...
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 Djehuti: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by coolnight: [qb] 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. [/qb][/QUOTE]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 [URL=http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/mysterious-indo-european-homeland-may-have-been-steppes-ukraine-and-russia]supporting[/URL] 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]
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