Were the Aryan who ruled the Mitanni the same as those of India ?

[Taranis]

?
But there IS a relationship between Caucasian languages and Indo-European languages. But nobody knows to which degree. And Caucasian languages are very very old.
According to this scheme Caucasian languages are not so far placed from the more archaic the Nostratic language. And according to this scheme Caucasian languages (KartveloEusian) are ANCESTORS of IE languages!

Sorry, no. The Nostratic hypothesis is by no means accepted by all (or even the plurality of all) linguists. The way the Nostratic languages are usually set up you get the impression of a grab-all-bag for the languages of much of the Old World, which I find in itself quite a challenge. Especially I find that tree you present there completely untenable.

There are many problems associated with the Nostratic hypothesis, some which I will elaborate: one problem is that their internal reconstruction of proto-languages and the assumption about the exact nature of the proto-languages are often far from certain (even with the Indo-European languages, which are probably the most intensely researched and well-established language family, there is controversy about the exact nature of PIE). The other, equally problematic issue is that so-called 'Wanderwörter' are completely ignored by the Nostraticists. These 'wandering words' are words that appear in different languages but where their exact origin is undiscernable. A typical example would be the word 'wine'. Nostraticists tend to take 'wanderwörter' as exact cognates, which can cause a completely false image.

This, and a number of other problems, are the reason why the Nostratic hypothesis is rejected by mainstream linguistics.

 

[Cobol19]

Dude, no way it's possible that there's so much of G2 and R2 from the Neolithic farmers and only in the upper classes in India!

You (as an Assyrian or maybe Armenian/Turkish?) just can't live with the fact that Kurds are Iranic and are native to Kurdistan. Somehow you printed in your mind that Kurds are 'immigrants' from Central Asia who killed the natives. That they are the same as Turks, who are also from Central Asia. And that the Turks can have Kurdish land and have the right to take it because Kurds are the same 'immigrants' from Central Asia as Turks. Or that Kurds live on the Assyrian and Armenian lands, lol. Keep dreaming!

I'm sorry to take you out your dream, but you are WRONG! Kurds are Iranic, and Kurds are native to their homeland Kurdistan!

And as far as I know the Andronovo culture was in Central Asia, on the eastern side of the Caspian Sea and that the BMAC folks were just an extension of these people in Northeast Iran!
Some cultures in the Zagros Mountains and Caucasus are much older! Halaf culture between 6100 - 5400 BCE and even the Ubaid culture between 5000 - 4000 BCE. Even Kurgans in South Russia are older than the Andronovo Culture!

People in the Androno Culture were already R2a, J2a , R1a, G etc!

I would answer you back but it's not worth my time since:

a) You don't listen and have a hard head, discussing such topics is not about who has the hardest head.

b) You always throw stupid accusations that make no sense and start fights.

c) You don't even know much about genetics to begin with, anyone who does not know the difference between deep ancestry and autosomal DNA should NOT be discussing this stuff until they learn.

On top of all of this you're a paranoid wreck, anyone who has an opinion seems to have an agenda to you, I already said that the Kurds for most part ARE natives to West Asia, it's not my problem that you don't know how to read, even your own Kurdish brethren kind of agrees with me on this, so until you do something about these points, there's nothing to discuss with you.

 

[Goga]

Sorry, no. The Nostratic hypothesis is by no means accepted by all (or even the plurality of all) linguists. The way the Nostratic languages are usually set up you get the impression of a grab-all-bag for the languages of much of the Old World, which I find in itself quite a challenge. Especially I find that tree you present there completely untenable.

There are many problems associated with the Nostratic hypothesis, some which I will elaborate: one problem is that their internal reconstruction of proto-languages and the assumption about the exact nature of the proto-languages are often far from certain (even with the Indo-European languages, which are probably the most intensely researched and well-established language family, there is controversy about the exact nature of PIE). The other, equally problematic issue is that so-called 'Wanderwörter' are completely ignored by the Nostraticists. These 'wandering words' are words that appear in different languages but where their exact origin is undiscernable. A typical example would be the word 'wine'. Nostraticists tend to take 'wanderwörter' as exact cognates, which can cause a completely false image.

This, and a number of other problems, are the reason why the Nostratic hypothesis is rejected by mainstream linguistics.

Ok, what do you think about the proto-Pontic theory? There're just a lot folks who see the connection between IE and Caucasian languages! I'm not the only one with these concepts.

"Pontic is the proposed language family or macrofamily, comprising the Indo-European and Northwest Caucasian language families, with Proto-Pontic being the reconstructed proto-language.

In 1960, Aert Kuipers noticed the parallels between a Northwest Caucasian language, Kabardian, and PIE. It was Paul Friedrich in 1964, however, who first suggested that PIE might be phylogenetically related to Proto-Caucasian. In 1981, Colarusso examined typological parallels involving consonantism..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Pontic_language

"The linguist John Colarusso wrote an excellent article describing some of these morphological and lexical similarities in the Journal of Indo-European Studies (Library of Congress CB201.J68), 1997, volume 25, p.119"

http://neohumanism.org/p/pr/proto_pontic.html

 

[Alan]

Because according to me proto-IE and Caucasian language family are from the same source.
Like I said, proto Indo-Europeans (or at least the proto-Iranic folks) were from somewhere between Southwest Caucasus - NorthWest Iran. I believe that these people used an ergative language. Many of them lost this construction when they migrated into North Europe and Central Asia, when they mixed with R1a folks.

Persian is a good example of how a language can lose ergativity! Because it's proven that the old-Iranic languages had the ergative construction.

Sanskrit (old-Indic language) doesn't have an ergative constriction and is not an ergative language! The ergative construction in the modern Indic (Hindi) languages came much later.

Thats an interesting point you have taken up here. Yes Persian did definitely loose ergative. We know from Parthian sources found in Central Asia that ergative was very much present there too. The Reason why Persian has no ergative anymore is simple. Persian has lost it casus rectus entirely what makes it impossible to build full ergative.

 

[Kardu]

My point is that in determining the identity of ancient populations and their possible modern descendants we should take a combined approach and take in account genetics (deep ancestry and autosomal data), linguistics, anthropology (phenotypes and skeletal measurements), culture (archeological discoveries), historiography and literature (same Rigveda and Avesta etc.), Focusing just on one or few of those can easily lead us astray.

 

[Goga]

My point is that in determining the identity of ancient populations and their possible modern descendants we should take a combined approach and take in account genetics (deep ancestry and autosomal data), linguistics, anthropology (phenotypes and skeletal measurements), culture (archeological discoveries), historiography and literature (same Rigveda and Avesta etc.), Focusing just on one or few of those can easily lead us astray.

Huge Kurgans (4500 years old!) found in the Trialeti Culture site in Georgia (South Caucasus)! Many connections and very close relations with the Mesopotamian folks!

 

[Kardu]

Thanks for sharing, Goga. I've visited once the site.
Interestingly the word Trialeti in Georgian means 'belonging to Trials' and is common model for place names derived from tribal/ethnic names like Kakheti, Meskheti etc. Some Georgian scholars assumed that those Trials might have been connected to Thracian Treri tribe.

 

[jjmuneer1]

The Mitannis were probably mostly Hurrian populated and ruled over by an Indo-Aryan class. Most of West Kurdistan is probably Hurrian descended. J2 is not "Aryan", but native caucasian aswell, native to West Asia.

 

[khufu]

Has anyone know what aryan mean? and why in Germany not Italy for example

 

[Aberdeen]

Has anyone know what aryan mean? and why in Germany not Italy for example

According to the Babblefish Translator, "aryan" means "brown skinned person who speaks an Indo-European language". If you want to find aryans, look for them in Pakistan and India - they're the descendants of the Indo-European tribes who invaded the Indian subcontinent about 3500 years ago, and so are of proto-Iranian (aryan) descent.

 

[Engel]

While Iran sounds like Aryan, does not mean iranians are / were Aryan by any stretch of imagination.
They were always middle eastern arabs. No wonder one doesn't see any Aryan in them

 

[Angela]

While Iran sounds like Aryan, does not mean iranians are / were Aryan by any stretch of imagination.
They were always middle eastern arabs. No wonder one doesn't see any Aryan in them

You are under a misapprehension as to the meaning of "Aryan". As Le Broc pointed out to you, it has to do with the "Arya", which has to do with Indo-Europeans who migrated into South Asia. It has nothing to do with Europeans.

And Iranians are not Arabs. They're northern west Asians.

 

[Engel]

Am not aware of who le broc is, nor am I aware of his pointing out anything to me.
Lol I am not apprehensive about anything.
Have been to iran a few times ad I will always regard them as arabs. Verstehen!!

 

[Nobody1]

Am not aware of who le broc is, nor am I aware of his pointing out anything to me.
Lol I am not apprehensive about anything.
Have been to iran a few times ad I will always regard them as arabs. Verstehen!!

In that context its verstanden!! or verstehste!! not Verstehen!!
Iranians are mostly Persian hence their language;

 

[sparkey]

Have been to iran a few times ad I will always regard them as arabs.

All of them? If so, you'd be wrong. It's not really a matter of opinion. Arabs are a minority in Iran. Did you visit western Khuzestan or something?

 

[Angela]

Am not aware of who le broc is, nor am I aware of his pointing out anything to me.
Lol I am not apprehensive about anything.
Have been to iran a few times ad I will always regard them as arabs. Verstehen!!

My apologies to Aberdeen...it was he who pointed out the meaning of Aryan to you.

Misapprehension-the dictionary definition is false impression: a false impression or incorrect understanding...I used it as a polite way of saying you're wrong.

 

[Engel]

In that context its verstanden!! or verstehste!! not Verstehen!!
Iranians are mostly Persian hence their language;

Verstehen stimmt auch. Understand or understood.
Though am not entirely certain if the ancient persians, egyptians are the same
as present day folks there

 

[khufu]

According to the Babblefish Translator, "aryan" means "brown skinned person who speaks an Indo-European language". If you want to find aryans, look for them in Pakistan and India - they're the descendants of the Indo-European tribes who invaded the Indian subcontinent about 3500 years ago, and so are of proto-Iranian (aryan) descent.

you Means the Persians j2

This is what makes science Bad

Focus on r1b and j2 ignore g and i

wrong Answer anyway

thank you

 

[Aberdeen]

you Means the Persians j2

This is what makes science Bad

Focus on r1b and j2 ignore g and i

wrong Answer anyway

thank you

I didn't actually refer to any Y DNA haplotypes in my first response to you, although there is genetic evidence of an Iranian invasion of India (particularly R1a) among the upper castes of northern India. There's also an undeniable link between Old Persian and modern languages in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. And the Vedas, which the experts generally believe were first composed about 3500 years ago, actually mention the Aryan invasions.

In the mid twentieth century, the term "Aryan" was hijacked by Nazi racists who tried to apply the term to white Europeans, but the people who called themselves Aryans were actually people from central Asia. Some of them invaded India, while other Aryans conquered the area that is now modern Iran. "Whiteness" seems a fairly modern development among Europeans, and some folks have hypothesized that it was caused by people having low vitamin D in their diet while living too far north to absorb enough vitamin D through dark skin, while people who live in northern areas but who had enough vitamin D in their diet didn't turn white. The Aryans of central Asia may have had lighter complexions than the people they found in the Indian subcontinent but probably wouldn't have appeared to have white skin to the modern eye, although the development of pale skin among Europeans is still somewhat a matter of conjecture. And complexion doesn't necessarily indicate haplotype.

 

[khufu]

I didn't actually refer to any Y DNA haplotypes in my first response to you, although there is genetic evidence of an Iranian invasion of India (particularly R1a) among the upper castes of northern India. There's also an undeniable link between Old Persian and modern languages in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. And the Vedas, which the experts generally believe were first composed about 3500 years ago, actually mention the Aryan invasions.

In the mid twentieth century, the term "Aryan" was hijacked by Nazi racists who tried to apply the term to white Europeans, but the people who called themselves Aryans were actually people from central Asia. Some of them invaded India, while other Aryans conquered the area that is now modern Iran. "Whiteness" seems a fairly modern development among Europeans, and some folks have hypothesized that it was caused by people having low vitamin D in their diet while living too far north to absorb enough vitamin D through dark skin, while people who live in northern areas but who had enough vitamin D in their diet didn't turn white. The Aryans of central Asia may have had lighter complexions than the people they found in the Indian subcontinent but probably wouldn't have appeared to have white skin to the modern eye, although the development of pale skin among Europeans is still somewhat a matter of conjecture. And complexion doesn't necessarily indicate haplotype.

Do not go far, even if you had a positive

There are some fools take science into the abyss

vitamin D hahahaha

Very difficult if they said y-dna D make y-dna R white

I will tell you who is the aryan

aryans is hitler race came to Germanic tribes befor 1700 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism