's 'Anatolian Origin' which attempts to tie Proto-IE with the spread of agriculture into Europe. The major problem with this hypothesis is that it conflicts with all the major linguistic evidence I just cited above not to mention the fact that the Anatolian Origin hypothesis only fits IE speakers in Europe but not speakers from other areas of Western Eurasia. However considering the recent genetic findings supporting the Steppe origins including Ukraine just north of Anatolia, it becomes clear that the spread of IE in Europe was closely associated or rather entangled with Anatolians and others in the Balkan area.
As for South Asia i.e. the Indian subcontinent neither of the two major ancestral components--ASI and ANI seem to have any direct ties with IE languages. ANI if anything has to with the spread of Neolithic culture from Southwest Asia, namely Iran, while ASI is an even older aboriginal component. Many geneticsts agree that if anything Indo-Aryan languages in India post-date ANI by at least several centuries and have their origin further north in Central Asia and linguistic evidence shows that instead of entering India via the Khyber pass from Pakistan, instead the earliest Indo-Aryan speakers came from the Kashmir and Swat Valley area. Genetically there is actually very little if any influence from these Central Asians among Vedic Indians, and that most of the Central Asian genetic influence among Indians today actually date to later historical times post-Vedic era.
Hatti In the ancient literature the Proto Dravidians and Nigewr-Congo speakers are called Kushites. Using boats the Kushites moved down ancient waterways many now dried up, to establish new towns in Asia and Europe after 3500 BC. The Kushites remained supreme around the world until 1400 1200 BC. During this period the Hua (Chinese) and Indo European (I E) speakers began to conquer the Kushites whose cities and economies were destroyed as a result of natural catastrophes which took place on the planet between 1400 1200 BC. Later, after 500 AD, Turkish speaking people began to settle parts of Central Asia. This is the reason behind the presence of the K s h element in many place names in Asia e.g., Kashgar, HinduKush, and Kosh. The HinduKush in Harappan times had lapis lazuli deposits.
Proto Saharans/Kushites expanded into Inner Asia from two primary points of dispersal : Iran and Anatolia. In Anatolia the Kushites were called Hattians and Kaska. In the 2nd millennium BC, the north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non I E speakers.
Anatolia was divided into two lands “the land of Kanis” and the “land of Hatti”. The Hatti were related to the Kaska people who lived in the Pontic mountains.
Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place names (1). The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.
Singer (1981) has suggested that the Kaska, are remnants of the indigenous Hattian population which was forced northward by the Hittites. But at least as late as 1800 BC, Anatolia was basically settled by Hattians (2)
Anatolia was occupied by many Kushite groups,including the Kashkas and or Hatti. The Hatti , like the Dravidian speaking people were probably related . The Hatti were probably members of the Tehenu tribes.
The Tehenu was composed of various ethnic groups. One of the Tehenu tribes was identified by the Egyptians as the Hatiu or Haltiu.
During the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (2563-2423), namely during the reign of Sahure there is mention of the Tehenu people. Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader “Hati Tehenu” .(3) These Hatiu, may correspond to the Hatti speaking people of Anatolia. The Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas or Kaskas.
The Hatti controlled the city state of Kussara. Kussara was situated in southern Anatolia.
The earliest known ruler of Kussara was Pitkhanas. It was his son Anitta (c. 1790-1750 BC) who expanded the Kussara empire through much of Anatolia.
Many researchers get the Hittites (Nesa) mixed up with the original settlers of Anatolia called Hatti according to Steiner “.[T]his discrepancy is either totally neglected and more or less skillfully veiled, or it is explained by the assumption that the Hittites when conquering the country of Hatti adjusted themselves to the Hattians adopting their personal names and worshipping their gods, out of reverence for a higher culture” .(4)
Neshili, was probably spoken by the Hatti, not the IE Hittite. Yet, this language is classified as an IE langauge. Researchers maintain that the Hatti spoke 'Hattili' or Khattili “language of the Hatti”, and the IE Hittites spoke "Neshumnili"/ Neshili .(5) Researchers maintain that only 10% of the terms in Neshumnili is IE. This supports the view that Nesumnili may have been a lingua franca.
It is clear that the Anatolians spoke many languages including:Palaic, Hatti, Luwian and Hurrian, but the people as you know mainly wrote their writings in Neshumnili. The first people to use this system as the language of the royal chancery were Hatti Itamar Singer makes it clear that the Hittites adopted the language of the Hatti .(6) Steiner wrote that, " In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia, in the 2nd Millennium B.C. with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca [i.e., Neshumnili), whenever commercial transactions or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale" .(7)
•The Hatti language which provided the Hittites with many of the terms Indo-Aryan nationalists use to claim and Aryan origin for the Indus civilization is closely related to African languages including Egyptians. For example: Big, mighty, powerful protect, help upper
Hattic ur $uh tufa Egyptian wr swh tp Malinke fara solo dya, tu ‘raising’ Head stretch (out) prosper to pour Hattic tu put falfalat duq
Egyptian tup pd Malinke tu ‘strike head’ pe, bemba fin’ya du Eye hand Place King, term of respect
The Malinke-Bambara and Hatti language share other cognates and grammatical features. For example,in both languages the pronoun can be prefixed to nouns, e.g., Hatti le ‘his’, le fil ‘his house’; Malinke-Bambara a ‘his’, a falu ‘his father’s house’. Other Hatti and Malinke- Bambara cognates include: Hattic b’la ka -ka Kaati Malinke n’ye teke -ka ka, kuntigi ‘headman’
Good hypothesis generation suggest that given the fact that the Malinke-Bambara and Hatti languages share cognate terms, Sumerian terms may also relate to Hatti terms since they were also Kushites. Below we compare a few Hatti, Sumerian and Malinke Bambara terms:
Mother father lord,ruler build, to set up Hattic na-a ša tex Malinke na baba sa te Sumerian na ‘she’ aba tu ‘to create’ To pour child,son up, to raise strength,powerful land Hatti dug pin,pinu tufa ur -ka Malinke du den dya, tu fara -ka Sumerian dub peš dul usu ki
Conclusion
In summary, the Hattic speaking people were members of the Kushite tribe called Tehenu. They were probably called Hati ( pl. Hatiu), by the Egyptians.
The language of the Hittites was more than likely a lingua franca, with Hattic, at its base. In Western Anatolia many languages were spoken including Hattic, Palaic, Luwian and Hurrian used Nesa as a lingua franca. For example, the king of Arzawa, asked the Egyptian in the Amarna Letters, to write them back in Nesumnili rather than Egyptian .(8)
Steiner notes that “In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia in the 2nd Millennium B.C., with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca whenever commercial transaction or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale” .(9)
This led Steiner to conclude that “moreover the structure of Hittite easily allowed one to integrate not only proper names, but also nouns of other languages into the morphological system. Indeed, it is a well known fact the vocabulary of Hittite is strongly interspersed with lexemes from other languages, which is a phenomenon typical of a “lingua franca” .(10)
Footnotes
1. Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), pp.119-149.
2 Gerd Steiner, The role of the Hittites in ancient Anatolia, Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), 119-149.
3 El Mosallamy,A.H.S. Libyco-Berber relations with ancient Egypt:The Tehenu in Egyptian records. In (pp.51-68) 1986, p.55; and L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Sahure. Vol. II, Table 1.
4 Steiner, p.160.
5 I.M. Diakonoff and P.L. Kohl, Early Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
6. Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the Beginning of the Second Millennium BC,Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (pp.119-149).
7 Ibid., p.162.
8 Ibid., p.161.
9 Ibid., p.162
10 Ibid., p.165.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''A historical presence means that we have documents associated with their appearance, like the Saka.'' from what I have read about the Scythians there Skeletol remains showed them to be a very Northern European looking people. Even scythian coins show them to look european. As far as am aware they were europeans. They invaded/migrated to India in ancient times. Europeans went by a lot of fancy names back then.In those times they were not known as ''European'' but ethnically/racially they were of European ethnic stock. No surprise to find Turks and Iranians claim links to Scythians. Turks (before admixture/the less admixed caucasion type Turks) themselves are linked to the European race.Therefore it is not surprise to find scythians connected to Turks who are connected to Europeans.
Clyde Can you paraphrase/explain your recent comment in simple english for me please. I do apologise am not well read/well informed in this field as you lot are. I struggle to understand a lot of this stuff.
''This is the reason behind the presence of the K s h element in many place names in Asia e.g., Kashgar, HinduKush, and Kosh. The HinduKush in Harappan times had lapis lazuli deposits.''
Is Kashmir ''Kush'' named after/from the Kushites too? There must be a connection between Kashmir and all the ''Kush' in this overall region
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
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
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [/qb]
Well from the linguistic perspective, the way IE languages are distributed geographically--- with the majority of IE language subfamilies found in the European subcontinent from an early date with the Balto-Slavic subfamily of eastern Europe being the largest and most diverse; and the largest and most diverse subfamily of all being Indo-Iranian of Iran, Afghanistan, and India and originally including most of Central Asia, it becomes apparent that the homeland of Proto-IE had lie somewhere in the Russian steppes between Europe and Central Asia. The glottochronology i.e. time depth of IE as well as the reconstruction of Proto-IE words for flora and fauna and environmental aspects also support the Russian steppes.
But the genetic perspective is somewhat more complicated and not as straightforward. The other competing major hypothesis is that of Collin Renfrew's 'Anatolian Origin' which attempts to tie Proto-IE with the spread of agriculture into Europe. The major problem with this hypothesis is that it conflicts with all the major linguistic evidence I just cited above not to mention the fact that the Anatolian Origin hypothesis only fits IE speakers in Europe but not speakers from other areas of Western Eurasia. However considering the recent genetic findings supporting the Steppe origins including Ukraine just north of Anatolia, it becomes clear that the spread of IE in Europe was closely associated or rather entangled with Anatolians and others in the Balkan area.
As for South Asia i.e. the Indian subcontinent neither of the two major ancestral components--ASI and ANI seem to have any direct ties with IE languages. ANI if anything has to with the spread of Neolithic culture from Southwest Asia, namely Iran, while ASI is an even older aboriginal component. Many geneticsts agree that if anything Indo-Aryan languages in India post-date ANI by at least several centuries and have their origin further north in Central Asia and linguistic evidence shows that instead of entering India via the Khyber pass from Pakistan, instead the earliest Indo-Aryan speakers came from the Kashmir and Swat Valley area. Genetically there is actually very little if any influence from these Central Asians among Vedic Indians, and that most of the Central Asian genetic influence among Indians today actually date to later historical times post-Vedic era. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I have no idea where the Indo European languages originate from or where the PIE homeland could be. Would the Indo European language have to originate from a single place? What if there are two seperate origins for the Indo European language spoken in Europe and South Asia and the connection between the same/similar/shared language spoke between both groups (Europeans/South Asians) is Indirect rather then direct. I mean rather than a single origin. A single separate homeland from where the indo european language originated. Could there have been two homelands? Both somehow indirectly connected to the other. Or Maybe Europeans and South Asians got indo european language from the Same source independent of each other rather than each other or one from the other. Because the Europeans try and spin it as if they own the indo european language. As if they are the source of it and the presence of the indo european language in South Asia therefore means a direct connection to them (Europeans). When it may be the homeland/the source of this language was not European in origin. I mean just cos europeans found out they speak the same language as some other groups in the world it does not mean it came from them. Although that that is what they try to portray. From what I have read of xyyman's comments he is one on here who disagrees with the Kurgan/Steppe hypothesis.
''linguistic evidence shows that instead of entering India via the Khyber pass from Pakistan, instead the earliest Indo-Aryan speakers came from the Kashmir and Swat Valley area. '' interesting. Which do you support?
''that most of the Central Asian genetic influence among Indians today actually date to later historical times post-Vedic era'' yes this appears to be the case. However by central asian influence what/who do we mean? Do we mean various ethnically distinct/different tribes that belonged to a seperate race but who were settled in central asia at some point or other or are we talking about central asian in terms of tribes/groups who were genetically/ethnically closely related to each other. I mean europeans were also once settled in central asian. That region has seen many groups emigrate out and many outsiders have settled in. Is it likely some of the central asian influence is old and some or a more recent origin. The caucasion element in South Asia is the most complex to figure out. Nobody gets confused with the non-caucasion elements.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
.
The Yuezhi were the Kushana, a Black population that spoke Tamil.
The Kushana and the Yuezhi are one and the same. The Kushana- Yuezhi association is discussed in Chinese and Dravidian literature. V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen hundred years ago note that in the Sanskrit literature the Ramayana and Matsya, the Yuezhi were called Yakshas or Kosar. The Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana.
The Chinese called the Blacks of China Yueh. The Yueh people were also called Yuezhi or Kuishuang [Kushana]. The Yueh of North China established Xia. According to the Yi Xia Dong Xi Shuo, by Fu Ssumein. The li Qiang Black Qiang of Shang were united with the Yueh people of southwest China. Tochari is a Turkic word for Western European whites in Central Asia. The Greeks called the Yuezhi: Kushana in the Karosthi inscriptions, and Kocano, not Tochari. In the Chinese sources the Kushana were called Koei-shuang or Kwei-shwang = Yuezhi .
[b]The Kushana conquered the Sakas and Parthians and took control of an empire stretching from the Oxus river in Afghanistan, to the Ganges plains of India. This unite under one authority the former dominions of the Indo-Greeks and the Sunga dynasts.
The Kushana/Yuezhi made fine sculptures and engraved beautiful carved sheets of ivory. Their plaques are some of the finest art pieces in India.
. .
. The Kushana/ Yuezhi were at this time in control of the Silk Road, which took Chinese goods to the West. It was also under the Kushana that Buddhism entered China. The Kushana ruled India for almost 200 years.
.
The Yuezhi made many murals. The Yuezhi originally lived in Gansu Province of China, before the Chinese pushed them into Central Asia. . . Here is a beautiful mural from Ajanta.
.
An early Kushan site in China was Dunhuang, Gansu. At this site the Kushans left many interesting murals. See: http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/9060503?width=3000&height=3000 .Note on this mural were later artists tried to make the Kushan noses appear long and narrow like those of Europeans.
Here is a Kushan mural from Magao cave.
Even before the Turks took control of Central Asia, Western European whites were mating with the mongoloids as illustrated in this cave mural dating to 432–538 AD.
.
If you notice the pigment of the mongoloid people on the Tarim mural above make the people in the mural light skinned. This is in sharp contrast to the people depicted in the Dunhuang mural. .
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Bodhisattva Maitreya Kushan period 2nd-3rd century CE from the ancient region of Gandhara Pakistan Schist
The Gift of Anathapindada, Kushan period, 2nd–3rd century Pakistan, ancient region of Gandhara Schist with traces of gold foil
Panel with the god Zeus/Serapis/Ohrmazd and Worshiper Kushan Empire Bactria 3rd century CE Terracotta gouache
These statues date to after the Saka defeated the Kushana.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
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.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: So who are the dark Chinese looking people in the mural,a negrito group or a branch of the kushan as they look different from how the kushan are depicted.
(left figure) Early mural revealed after later over-painting had been partly removed. The flesh tones of the figure with its pigments protected from oxidation contrast with the darkened tone of buddhas in later painting seen on the right. Cave 253, Northern Wei.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Outstanding Universal Value
Brief synthesis
The Lord Buddha was born in 623 BC in the sacred area of Lumbini located in the Terai plains of southern Nepal, testified by the inscription on the pillar erected by the Mauryan Emperor Asoka in 249 BC. Lumbini is one of the holiest places of one of the world's great religions, and its remains contain important evidence about the nature of Buddhist pilgrimage centres from as early as the 3rd century BC.
The complex of structures within the archaeological conservation area includes the Shakya Tank; the remains within the Maya Devi Temple consisting of brick structures in a cross-wall system dating from the 3rd century BC to the present century and the sandstone Ashoka pillar with its Pali inscription in Brahmi script. Additionally there are the excavated remains of Buddhist viharas (monasteries) of the 3rd century BC to the 5th century AD and the remains of Buddhist stupas (memorial shrines) from the 3rd century BC to the 15th century AD. The site is now being developed as a Buddhist pilgrimage centre, where the archaeological remains associated with the birth of the Lord Buddha form a central feature.
Gandhara art, style of Buddhist visual art that developed in what is now northwestern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan between the 1st century bce and the 7th century ce. The style, of Greco-Roman origin, seems to have flourished largely during the Kushan dynasty and was contemporaneous with an important but dissimilar school of Kushan art at Mathura (Uttar Pradesh, India).
The Gandhara region had long been a crossroads of cultural influences. During the reign of the Indian emperor Ashoka (3rd century bce), the region became the scene of intensive Buddhist missionary activity. And in the 1st century ce, rulers of the Kushan empire, which included Gandhara, maintained contacts with Rome. In its interpretation of Buddhist legends, the Gandhara school incorporated many motifs and techniques from Classical Roman art, including vine scrolls, cherubs bearing garlands, tritons, and centaurs. The basic iconography, however, remained Indian.
The materials used for Gandhara sculpture were green phyllite and gray-blue mica schist which in general, belong to an earlier phase, and stucco, which was used increasingly after the 3rd century ce. The sculptures were originally painted and gilded.
Gandhara’s role in the evolution of the Buddha image has been a point of considerable disagreement among scholars. It now seems clear that the schools of Gandhara and Mathura each independently evolved its own characteristic depiction of the Buddha about the 1st century ce. The Gandhara school drew upon the anthropomorphic traditions of Roman religion and represented the Buddha with a youthful Apollo-like face, dressed in garments resembling those seen on Roman imperial statues. The Gandhara depiction of the seated Buddha was less successful. The schools of Gandhara and Mathura influenced each other, and the general trend was away from a naturalistic conception and toward a more idealized, abstract image. The Gandhara craftsmen made a lasting contribution to Buddhist art in their composition of the events of the Buddha’s life into set scenes.
The topic is what are the ancestral origins of Europeans?
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
Gandhara art was of Indian origin, not Greco-Roman origin; the Greco-Romans didn't have an original style; much of their style was merely transplanted and appropriated clothing forms and art forms from Ancient Egypt, Persia/Babylon, and India; even their statue making. The Kushans had Indian names, followed Indic customs, and followed Indian religions, there was very little Greco-Roman anything about them, except for maybe coinage traditions.
Indic religions and culture customs extended all the way to Ancient Etruria and Greece, before the existence of the Roman empire; scenes from Ancient Indian texts and Indian style clothing have been found in Greco-Roman tombs. Hercules was basically the Hindu deity Krishna appropriated in an Greco-Roman context.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: the Greco-Romans didn't have an original style;
A lot of Greco-Roman sculpture had action poses. The Egyptians generally preferred more stately authoritative poses. A lot of it does not resemble other cultures sculptures
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
[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.
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 .
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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".
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
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? Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by coolnight:
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''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?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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.
''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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
*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=345 Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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
see pages 70-77.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
@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.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
*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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
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. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
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?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
*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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
quote:Originally posted by coolnight:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
'' 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.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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.
.
Posted by Autshumato (Member # 22722) on :
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?
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
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.
Posted by Autshumato (Member # 22722) on :
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"?
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
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.
Posted by Autshumato (Member # 22722) on :
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.
Posted by Autshumato (Member # 22722) on :
"Vedic Origins of the MODERN Europeans: the Children of Danu (Questions)"
That should've been the name of this topic.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
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.
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
''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.
Posted by Autshumato (Member # 22722) on :
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. . .
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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??
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Autshumato:
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.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
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
Posted by Mr. Riddle (Member # 22836) on :
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. . .
When exactly did Whites invade Europe?
Posted by coolnight (Member # 22805) on :
@Djehuti ''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.''
This is the problem when you discuss race in general. People are super sensitive. What are true authentic European genes?
One of the main problems is people are lumping Race and Geographic region together when both need to be separated. Race/Genes ultimately are Independent of Geographic region. The Genes of a particular Individual/group do not not magically transform into the genes of another race if that Individual/group migrates to another region. No matter how many thousands upon thousands of years that individual/group's genes remain in that geographic region.
Another point is Europeans are not an ethnically singular homogeneous group of people. They are a mix of genetically similar/closely related tribes who intermixed. Europeans are Europeans because they share a phenotypic similarity with each other and are a mix of people who are genetically similar.
Ancient and Modern europeans would have had to have looked phenotypically similar to have been europeans. I mean if people are claiming groups of people who did not look phenotypically european as Genetically european people then european as a race has no meaning. Being european has no meaning. Then race has No meaning. The whole notion of race is based on people who look like they phenotypically fit in with each other, look like each other and look like they belong to the same race/group of people. Look like they share the same origins.
The issue of black skin color in ancient europe. Skin colour is not an indicator of race. European genes are european genes irrespective of skin color. If half of european people's skin was to turn dark tomorrow due to a mutation in there genes. As long as Europeans continued to mix with europeans. The dark skinned europeans would still be genetically europeans same as the light skinned europeans. Dark skinned europeans would phenotypically still fit in with light skinned europeans more than they would with any other race. Race is far far deeper then skin colour. A mutation occurring in a race which changes there phenotype does not genetically transform there race. The only indicator that would show a population's phenotype is a mix of ethnically different racial genes is if it can be shown there is no genetic continuity between that population and the other. That one population had an distinct racial identity (genetically and phenotypically) prior to mixture with the other. That the result of one population having the genes of another is due to intermixing. So to know what european genes are and if europeans are mixed race people you have to show they are carriers of genes that are genetically and phenotypically distinct from genes that are considered european genetically and phenotypically.
It all gets very complicated because people have been mixing for so long.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: 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
There was never any pure Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were Blacks. They came from Africa and were just as African as the later Africans of the so-called OoA events.
It is time we stop pretending that the Neanderthals belong to a different species.
Let's look at the evolution of homo sapiens.
The Eves were also African
The Aurignacian people who replaced the Neanderthal looked like this .
. Below is the ancestor of Neanderthals
, This is Homo heidelbergensis or Rhodian man. He is called Rhodesia man because he was found in Africa.
. Here is a picture of Neanderthal man
.
By 100kya Neanderthal looked like this
As you can see, there is little difference between the African ancestor of Neanderthals, and the Neanderthals themselves.
Here we have Cro-Magnon or Aurignacian man
Denisovans were also Blacks.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There was never any pure Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were Blacks. They came from Africa and were just as African as the later Africans of the so-called OoA events.
It is time we stop pretending that the Neanderthals belong to a different species.
Wrong, Neanderthals and Denisova are genetically different so stop the nonsense.
Neanderthals and Denisova mixed with Eurasians not Africans (except at trace levels in some Africans).
The Neanderthal sites are not in Africa, stop the nonsense.
There is not reason Neanderthals would not vary in skin tone according to what region they were in, stop the nonsense
The ones in Europe lived there for over 200,000 years
There is also recent research that indicates there are some other hominids that some Africans may have mixed with
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
Curly hair unknown cause, not found in arboreal apes, my guess it evolved in hominins who inverted bowl nests into rainforest floor dome huts (domicile = dome shield) which were lifted for egress, where curled hair acted sensory.
Neanderthals apparently moved these wicker dome huts into caves during cold weather, and gradually made rigid pole huts of rectangular form which fit better the cave interior and also prevented cave-ins with thicker dried wood poles. Selection for curled hair was reduced, selection for ape-like straight hair via Neanderthals occurred outside Africa.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There was never any pure Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were Blacks. They came from Africa and were just as African as the later Africans of the so-called OoA events.
It is time we stop pretending that the Neanderthals belong to a different species.
Wrong, Neanderthals and Denisova are genetically different so stop the nonsense.
Neanderthals and Denisova mixed with Eurasians not Africans (except at trace levels in some Africans).
The Neanderthal sites are not in Africa, stop the nonsense.
There is not reason Neanderthals would not vary in skin tone according to what region they were in, stop the nonsense
The ones in Europe lived there for over 200,000 years
There is also recent research that indicates there are some other hominids that some Africans may have mixed with
This is the dogma. But they appear to look just like other ancient hominids. Researchers claim that at least 2% Neanderthal admixture in contemporary humans. Europeans are trying to eventually claim the Neanderthals were originally pale skinned, then they will admit that the Neanderthal are not a different species.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
They look different and have different DNA
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
They look different and have different DNA
The only difference is the brow is wider, as well as the nose. The nasal cavity betrays their Negro origin.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
LOL. Originally this man was identified as Y-Chromosome R1. Eurocentrist change the names of ancient homo sapiens to suit what ever agenda they establish.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
