PDA

View Full Version : Were the Aryan who ruled the Mitanni the same as those of India ?



spongetaro
19-01-11, 20:44
Haplogroup G and J2 are found nowadays among highest cast in India alongside with R1a. In the Dienekes blog it is called the Dagestan admixture. Is it an evidence that the Indo European that settled in Norhern India and Pakistan were those that ruled earlier the Kingdom of Mitanni (whose kings had sanskrit names). Why such a move ?

Regulus
19-01-11, 21:13
They were both early Iranians and had languages that were very closely related. I will need to look that one up tonight.
I think that the Mitanni may have also had a Hurrian component.

spongetaro
19-01-11, 21:38
The Aryan rule on the Mitanni was like the Norman rule on England. Common people spoke the Hurrian language but the elite seems to have spoken an Indo Iranian language.



"Some theonyms, proper names and other terminology of the Mitanni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni) exhibit an Indo-Aryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages) superstrate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstrate), suggesting that an Indo-Aryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryans) elite imposed itself over the Hurrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrian) population in the course of the Indo-Aryan expansion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration).
In a treaty between the Hittites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites) and the Mitanni (between Suppiluliuma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppiluliuma) and Matiwaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matiwaza), ca. 1380 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1380s_BC)), the deities Mitra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitra), Varuna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varuna), Indra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra), and Nasatya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasatya) (Ashvins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asvins)) are invoked"
WIKIPEDIA

"
The ethnicity of the people of Mitanni is difficult to ascertain. A treatise on the training of chariot horses contains a number of Indo-Aryan glosses.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni#cite_note-7) Kammenhuber (1968) suggested that this vocabulary was derived from the still undivided Indo-Iranian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranian_languages) language,[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni#cite_note-9) but Mayrhofer (1974) has shown that specifically Indo-Aryan features are present.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni#cite_note-10)
The names of the Mitanni aristocracy frequently are of Indo-Aryan origin, but it is specifically their deities which show Indo-Aryan roots (Mitra, Varuna, Indra, Nasatya), though some think that they are probably more immediately related to the Kassites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassites).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni#cite_note-11) The common people's language, the Hurrian language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrian_language) is neither Indo-European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages) nor Semitic.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni#cite_note-12) Hurrian, and thus the Hurrians, are relatives of Urartu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartu), both belonging to the Hurro-Urartian language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurro-Urartian_languages) family"
WIKIPEDIA

Regulus
20-01-11, 03:02
I got to check more on it later.

They did indeed have a Hurrian component. One source has the Kingdom of the Mitanni speaking Hurrian, which was a non- IE, non-Semitic, Caucasian language. I don't know if that would be correct, but there does appear to have been a coalescing of the two groups as the Iranian Mitanni moved in. The Aryans moving into India and the Mitanni into the Fertile Crescent can both be dated as happening by 1600BCE.

Their Iranian languages appear definitely to be closely related, even compared to other Iranian groups. They appear to fall in the Eastern sub-group of Iranian languages.


My thoughts are that the movements of the Aryans and Mitanni were part of a larger group of movement in multiple directions east and southward, comprising the first of several large-scale of Iranians to come later.
The next big movement does not occur until the Medes almost a millennium later.
Once the chariot and even more the horse itself were mastered to transport people, the steppe became a source for one large scale movement of people out of that area and into the more permanently settled regions. In the east it was the Iranians in various groups for years including Scyths and Sarmations, Yue-Chi (possible reflux Iranian movement) and Kushans. After that began the various Turco-Mongol groups.

There are a ton of theories on what caused the out-of-the-steppe migrations. I believe that there are articles on them in this forum. You could even start a whole new thread on Causes of migrations out of that area.

Regulus
20-01-11, 16:15
I got to check more on it later.

They did indeed have a Hurrian component. One source has the Kingdom of the Mitanni speaking Hurrian, which was a non- IE, non-Semitic, Caucasian language. I don't know if that would be correct, but there does appear to have been a coalescing of the two groups as the Iranian Mitanni moved in. The Aryans moving into India and the Mitanni into the Fertile Crescent can both be dated as happening by 1600BCE.

Their Iranian languages appear definitely to be closely related, even compared to other Iranian groups. They appear to fall in the Eastern sub-group of Iranian languages.




I roped myself into reading more about this. The adoption of Hurrian as their language by the time that they are established in this area looks to be correct. This looks to be similar to what Maciamo posed in this forum on the situation with proto Italo-Celts merging in with Basque people.

For their language prior to this, it seems fairly certain that both it (Mitanni) and Aryan Sanskrit both come from the same older Iranian source and that for that reason they would be closely related.

Goga
19-09-11, 04:45
Here are some maps for better understanding. Proto-Aryans came from West Asia!

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6686/15797570.jpg
http://www.google.nl/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=nl&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=Y-haplogroups+of+carriers+of+the+Aryan+language&pbx=1&oq=Y-haplogroups+of+carriers+of+the+Aryan+language&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1326l1326l0l1669l1l1l0l0l0l0l31l31l1l1l0&fp=1&biw=1298&bih=595&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1867/52191874.jpg
http://www.google.nl/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=nl&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=Y-haplogroups+of+carriers+of+the+Aryan+language&pbx=1&oq=Y-haplogroups+of+carriers+of+the+Aryan+language&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1326l1326l0l1669l1l1l0l0l0l0l31l31l1l1l0&fp=1&biw=1298&bih=595&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7712/29553054.jpg
http://www.google.nl/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=nl&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=Y-haplogroups+of+carriers+of+the+Aryan+language&pbx=1&oq=Y-haplogroups+of+carriers+of+the+Aryan+language&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1326l1326l0l1669l1l1l0l0l0l0l31l31l1l1l0&fp=1&biw=1298&bih=595&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b

Maciamo
19-09-11, 09:33
There is nothing exceptional about the high frequency of G and J2 in Assyria/Northern Mesopotamia (where the Mitanni ruled). The intrusive outside element would be R1a. There is also a lot of R1b in Assyria and Kurdistan, but without knowing exactly what subclades we are dealing with, we cannot know if all of it is pre-IE or some of it is Indo-European.

As for the J2 and G found among higher caste Indians, there is an easy explanation, which I already suggested a few years ago. During the Neolithic G and J2 expanded eastward to what is now Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. When the Proto-Aryan R1a people descended from Russia to southern Central Asia, more precisely in the region corresponding to the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria%E2%80%93Margiana_Archaeological_Complex), they mixed with the local J2 and G people for a while, before carrying their expansion to Persia and the Indian subcontinent. Some G2a3b1a was already among the R1a people in Russia, but any other subclade (especially G1) would be of Central Asia origin.

Goga
19-09-11, 11:17
When the Proto-Aryan R1a people descended from Russia to southern Central Asia, more precisely in the region corresponding to the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria%E2%80%93Margiana_Archaeological_Complex), they mixed with the local J2 and G people for a while, before carrying their expansion to Persia and the Indian subcontinent. Some G2a3b1a was already among the R1a people in Russia, but any other subclade (especially G1) would be of Central Asia origin.No, you're making a mistake. Somehow some folks (from Russia) made us all believe that hg. R1a was proto-Aryan.

Please for the sake of science, how do you (and we) know that R1a was proto-Aryan? It was only found among Iranic people in Central Asia. But who is saying these folks were proto-Aryans?

Goga
19-09-11, 11:21
Like these maps suggest proto-Aryans were from West Asia. Migrated to Central Asia, mixed en route with R1a and became Iranias. Later this Iranians migrated from Central Asia into Pontic-Caspian steppes and mixed again with R1a people, but this time with European r1a folks. I believe ancient Aryans were assimilated by European R1a folks. All place from Pontic-Caspian steppes to Central Asia was R1a! Much later arrived Scythians from Central Asia, and also they were assimilated!


http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6686/15797570.jpg

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1867/52191874.jpg
http://www.google.nl/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=nl&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=Y-haplogroups+of+carriers+of+the+Aryan+language&pbx=1&oq=Y-haplogroups+of+carriers+of+the+Aryan+language&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1326l1326l0l1669l1l1l0l0l0l0l31l31l1l1l0&fp=1&biw=1298&bih=595&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b

Goga
19-09-11, 11:30
Btw, there's no European hg. I in Central Asia. So I don't think proto-Aryans came from Russia!

Goga
19-09-11, 11:32
When the Proto-Aryan R1a people descended from Russia to southern Central Asia, more precisely in the region corresponding to the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria%E2%80%93Margiana_Archaeological_Complex), they mixed with the local J2 and G people for a while, before carrying their expansion to Persia and the Indian subcontinent. Some G2a3b1a was already among the R1a people in Russia, but any other subclade (especially G1) would be of Central Asia origin.
Proto-Aryans came not from Russia. There's almost no 'Russian hg. I1 or I2' in Central Asia! Only Iranic R1a and NOT a Russian variant of it!!!!

"Both Gwozdz and Klyosov also note frequent close STR matching between part of the Indian R1a1a population, and part of the Russian and Slavic R1a1a population, indicating apparent links between these populations in a time-frame more recent than the age of R1a1a overall."
"R1a1a influence into India was not from Europe since the M458 marker is rare in India."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)

Maciamo
19-09-11, 12:58
Proto-Aryans came not from Russia. There's almost no 'Russian hg. I1 or I2' in Central Asia! Only Iranic R1a and NOT a Russian variant of it!!!!

"Both Gwozdz and Klyosov also note frequent close STR matching between part of the Indian R1a1a population, and part of the Russian and Slavic R1a1a population, indicating apparent links between these populations in a time-frame more recent than the age of R1a1a overall."

"R1a1a influence into India was not from Europe since the M458 marker is rare in India."


Haplogroup I has no connection with the Indo-European migrations. It is entirely pre-IE.

Goga
19-09-11, 20:25
Haplogroup I has no connection with the Indo-European migrations. It is entirely pre-IE.Well, hg. I is older than hg. R1a in Europe. So if 'native' Indo-Europeans from South Russia migrated into Central Asia, they would also carry some hg. I with them into Central Asia. But instead hg. I is very rare in Central Asia.

Or do you think that the proto-Indo-Europeans belonged only to one (hg. R1a) haplogroup? I don't understand you.

Selim
29-09-11, 21:37
Mitannis were a Hurrian population with an İ.E dynasty,not a coalition of two groups.

Kardu
29-09-11, 23:17
Lithuanians have lowest non-European admixture, they speak archaic Indo-European language with close affinity to Sanskrit and they have high R1a1. This must mean something...

Goga
30-09-11, 09:50
Lithuanians have lowest non-European admixture, they speak archaic Indo-European language with close affinity to Sanskrit and they have high R1a1. This must mean something...
It means that they mixed with Russians, Poles and other Slavic folks a lot, nothing more.

There're only for about 3,200,000 folks in there. And North Europe in general is a very peripheral place for being the Urheimant of IE people. The density of population there is very low! No way the original IE folks are from there.

Also Lithuanians have 38% of R1a, while 42% ! of N1c1. And I believe that N1C1 was there even before R1a. So, If they were the original IE folks than all other IE peoples would have some N1C1 in them too. At least 5-10% or something, even in India! In India there's a lot G2, J2 (West Asian) instead and R1a in the upper classes!

No way the original IE folks are from the Baltics or Scandinavia (or even West Europe).

Kardu
30-09-11, 11:33
It means that they mixed with Russians, Poles and other Slavic folks a lot, nothing more.

There're only for about 3,200,000 folks in there. And North Europe in general is a very peripheral place for being the Urheimant of IE people. The density of population there is very low! No way the original IE folks are from there.

Also Lithuanians have 38% of R1a, while 42% ! of N1c1. And I believe that N1C1 was there even before R1a. So, If they were the original IE folks than all other IE peoples would have some N1C1 in them too. At least 5-10% or something, even in India! In India there's a lot G2, J2 (West Asian) instead and R1a in the upper classes!

No way the original IE folks are from the Baltics or Scandinavia (or even West Europe).
N1c1 can simply be a legacy of a conquered population. Anyway, how do you explain that Lithuanian has the most archaic features among living Indo-European languages and has many parallels with Sanskrit?

Goga
30-09-11, 12:38
N1c1 can simply be a legacy of a conquered population. Anyway, how do you explain that Lithuanian has the most archaic features among living Indo-European languages and has many parallels with Sanskrit?
Maybe it's the 'less evolved' language of all Indo-European languages? I don't know, but this means nothing.

All IE languages have many paralles with Sanskrit!

Kurdish dialect Gorani is very close to Avestani. And Avestani is almost the same as Sanskrit, at least for 99 %.

Lithuanians are Finno-Ugric people who speak an Indo European language. I mean they're very close to other Baltic folks the Estonians who're Finno-Ugric by ethnicity and by language. Lithuanians were (and still almost) the same as Estonians, but at one pont in history they adopted the IE language.

Remember that the oldest written Indo-European language is from Anatolia, the Hittite language.

Kardu
30-09-11, 13:39
Maybe it's the 'less evolved' language of all Indo-European languages? I don't know, but this means nothing.

All IE languages have many paralles with Sanskrit!

Kurdish dialect Gorani is very close to Avestani. And Avestani is almost the same as Sanskrit, at least for 99 %.

Lithuanians are Finno-Ugric people who speak an Indo European language. I mean they're very close to other Baltic folks the Estonians who're Finno-Ugric by ethnicity and by language. Lithuanians were (and still almost) the same as Estonians, but at one pont in history they adopted the IE language.

Remember that the oldest written Indo-European language is from Anatolia, the Hittite language.
Law of economy would imply that it was R1a1 who brought IE language to the ancestors of modern-day Lithuanians. Anyway, if you say that Lithuanians are Finno-ugric people who adopted IE language, you will have to explain when did it happen and how come that it's so archaic. I don't say that historical Aryans were only R1a1, but it was certainly widespread among them.
As for Gorani, it is an old language indeed, but it can as easily be a cultural heritage rather than ethnic. Even in Georgian we have several Avestan loan-words, no surprise that on the territory of Iran proper it still survives.

Alan
30-09-11, 15:44
Haplogroup G and J2 are found nowadays among highest cast in India alongside with R1a. In the Dienekes blog it is called the Dagestan admixture. Is it an evidence that the Indo European that settled in Norhern India and Pakistan were those that ruled earlier the Kingdom of Mitanni (whose kings had sanskrit names). Why such a move ?

Yes your right with that. The Aryans who ruled in India belonged to the same wave whom migrated into East Anatolia, North Mesopotamia. Maybe they were even descend of those Mitanni from West Asia. Between, the Idea that Hurrian was a Caucasian language is more and more disputed. New researches seem to support the Idea that Hurrian was rather a isolated language probably with an relation to Caucasians. No one really knows to which language family Hurrian belonged. It is even possible that the Indo-Iranian substratum in Mitanni wasnt the product of an "elite who migrated into Hurrian lands" but that this evolved from the early Hurrians and Hurrian language. Maybe the Hurrians were even one of the earliest Indo-Iranian languages. The Title Hurrian it self is very interesting because it was sometimes translated as Harri-Arri (Aryan). But without evidences this all are speculations.

Goga
30-09-11, 15:53
Anyway, if you say that Lithuanians are Finno-ugric people who adopted IE language, you will have to explain when did it happen and how come that it's so archaic. I don't say that historical Aryans were only R1a1, but it was certainly widespread among them.
Lithuanian is not an 'archaic' language. It is a Baltic language, which in turn is a Balto-Slavic language. And Balto-Slavic is part (offspring) of the 'archaic' Indo European language family.

Sanskrit is one of the oldest Indo-Aryan (more archaic Indo-Iranian) languages. So Lithuanian and Sanskrit are not even from the same family, but both are part of the satem group though.

Baltic language was introduced in the Baltics during the Northern extensions of the Corded Ware culture horizon / Battle-Axen folks: 3300 - 1800 BCE.

I do also believe that R1a was important part of the Aryan people in EUROPE (Battle-Axe folks). But I don't think that the first 'proto'-Aryans were R1a folks, more likely G & J2

Goga
30-09-11, 16:08
There was even a Finnish Battle Axe culture, while people in Finland don't speak an IE language, but Finno-Ugric instead!

"It seems they may have actually brought some of the earliest ideas regarding irrigation canals and temple-centered worship with them; prehistoric pottery evidence links the Ubaid Period in southern Mesopotamia (5300-3900 BCE) with the Samara culture in the north, which itself was among the earliest of irrigation agriculturalists."

http://www.docudharma.com/diary/2178/

Taranis
30-09-11, 16:28
There was even a Finnish Battle Axe culture, while people in Finland don't speak an IE language, but Finno-Ugric instead!

"It seems they may have actually brought some of the earliest ideas regarding irrigation canals and temple-centered worship with them; prehistoric pottery evidence links the Ubaid Period in southern Mesopotamia (5300-3900 BCE) with the Samara culture in the north, which itself was among the earliest of irrigation agriculturalists."

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

Sorry, but that link is completely very wrong about a lot of issues.

What really sparked my eye is the claim that the word 'Tauras' for 'bull' is non-indo-European, yet funnily it is attested in many branches of Indo-European:

- Latin 'Taurus', Oscan 'Taurom'
- Gaulish 'Tarvos', Irish 'Tarbh', Welsh 'Tarw', Breton 'Tarv'
- Lusitanian 'Taurom'
- Greek 'Tauros'
- Lithuanian 'Tauras'

In any case, the Proto-Uralic Comb Ceramic Culture (who were likely carriers of Haplogroup N) were influenced by the (Proto-Indo-European) Corded Ware Culture, which also explains ancient IE loans into the Finnic languages.


I do also believe that R1a was important part of the Aryan people in EUROPE (Battle-Axe folks). But I don't think that the first 'proto'-Aryans were R1a folks, more likely G & J2

Well, that is also impossible because G2 was in Europe since the Neolithic, and Proto-Indo-European was probably spoken in the Chalcolithic.

Goga
30-09-11, 16:44
Sorry, but that link is completely very wrong about a lot of issues.


Well, that is also impossible because G2 was in Europe since the Neolithic, and Proto-Indo-European was probably spoken in the Chalcolithic.Thanks, I changed the link.

There could be many waves of G2 into Europe. How do you know that G2 entered Europe ONLY during the Neolithic? It is still possible that it also entered Europe even before the Neolithic era and thousands years after that.
The fact is that there's G2 & J2 in Europe! And it is from West Asia.

Also if G2 migrated first into South Russia from the south, it could be assimilated by R1a folks, because among all other native R1a folks it was a minority there. And many years later from that point the new people emerged who absorbed G2 & J2 and migrated further into Northern Europe.

The proof is that there's J2 and G2 in Europe, while the 'European' N1c1 and I are very rare in other parts of the world, like India.

In India we find R1a & J2 + G2 and not R1a & N1c1 & I or something among the upper classes.

Taranis
30-09-11, 16:49
Thanks, I changed the link.

There could be many waves of G2 into Europe. How do you know that G2 entered Europe ONLY during the Neolithic?

Also if G2 migrated first into South Russia from the south, it could be assimilated by R1a folks, because among all other R1a it was a minority there. And many years later from that point the new people who absorbed G2 and J2 migrated into Northern Europe.

The proof is that there's J2 and G2 in Europe, while the 'European' N1c1 and I are very rare in other part of the world, like India.

In India we find R1a & J2 + G2 and not R1a & N1c1 & I or something.

Let me say this: Maciamo believes (and I broadly agree with him) that there probably were several waves of Haplogroup G2 into Europe, and that one of the later waves also brought in Haplogroup G2. So yes, it's quite plausible that the Proto-Indo-Europeans had an admixture of G2 to them.

Haplogroup I is very likely indigenous to Europe. It's been there since at least the Neolithic, and is possibly Mesolithic or even Paleolithic in age. In the same manner, N1c1 is also in Europe since at least the Neolithic (though it originally migrated from Siberia). In any case, either Haplogroups certainly predate the arrival of the Indo-European languages.

For J2, the jury is still out.

Goga
30-09-11, 17:05
Haplogroup I is very likely indigenous to Europe. It's been there since at least the Neolithic, and is possibly Mesolithic or even Paleolithic in age. In the same manner, N1c1 is also in Europe since at least the Neolithic (though it originally migrated from Siberia). In any case, either Haplogroups certainly predate the arrival of the Indo-European languages.
Yes, that's why I'm ruling out that the proto-Indo-Europeans are from North-Europe like many people wanted us to believe.

When I was a child (before the haplogroups) I heard many times that Aryan people are from North Europe, because folks in Europe are very pure and unmixed, and the proof that they're pure is in their looks. According to them their white skin and their light hair etc. was the proof that Aryans were from North Europe.

But haplogroups tell the different story. Xenophon (430 – 354 BCE) describes the Persian troops as white compared to the sun-tanned skin of Greek troops. And at that time Persians called themselves 'Aryans'.

Darius (550 – 486 BCE) : "An Achaemenian, A Persian son of a Persian and an Aryan, of Aryan stock".

Kardu
30-09-11, 17:10
Lithuanian is not an 'archaic' language. It is a Baltic language, which in turn is a Balto-Slavic language. And Balto-Slavic is part (offspring) of the 'archaic' Indo European language family.

Sanskrit is one of the oldest Indo-Aryan (more archaic Indo-Iranian) languages. So Lithuanian and Sanskrit are not even from the same family, but both are part of the satem group though.

Baltic language was introduced in the Baltics during the Northern extensions of the Corded Ware culture horizon / Battle-Axen folks: 3300 - 1800 BCE.

I do also believe that R1a was important part of the Aryan people in EUROPE (Battle-Axe folks). But I don't think that the first 'proto'-Aryans were R1a folks, more likely G & J2
That's exactly interesting that Lithuanian which is officially in a different branch of Indo-European language family has so many similarities with Sanskrit. There are many parallels between Lithuanian paganism and Vedic lore. So how did they get the archaic form of language and culture? from who and when?

Goga
30-09-11, 17:36
That's exactly interesting that Lithuanian which is officially in a different branch of Indo-European language family has so many similarities with Sanskrit. There are many parallels between Lithuanian paganism and Vedic lore. So how did they get the archaic form of language and culture? from who and when?
There's a possibility of the existence of ergative in Lithuanian.
http://www.lituanus.org/1973/73_1_04.htm

I think that Lithuanian was an ergative language in the past but that some time ago it lost this construction, like Persian and many other IE languages.

Most 'modern' IE languages don't have this contsruction. But Kurdish IS still an ergative language, Persian (Old Farsi) was an ergative language in the past but it 'lost' this construction.
This feature is most likely due to a Caucasian origin of Kurdish language. I want to note that Caucasian languages are ergative too!

Kardu
30-09-11, 17:55
There's a possibility of the existence of ergative in Lithuanian.
http://www.lituanus.org/1973/73_1_04.htm

I think that Lithuanian was an ergative language in the past but that some time ago it lost this construction, like Persian and many other IE languages.

Most 'modern' IE languages don't have this contsruction. But Kurdish IS still an ergative language, Persian (Old Farsi) was an ergative language in the past but it 'lost' this construction.
This feature is most likely due to a Caucasian origin of Kurdish language. I want to note that Caucasian languages are ergative too!
Old Church Slavonic had Ergativity too and so does modern Bulgarian.
Anyway, now I am lost, if Kurdish has Caucasian origin as you propose, how is it Indo-European then?

Goga
30-09-11, 18:50
if Kurdish has Caucasian origin as you propose, how is it Indo-European then?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.

Taranis
30-09-11, 19:41
Goga, there is no (undisputed) evidence that the Caucasian languages are related with Indo-European. I should also elaborate that there is not one Caucasian language family but three:

- Kartvelian (which includes Georgian 'Kartli' in their own language)
- Northwest Caucasian languages (which includes Abkhazi and the extinct Ubykh language)
- Northeast Caucasian languages (which most prominently include the Chechen language)

The exact relationship between these three language families is disputed in itself. Also, I find it questionable if PIE originally had Ergativity even if some branches of it have, this is by no means a consensual opinion.

Cobol19
30-09-11, 19:52
There is nothing exceptional about the high frequency of G and J2 in Assyria/Northern Mesopotamia (where the Mitanni ruled). The intrusive outside element would be R1a. There is also a lot of R1b in Assyria and Kurdistan, but without knowing exactly what subclades we are dealing with, we cannot know if all of it is pre-IE or some of it is Indo-European.

As for the J2 and G found among higher caste Indians, there is an easy explanation, which I already suggested a few years ago. During the Neolithic G and J2 expanded eastward to what is now Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. When the Proto-Aryan R1a people descended from Russia to southern Central Asia, more precisely in the region corresponding to the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria%E2%80%93Margiana_Archaeological_Complex), they mixed with the local J2 and G people for a while, before carrying their expansion to Persia and the Indian subcontinent. Some G2a3b1a was already among the R1a people in Russia, but any other subclade (especially G1) would be of Central Asia origin.

I agree mostly with what you said (How haplogroups J2 and G being Neolithic markers that traveled east from West Asia), I also agree that the Indo-Iranians were likely a product of Indo-European folks from the Andronovo culture (Who carried a heavy amount of R1a1a) who mixed with the BMAC folks (Who likely carried a good chunk of J2, G, L3, and possibly some R2).

The important development that is happening right now with haplogroup R1a1a is very interesting, there seems to be a clear division between European and non-European R1a1a's, the non-European folks seem to be Z93+ dominant while the Europeans are Z93-, that's not to say that Z93+ does not exist in Europe nor is it correct to assume that all Asian R1a1a's are Z93+, but these occurrences are among the minority, so the question here is were the Andronovo folks Z93+ or not? If not, then the genetic impact of Indo-Europeans in Asia is rather weak compared to the language significance.

Kardu
30-09-11, 20:33
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.
You can not prove relatedness of language families based only on Ergative structure. Mayan in Mexico is ergative too and so are(or were) many other languages around the globe.
Taranis is right, it's not even proven that Caucasian languages are related to each other, not to mention Indo-European.
As for the topic of the thread I find it plausible that Mitanni Aryas and Aryas of Rigveda were different branches of the same folk, comprised mainly by R1a1 and to lesser degree G and J2.

Goga
30-09-11, 22:48
I agree mostly with what you said (How haplogroups J2 and G being Neolithic markers that traveled east from West Asia), I also agree that the Indo-Iranians were likely a product of Indo-European folks from the Andronovo culture (Who carried a heavy amount of R1a1a) who mixed with the BMAC folks (Who likely carried a good chunk of J2, G, L3, and possibly some R2).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!


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6981/bc3500andronovoafanasev.jpg

Goga
30-09-11, 22:53
Goga, there is no (undisputed) evidence that the Caucasian languages are related with Indo-European. I should also elaborate that there is not one Caucasian language family but three:

- Kartvelian (which includes Georgian 'Kartli' in their own language)
- Northwest Caucasian languages (which includes Abkhazi and the extinct Ubykh language)
- Northeast Caucasian languages (which most prominently include the Chechen language)

The exact relationship between these three language families is disputed in itself. Also, I find it questionable if PIE originally had Ergativity even if some branches of it have, this is by no means a consensual opinion.
Sure everything is possible. I'm just giving other possibilities and these are not only 'my' views, but also views of some other modern 'western' scientists.

Did you know that the Nazi Deutschland considered only the Battle-Axe folks in Europe the chosen one? They even considered the Battle-Axe folks even much superior to the Beaker people (R1b folks)? Accroding to them Battle-Axe folks were the true and purest Aryans.

What would they say if they knew that R1a is very high where Battle-Axe used to live, lol!

Goga
30-09-11, 23:08
And here is the Halaf culture! The same shape as Kurdistan, lol. And also in the Zagros Mountains and Northern Kurdistan!

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/124/halftn.jpg

Taranis
30-09-11, 23:14
Sure everything is possible. I'm just giving other possibilities and these are not only 'my' views, but also views of other modern 'western' scientists.

Not "everything is possible". Any claim of a relationship between two languages or two language families must be testable and absolutely rigorous before it is accepted by the mainstream community.


Did you know that the Nazi Deutsland considered only the Battle-Axe folks in Europe the chosen one? They even considered the Battle-Axe folks even much superior to the Beaker people (R1b folks)? Accroding to them Battle-Axe folks were the true and purests Aryans.

What would they say if they knew that R1a is very high where Battle-Axe used to live, lol!

Sorry, but the Nazi comparison is totally out of place here. They are not, and have never been, any authority on genetics or archaeology. Why you bring this up here eludes me.

Goga
30-09-11, 23:27
Not "everything is possible". Any claim of a relationship between two languages or two language families must be testable and absolutely rigorous before it is accepted by the mainstream community.



Sorry, but the Nazi comparison is totally out of place here. They are not, and have never been, any authority on genetics or archaeology. Why you bring this up here eludes me.As far as I know are Caucasian languages very very old. SO it is possible.
Just look that according to this scheme Caucasian languages are older than IE languages!

http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/images/nostratic3.gif
And about the Nazi's. I think it's funny to know that the culture/people they considered 'superior' had much of R1a in them.

Goga
30-09-11, 23:35
Not "everything is possible". Any claim of a relationship between two languages or two language families must be testable and absolutely rigorous before it is accepted by the mainstream community.



Sorry, but the Nazi comparison is totally out of place here. They are not, and have never been, any authority on genetics or archaeology. Why you bring this up here eludes me.?
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!

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/2649/nostratic.jpg
http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/lingwen/afil.html


And about the Nazi's, for me it's very funny to know after 50 years that people who they considered the chosen one and superior to all other Europeans - Battle-Axe warriors - had very much R1a in them. And that Slavic folks have much more R1a than the Germanic folks.

This is what I call the irony of history!

Goga
30-09-11, 23:49
http://wdict.net/img/nostratic+languages,3.jpg
http://wdict.net/es/gallery/macrofamilia+nostr%C3%A1tica/n/3/

Taranis
01-10-11, 00:02
?
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
01-10-11, 00:07
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!


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6981/bc3500andronovoafanasev.jpg

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
01-10-11, 00:10
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
01-10-11, 01:31
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
01-10-11, 14:20
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
02-10-11, 01:08
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!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNnz1DgVsYE

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1875/trialetid.jpg

Kardu
02-10-11, 12:03
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
15-05-12, 18:09
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
19-02-14, 09:45
Has anyone know what aryan mean? and why in Germany not Italy for example

Aberdeen
19-02-14, 19:38
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
21-02-14, 18:28
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
21-02-14, 18:39
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
21-02-14, 20:44
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
21-02-14, 21:00
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
21-02-14, 21:28
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
21-02-14, 21:40
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
21-02-14, 22:41
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
24-02-14, 15:01
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
24-02-14, 15:41
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
24-02-14, 16:12
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

LeBrok
24-02-14, 18:48
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

You are confusing Arian religion, which is christian, with Aryan ethnicity of some Indo-Iranian tribes of 3kya. These are two different things, and not even contemporary to each other.


vitamin D hahahaha Ridiculing is never nice, but at least get some education before voicing your opinion on this matter.

Aberdeen
24-02-14, 19:01
........

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

Actually, no. What you have to understand is that there were already people in Europe before the Indo-Europeans arrived, just as there were people in India before the IE Aryan (Iranian) invaders arrived. And the fact that the German language has a lot more pre-IE words in it than most modern IE languages suggests that the Germans may have absorbed fewer IE folk than some other parts of Europe (although I realize there could be other explanations for that). In any case, there's no evidence that the IE folk who invaded Europe ever called themselves Aryans. That idea is a recent invention, based on the fact that the ancient Iranians called themselves Ayrans. Also, too, I think that someone like yourself who doesn't appear to understand the difference between Arianism and Aryanism should perhaps spend less time explaining and more time learning. Just a suggestion.

khufu
24-02-14, 19:29
You are confusing Arian religion, which is christian, with Aryan ethnicity of some Indo-Iranian tribes of 3kya. These are two different things, and not even contemporary to each other.

Ridiculing is never nice, but at least get some education before voicing your opinion on this matter.

Perhaps there are those who do not want you to focus

no indian came in 3ky It's ironic summit

Persian occupation and after the Persian Slaves Are these Aryan ?

or becous arab ?

You need to focus

so vitamin D make you different from your ancestors native australiod And your relatives native american Should you give them some but I think they have

what they want is different The X chromosome

khufu
24-02-14, 19:32
Actually, no. What you have to understand is that there were already people in Europe before the Indo-Europeans arrived, just as there were people in India before the IE Aryan (Iranian) invaders arrived. And the fact that the German language has a lot more pre-IE words in it than most modern IE languages suggests that the Germans may have absorbed fewer IE folk than some other parts of Europe (although I realize there could be other explanations for that). In any case, there's no evidence that the IE folk who invaded Europe ever called themselves Aryans. That idea is a recent invention, based on the fact that the ancient Iranians called themselves Ayrans. Also, too, I think that someone like yourself who doesn't appear to understand the difference between Arianism and Aryanism should perhaps spend less time explaining and more time learning. Just a suggestion.
Do not listen to the words of the empty

Aberdeen
24-02-14, 19:49
Do not listen to the words of the empty

That's certainly a well-crafted and coherent argument. LOL.

LeBrok
24-02-14, 20:45
Perhaps there are those who do not want you to focus

no indian came in 3ky It's ironic summit

Persian occupation and after the Persian Slaves Are these Aryan ?

or becous arab ?

You need to focus

so vitamin D make you different from your ancestors native australiod And your relatives native american Should you give them some but I think they have

what they want is different The X chromosome
Obviously you just started to discover the world. Your english should be better for any serious argument to make. Keep learning, we'll talk in few years perhaps.



so vitamin D make you different from your ancestors native australiod And your relatives native american Should you give them some but I think they have
Lack of vitamin D can make your body not function properly and even sick and die sooner, especially pregnant women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets
Where did you get idea that my ancestors were australiod (australoid)?


Pregnant women need the vitamin to help build their babies’ skeletons as well as maintain their own.
A pregnant woman with a vitamin D deficiency raises the risk of developing high blood pressure and gestational diabetes. It also ups the risk of giving birth to an underweight infant.
Medical science has known this for a long time, but fair-skinned Nordic women continue to have problems with their vitamin D levels.
In the winter, when our skin gets the least amount of exposure to the sun, a total of 85 percent of Swedish women in a recent study had a shortage of the vitamin. In addition, 28 percent suffered what is defined as a vitamin D deficiency.
“This is worrisome, especially given that the women we studied were well-educated and concerned about their health,” says Hanna Olausson, the researcher in charge of the study, in a press release.

http://sciencenordic.com/pregnant-women-are-often-vitamin-d-deficient

You don't know about this in Egypt, but there is a huge emphasis on vitamin D in Northern diet, it is artificially added to food these days. It is very critical now because most of people use sunscreen in summer.
http://sciencenordic.com/vitamin-d-fortified-food-helps-us-through-dark-winters

Alan
25-02-14, 02:02
In Rig Veda the Aryans are described as "Golden skinned". Now we need to first understand what is meant with Golden Skinned.

Golden Skinned could simply mean a lighter version of brown (which is still found in the higher caste Indians).
http://www.tomcruise.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hrithik-Roshanwallpaper.jpg



But than "Golden skinned" could also simply be referred to some tanned Eastern European types.

For me the first case makes more sense considering that the Indo Aryans mixed relatively quick with the native groups.

However this is only the description of skin color among the Indo Aryans from the Indus Valley. Aryan as a term never referred nor had it the meaning of "skin color". It simply means "noble" and I have never came across the term Aryan in connection with skin color among the Iranic tribes. So I assume the description of "Golden Skinned" was just additional detail to describe the look of the Indo_Aryans.