...
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 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]The idea of an Indo-European origin in Anatolia is [URL=Quentin Atkinson’s Nonsensical Maps of Indo-European Expansion, http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/quentin-atkinsons-nonsensical-maps-of-indo-european-expansion]nonsensical as proving by the maps[/URL] and linguistic evidence that the Anatalians spoke non-European languages. 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. [IMG]http://miltiade.pagesperso-orange.fr/Hatti.JPG[/IMG] 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 [list] [*]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 [/list] 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: [b][list] [*]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 [/b] [/list] 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. [/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