...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Vedic Origins of the Europeans: the Children of Danu (Questions)
» 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 coolnight: [qb] ''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. [/qb][/QUOTE]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 [URL=http://www.portmir.org.uk/assets/pdfs/the-spread-of-the-indo-europeans.pdf]( web page )[/URL] , 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. [/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