...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
What happened to the Black Chinese
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mindovermatter: [qb] The Zhou were not Mongoloid, how many times do we have to go over this? The Zhou were White Indo-Europeans coming from Central Asia, and their chariots were identical to the Aryan chariots used in India. Skeletons from the Zhou era show Europid genetic affinities and types moreso then mongoloid Chinese. The Zhou sacrificed white horses and they had a paternal land inheritance feudal system, and they had large scale chariot and horse burials. All these were characterical of Androvono white eurasian people's, and not any other peoples or cultures. The Zhou invaded China right around the time period of the supposed Aryan migration to Southern Asia and they were a indo-European horse cavalry culture from the northern regions outside of China. I'm sorry but it's a fact that the Zhou were Indo-Europeans and you can't keep lying and making **** up in the age of the internrt, where we can search up evidence for subjects like these. And all the evidence shows that the Zhou were White indo-European peoples, like the Scythians, Tocharians, Parthians, Seres, and Wusun. The evidence is just too overwhelming to deny it! If the Zhou and Shang were not White Indo-European types from Central Asia and Siberia, which they were; then there is no Aryan migration event into Southern Asia; because the scenarios for these events are connected and denying one is tantamount to contradicting the other. If an Aryan migration did happen, then both the Shang and Zhou had to have been White indo-European peoples going by geography and dates and logic, ancient China is right next to India and is sorrounded by similar natural barriers. [/qb][/QUOTE]Logic has nothing to do with archaeological and historical research. To write history you look at primary and secondary sources, and artifacts. You have presented only an article in support of your proposition, without any hard data of an invasion of India and China by Caucasians around the same time. You don't know what you're talking about. To support your proposition you need skeletal evidence and artifacts from some Central Asian ancient culture carried into India and China by these whites you have made up attacking these regions 1000BC.[b] Please cite a reference to Caucasian skeletons dating back to Zhou times in China. [/b] The reconstruction of the Banpo skeleton does not look like a Caucasian as illustrated in the picture below. . [IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z6uCrNhooL0/U4sdt54NV7I/AAAAAAAAAFk/Pt-85YvW7OE/s1600/Banpo+people.jpg[/IMG] . The depiction of the people at Banpo above is probably inaccurate, because the neolithic Chinese were Negroes. The Banpo culture dates back to 4500 BC. The earliest culture at Banpo dates back to the Lungshan and Dawenkou. The neolithic artifacts from this period depict Negroes or Black Chinese. [IMG]http://olmec98.net/Chineolit.png[/IMG] . K.C. Chang in 1977 edition of[b] Archaeology of ancient China [/b] reported finding other Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Chinese history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan, Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of Chingliengang and Mazhiabang phases ( p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often referred to as the Dawenkou culture of North China. The presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites make it clear that Negroes were still in the North in addition to South China. The Dawenkou culture predates the Lungshan culture which is associated with the Xia civilization. I have read much of the archaeology but to date, I have only seen a discussion of only Negro/Melanoid and Mongoloid skeletons in China around that time. . [IMG]http://images.slideplayer.com/38/10826523/slides/slide_5.jpg[/IMG] . Secondly you claim that Indian civilizations and the Xia-Shang civilizations are near each other. Look at any map and you will see that they are thousands of miles away from each other. It is clear that you have failed to read my sources. If you would have read the sources you would know that the Indo-European family of languages never existed. See: http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/MarcantonioA2009IELanguageFamilyEn.htm . As a result there was never a migration of Indo-European people into India. Although there was no Indo-European migration into India there was an Indo-Aryan invasion of India. The Indo-Aryans used a GreyWare that marks the introduction of a new population into South Asia. Most linguist claim the Indo-European language family includes Indo-Aryan. A cursory examination of the history of Greece and their interactions with Asian populations fully explains the linguistic and genetic relationships that exist among, and between these populations. I don't believe that Indo-Aryan speakers (Indians and Iranians) and Indo-Europeans (People of Europe) ever lived in some ancestral homeland. They speak similar languages due to extended periods in which spealers of these languages lived in bilingual communities. I am beginning to believe that after the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms, these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads. In Iran they probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Arya population. Here they may have met Indo-Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their culture , especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious terms and chariot culture. Joining forces with the Mitannian-Hurrian exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people who probably lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China. The first recorded Indo-European language is Hittite. 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” . 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 . 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 . 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" . The language of the Hittites was more than likely a lingua franca, with Hattic, as 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 . 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” . 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” . The Persians also ruled the Greeks. The Greeks later conquered India, and Panini mentions Greeks in his grammar of Sanskrit. This suggest that Greeks lived in large numbers in India at this time.The fact that the Greeks, Hindus and Persians lived in intimate contact for hundreds of years naturally led to the adoption of many terms by the Greeks and Hindus of Persian, and later the adoption of many Greek terms by the Hindus. These states of bilingualism in North India, explains why the Indo-Iranian languages form one family , and are linked to the Indo-European languages via Greek. The Harappans spoke a Dravidian language, Indo-Iranian probably originated after 589 BC. This is made clear by Darius in the Behistun inscription where he claims that he was the first to write in the Ariya language. Darius'- evidence for the first writing of Ariya, indicates that the idea of the continuity of Hindu civilization in India is a myth. The original inhabitants of India spoke Dravidian languages. Over time, the Dravidians were forced to adopt Hindi and other Indo-Iranian languages, yet remnants of these Dravidians in North India remain. This is why we find no evidence of the Vedic language until the Naga (Ethiopians) invented Sanskrit. It also explains the variations in the Vedic and Avestan manuscripts, which in the case of the later group date back only to 1288 AD. The history of contact between Iranian and Indian speakers during Achaemenid rule , would explain the Indo-Iranian relationship, not the existence of a Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland in India. This history of Turkic, Persian, Sumerian, Elamite, Tamil, Ethiopic (/Naga)and Hindi speaking people living in diverse North Indian communities, is the most logical explanation of the relationships that exist between and among these languages. I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Iranian speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization. Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc., I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran, India down into Afghanistan, since the Austronesian people probably did not begin to enter India until after the fall of the Anyang Shang Dynasty sometime after 1000 BC. This would explain why you declare that "the Vedic and Avestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other", they may have had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian and Mitanni people in Iran. [b] In summary there is no such thing as an Indo-European family of languages; and India was not the homeland of the Indo-Iranian family of languages. The linguistic relationship between Persian and Greek result from the rule of these areas by the Achaeminid and later Greek rulers of India. This may explain why the Achaeminids depicted the Nubians (of Africa), the Hindus and King Darius with Africoid features.[/b] The ability to explain the relationship of Sanskrit to Greek, and the Indo-Iranian linguistic relationship due to Persian/Elamite and Hindi contact, resulting from the historical connections between the speakers of these languages and bilingualism within North-India and Afganistan. This hypothesis supports the view that the Indo-European connection to Indian languages goes back to the Greek rule of India, not some hypothetical date millennia ago. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3