PDA

View Full Version : Original Aryans



Nigel
2010-08-10, 22:29
The very true meaning of the word is a noble, a non barbarian, someone that follows Vedic lifestyle, speaks a language that is Sanskrit or derived from Sanskrit, from noble bloodlines, the descentants of the Vedic civilisation in Indic lands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryavarta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mleccha

tweet
2010-08-10, 22:35
I agree Nigel but try telling that to the stormfront members, world war 3 will begin

Karhunkynsi
2010-08-10, 23:18
The very true meaning of the word is a noble, a non barbarian, someone that follows Vedic lifestyle, speaks a language that is Sanskrit or derived from Sanskrit, from noble bloodlines, the descentants of the Vedic civilisation in Indic lands.


No it is not. Term Arya was used as self identification allready long before any Indo-Iranian moved to India. We know this because Uralic speakers, such as Finns, took early Indo-Iranians as slaves. Word for slave in modern Finnish is still orja.

See attachments. They are from:
The Indo-Aryan controversy: evidence and inference in Indian history
by Edwin Bryant,Laurie L. Patton, 2005

Can be found from google books.

alfieb
2010-08-10, 23:22
The very true meaning of the word is a noble, a non barbarian, someone that follows Vedic lifestyle, speaks a language that is Sanskrit or derived from Sanskrit, from noble bloodlines, the descentants of the Vedic civilisation in Indic lands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryavarta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mleccha

Well, we've already had that argument and it's become clear that you're just a silly little nationalist.

Dravidians are mostly brown people. Aryans (that is to say, ethnic Persians) were white people. Indians did not use the term to define ethnicity, but rather class.

Wojewoda
2010-08-10, 23:23
I believe that original Aryans were Finns. Do you have haplogroup N1c there in India?

Karhunkynsi
2010-08-10, 23:30
I believe that original Aryans were Finns. Do you have haplogroup N1c there in India?

Nope, we kept those Aryans at cage.

There is low % of HG-N (propably N1c1) at Brahmins of NW India. That ofcource doest not mean that Aryans were Finns but if you read those 2 attachments you get my point. Early Indo-Iranians and Uralic speakers of Volga-region were pretty mixed. So there should be HG-N precense at India if there was "Aryan invasion" as N1c1 was precent in the starting zone of Indo-Iranians.

Nigel
2010-08-10, 23:31
No it is not. Term Arya was used as self identification allready long before any Indo-Iranian moved to India. We know this because Uralic speakers, such as Finns, took early Indo-Iranians as slaves. Word for slave in modern Finnish is still orja.

See attachments. They are from:
The Indo-Aryan controversy: evidence and inference in Indian history
by Edwin Bryant,Laurie L. Patton, 2005

Can be found from google books.

Stop posting nonsense please.
There's no connection between orja and Arya.

Arya was first used to describe a noble person in India during the Vedic period in the Indus.

---------- Post added 2010-08-10 at 22:31 ----------


Nope, we kept those Aryans at cage.

There is low % of HG-N (propably N1c1) at Brahmins of NW India. That ofcource doest not mean that Aryans were Finns but if you read those 2 attachments you get my point. Early Indo-Iranians and Uralic speakers of Volga-region were pretty mixed. So there should be HG-N precense at India if there was "Aryan invasion" as N1c1 was precent in the starting zone of Indo-Iranians.

Don't make me laugh.

---------- Post added 2010-08-10 at 22:33 ----------

And by the way R1a1 has it's roots in India. Read Oppenheimer's texts. So it's rather that Indians moved to Europe and spread their genes.

Karhunkynsi
2010-08-10, 23:34
There's no connection between orja and Arya.


Yes there is. Term can be found from all "Finno-Ugric" languages with corresponding sound shifts.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/orja

Finnish
Etymology

From an Indo-Iranian word for Aryan (compare Slav → slave); cognate to Estonian ori.



Arya was first used to describe a noble person in India during the Vedic period in the Indus.


It was propably written down first time then. It doesnt mean that word and the substance didnt exist.

---------- Post added 2010-08-10 at 22:37 ----------



[/COLOR]And by the way R1a1 has it's roots in India. Read Oppenheimer's texts. So it's rather that Indians moved to Europe and spread their genes.

I actually agree with you. That how ever has nothing to do with Aryans. Even if R1a1 would originate at Cuba it wouldnt change anything at the fact that Indo-Iranian languages originate at southern Urals or there abouts.

Nigel
2010-08-10, 23:38
There is no connection between orja and Arya. Nor is there between Eire (Ireland) and Arya.
Both have a different meaning. Besides Wiktionary is nonsense most of the time.
Stop fooling around spreading nonsense.

When original Aryans in India had their civilisation most Northern Europeans were forest and cave dwelling barbarians. Stop associating our people with yours.

Tenochkatl
2010-08-11, 01:07
There is no connection between orja and Arya. Nor is there between Eire (Ireland) and Arya.
Both have a different meaning. Besides Wiktionary is nonsense most of the time.
Stop fooling around spreading nonsense.

When original Aryans in India had their civilisation most Northern Europeans were forest and cave dwelling barbarians. Stop associating our people with yours.

Where did the Indo-European language family originate in your view? India?

Geto-Thracian
2010-08-11, 01:51
There is no connection between orja and Arya. Nor is there between Eire (Ireland) and Arya.
Both have a different meaning. Besides Wiktionary is nonsense most of the time.
Stop fooling around spreading nonsense.

When original Aryans in India had their civilisation most Northern Europeans were forest and cave dwelling barbarians. Stop associating our people with yours.

So Aryans got purer as they went in to europe, right? So unusual for a language family to spread so uni-directionally don't you think? Much more likely the urheimat is somewhere in the middle of the range not at its virtual edge (barring Tocharians).

Kshatriya
2010-08-11, 08:39
The very true meaning of the word is a noble, a non barbarian, someone that follows Vedic lifestyle, speaks a language that is Sanskrit or derived from Sanskrit, from noble bloodlines, the descentants of the Vedic civilisation in Indic lands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryavarta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mleccha

Nonsense.

The people who used the term Aryan belonged to a certain racial type, so those specific people, and now, their affiliated tribes have all rights to use the word "Aryan". That is to say, a racially benevolent, moral European has more rights to the word than a Muslim who's ancestors were peaceful Indo-European pagans. Iranians being a prime example. But it is very clear that the ancient Indo-Iranians and more specifically, the Vedic people explicitly used the word Arya to refer to themselves. Regardless of the fact that it had no real racial connotations to it, it is very clear that the word was also used to differentiate them (the users of the word) from the slighter races whom they gave their higher culture and language to everywhere. This is a theme propagated frequently by North Indian nationalists, and the links are utterly redundant. Aryan has, and always will be, an utterly controversial word that is best left at what it is i.e "noble". The word Arya itself is hard to translate into non-Sanskrit tounges, thus it is hard to understand other than in Sanskrit.

So it's rather that Indians moved to Europe and spread their genes.
There is no "Indian" race, neither is "Indian" a uniform ethnic group, therefore there is no "Indian" genetic entity. The vast majority of Indians, North or South, comprise of Pariahs, therefore the vast majority of Indians do not descend from the people who originally used the word.

birko19
2010-08-11, 08:54
Nonsense.

The people who used the term Aryan belonged to a certain racial type, so those specific people, and now, their affiliated tribes have all rights to use the word "Aryan". That is to say, a racially benevolent, moral European has more rights to the word than a Muslim who's ancestors were peaceful Indo-European pagans. But it is very clear that the ancient Indo-Iranians and more specifically, the Vedic people explicitly used the word Arya to refer to themselves. Regardless of the fact that it had no real racial connotations to it, it is very clear that the word was also used to differentiate them (the users of the word) from the slighter races whom they gave their higher culture and language to everywhere. This is a theme propagated frequently by North Indian nationalists, and the links are utterly redundant. Aryan has, and always will be, an utterly controversial word that is best left at what it is i.e "noble". The word Arya itself is hard to translate into non-Sanskrit tounges, thus it is hard to understand other than in Sanskrit.

There is no "Indian" race, neither is "Indian" a uniform ethnic group, therefore there is no "Indian" genetic entity. The vast majority of Indians, North or South, comprise of Pariahs, therefore the vast majority of Indians do not descend from the people who originally used the word.

I think Arya which means Noble as you pointed out has an Indo-Iranian background, not Indo-European, yes we know that Indo-Iranian languages come from the Indo-European family, but the Indo-Iranian identity is where Aryan comes from, the other branches such as Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, so on did not have this Aryan lifestyle as the Indo-Aryans and Iranians did, the Vedic Sanskrit speakers and the Iranian groups (Persians, Medes, so on) are the only groups I heard use Arya for their Noble classes, and whenever there's debates for a homeland it always usually ends up somewhere east of Iran and northwest of India, to me such location is Afghanistan, north Pakistan, parts or Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan.

Dragoslav
2010-08-11, 10:02
We could assume the Aryans began emphasising on their own ethnonym once confronted with the swarthy, backwards people of what later became known as Hindustan.

Unurautare
2010-08-11, 10:17
The very true meaning of the word is a noble, a non barbarian, someone that follows Vedic lifestyle, speaks a language that is Sanskrit or derived from Sanskrit, from noble bloodlines, the descentants of the Vedic civilisation in Indic lands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryavarta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mleccha

Barbarians=non-latin speakers (mwhahaha!) or non-greek speakers but ancient greeks also used to insult other greeks by calling them barbarians.

alfieb
2010-08-11, 10:19
Barbarians=non-latin speakers (mwhahaha!) or non-greek speakers but ancient greeks also used to insult other greeks by calling them barbarians.

Indeed. The word "Barbarian" is of Greek origin because they felt stupid, backwards people sounded like they were saying "Bar bar bar!"

Kind-of like when someone makes fun of East Asians and says "Ching chang chong" or whatever.

But we're kinder than our desi friend so we will allow him to use our word.

Kshatriya
2010-08-11, 11:35
...but the Indo-Iranian identity is where Aryan comes from, the other branches such as Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, so on did not have this Aryan lifestyle as the Indo-Aryans and Iranians did, the Vedic Sanskrit speakers and the Iranian groups (Persians, Medes, so on) are the only groups I heard use Arya for their Noble classes..
Therefore, respecting your view as an outsider, we could conclude for now, as controversial a topic it may be, that the only people who truly have the rights to the usage of this word are the Hindu Aryan classes and Zoroastrian Iranians/Parsees.

interstedinanthro
2010-08-11, 20:05
Aryan=unmixed indo-iranian

They don't exist anymore. Western Iran has nothing to do with them at all. Iranians resemble middle easterners. Most afghans seem to be mixed with mongols, turks, greeks and arabs. indians are heavily mixed with dravadians and the tribal people and even mongoloids in parts of nepal and the northeast.

---------- Post added 2010-08-11 at 19:09 ----------


So Aryans got purer as they went in to europe, right? So unusual for a language family to spread so uni-directionally don't you think? Much more likely the urheimat is somewhere in the middle of the range not at its virtual edge (barring Tocharians).


I think Arya which means Noble as you pointed out has an Indo-Iranian background, not Indo-European, yes we know that Indo-Iranian languages come from the Indo-European family, but the Indo-Iranian identity is where Aryan comes from, the other branches such as Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, so on did not have this Aryan lifestyle as the Indo-Aryans and Iranians did, the Vedic Sanskrit speakers and the Iranian groups (Persians, Medes, so on) are the only groups I heard use Arya for their Noble classes, and whenever there's debates for a homeland it always usually ends up somewhere east of Iran and northwest of India, to me such location is Afghanistan, north Pakistan, parts or Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan.

Central Asia seems quite likely. Plenty of indians and iranians have no problem with this. White nationalists (especially slavs) seem to be pushing the homeland into eastern and even central europe.

---------- Post added 2010-08-11 at 19:12 ----------


We could assume the Aryans began emphasising on their own ethnonym once confronted with the swarthy, backwards people of what later became known as Hindustan.

Only applies to tribals. Dravidians were civilized and considered the aryans who had no writing to be backwards. South Indians have a lot of accomplishments. They managed to rule over large parts of Southeast Asia, the kerela school of mathematics etc Even today south indians dominate education, are less violent, give more rights to women compared to north indians.

Dragoslav
2010-08-11, 20:14
Indeed. Another question is how many 'original Aryans' perished in the course of the Mongol invasions. Resistance meant total slaughter, thus whole regions lost their ethnic make-up for good. Did you ever ask yourselves what Iran would look like in terms of race and culture if the Arabs didn't Islamise it?

Rochefaton
2010-08-11, 20:21
This is somewhat off-topic, but I have a question, are there words in other Indo-European languages that are similar to "Aryan" and have a similar meaning?

I know that the Gaelic name "Bryan" means noble and is similar to "Aryan" in spelling, pronunciation, and in meaning, but I'm not sure if there are others.

http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Bryan.html

Dragoslav
2010-08-11, 20:24
Like many words that emerged back then, the term 'Aryan' has several broader meanings, such as old, wise, skilled. Check 'art' for instance.

interstedinanthro
2010-08-11, 20:36
Indeed. Another question is how many 'original Aryans' perished in the course of the Mongol invasions. Resistance meant total slaughter, thus whole regions lost their ethnic make-up for good. Did you ever ask yourselves what Iran would look like in terms of race and culture if the Arabs didn't Islamise it?

Indo-Iranians probably mixed with mongols prior to the invasions. Central Asian steepe confederations were always mixed and might have included turkish speakers. Didn't they even find an individual belonging to haplogroup C at one of the indo iranian burial sites?

Western Iran was never "Aryan" to begin with and eastern iran was probably already populated to some extent by a population similar to caucasians and middle easterners. Parsis for example have haplogroups which afghans/other iranian groups,pakistanis/nw indians seem to lack such as J1 and G and parsis are from eastern/southern iran/

I am more interested in the phenotype of J2, R2, and L carriers without tribal or aryan contribution. How would India look if it only had 4 major y-haplogroups(R1a, R2, L, J2) rather than the 5 it has today(R1a, R2, L, J2 and H)?

birko19
2010-08-12, 05:38
Aryan=unmixed indo-iranian

They don't exist anymore. Western Iran has nothing to do with them at all. Iranians resemble middle easterners. Most afghans seem to be mixed with mongols, turks, greeks and arabs. indians are heavily mixed with dravadians and the tribal people and even mongoloids in parts of nepal and the northeast.

I don't believe in that either, maybe when the proto-Indo-Iranians were migrating from Central Asia they were more pure bred, as they were passing through south they ran into other groups that they mixed with, I believe by the time the Iranians had reached the Near East they were already heavily mixed, yet the term Arya was still in use among them whether they were pure or not, therefore it seems sort of obvious that they used the term not for race but rather for the upper class elite (Hence the translation for Noble), the same thing was probably happening in India when the Sanskrit speakers mixed in with the Indus people.

Indocentrist
2010-08-12, 07:02
Nonsense.

The people who used the term Aryan belonged to a certain racial type, so those specific people, and now, their affiliated tribes have all rights to use the word "Aryan".......The vast majority of Indians, North or South, comprise of Pariahs, therefore the vast majority of Indians do not descend from the people who originally used the word.

What a load of nonsense.

Another screwed up self-hating hindu posturing with fake "racial" pride. You slap one down in debate and another pops up spouting the same nonsense. Internet fora are infested with these stubborn liars.

Who are you trying to fool with the brazen lie that "aryans" are a different race than the "vast majority" of indians who you contemptuously dismiss as "pariahs"?

Since you are posing as a proud rajput (I assume from deeply impoverished, malnourished Rajputana/Rajasthan), here are pics of rajput leaders from the 19th century. Who in his right mind would conclude that these inbred rajput royals represent a non-indian race? So explain how the lowly indian "pariahs" became the elite of the martial "aryan" rajputs?? :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jByKxkOXvc

Here is a video about modern day rajputs. They look blacker than punjabi sudras and outcastes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phTgVREZ26M&feature=related[COLOR="Silver"]

birko19
2010-08-12, 07:42
Indo-Iranians probably mixed with mongols prior to the invasions. Central Asian steepe confederations were always mixed and might have included turkish speakers. Didn't they even find an individual belonging to haplogroup C at one of the indo iranian burial sites?

I think there was one study where they found 10 bodies, 9 of them were R1a1 and one was Q, so some Eastern haplogroups were likely present in Central Asia.


Western Iran was never "Aryan" to begin with and eastern iran was probably already populated to some extent by a population similar to caucasians and middle easterners. Parsis for example have haplogroups which afghans/other iranian groups,pakistanis/nw indians seem to lack such as J1 and G and parsis are from eastern/southern iran/

Western Iran was Aryan by identity, this has nothing to do with race or haplogroups, you don't think some non-Iranian populations were absorbed into the Iranians? Of course such thing happened, in fact I'm willing to bet that a large number of the so called "Aryan Immortals" was non-Iranian, here's a picture of some them which based on their skin and location, were likely of Elamite background:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Persian_warriors_from_Berlin_Museum.jpg

These were non-Iranians, but carried that Aryan identity as it was a cultural title, I believe the same thing was happening in India, after all we do notice some haplogroup H among Brahmins and Warrior castes too.


I am more interested in the phenotype of J2, R2, and L carriers without tribal or aryan contribution. How would India look if it only had 4 major y-haplogroups(R1a, R2, L, J2) rather than the 5 it has today(R1a, R2, L, J2 and H)?

I don't think these haplogroups have much to do with it, in any case, I think India/Pakistan without Indo-Iranians and Australoid people would look like dark Caucasoids similar to the lighter skinned Dravidian speakers of South India.

interstedinanthro
2010-08-12, 13:38
I don't believe in that either, maybe when the proto-Indo-Iranians were migrating from Central Asia they were more pure bred, as they were passing through south they ran into other groups that they mixed with, I believe by the time the Iranians had reached the Near East they were already heavily mixed, yet the term Arya was still in use among them whether they were pure or not, therefore it seems sort of obvious that they used the term not for race but rather for the upper class elite (Hence the translation for Noble), the same thing was probably happening in India when the Sanskrit speakers mixed in with the Indus people.

Maybe. They did find eastern haplogorups(althought I believe it was C not Q) although C is supposed to have originiated near SW Asia (although the subclade of C found was asian in origin) but Indians and Iranains seem to lack these haplogroups.

Is there any evidence they mixed with others in central asia? The only time I hear this is from pan-turkists who claim r1a is turkish, scythians were turkish, aryans were conquered by turks and have turkish male dna and even indian gujjars have a turkish origin.

I have read that the original Aryan phenotype was dark anyways and that lighter skin/hair/eyes were obtained through mixing with finno-uralic and tocharian women. Even later on indians had contact with tocharians(they were buddhist, used a slanting version of brahmi script, and there is at least one recorded case of an indian brahmin being married to a tocharian princess/noblewoman).

Humata
2010-08-12, 15:17
Maybe. They did find eastern haplogorups(althought I believe it was C not Q) although C is supposed to have originiated near SW Asia (although the subclade of C found was asian in origin) but Indians and Iranains seem to lack these haplogroups.

Is there any evidence they mixed with others in central asia? The only time I hear this is from pan-turkists who claim r1a is turkish, scythians were turkish, aryans were conquered by turks and have turkish male dna and even indian gujjars have a turkish origin.


Haplogroup C is extremely old and existed before the presumed Europid-Mongoloid phenotype split between Eurasians occurred.

The Y-DNA diversity in both Iran and India is very high, which is no surprise, given Iran's position as a genetic crossroads and the Subcontinent's role as an ancient Out-of-Africa outpost from the south.

Haplogroup C in Iran is practically non-existent and barely exceeds 1% nationwide, although one study detected C3-M217 in the North. This may be a relic of the Mongols, although further SNP testing was needed to confirm this. C3c-M48 is usually connected with Genghis Khan and Mongolic speakers.

Haplogroup C in India is quite different. C3-M217 was not found in North India and was detected in various Pakistani ethnic groups, as well as being plentiful the Hazara and Uyghurs.
However, a novel C lineage (C5-M356) was found across India at irregular frequencies and crossed linguistic/caste lines. C5 seems specific to the Indian subcontinent, as I have never seen Near-Easterners or Central Asians with this lineage. This, together with its' omnipresence in many Indian populations, implies it has been there for a long time. Saying that, however, its' frequency is vastly out-showed by Y-DNA R, H and O nationwide.

The haplogroup Q found in Iran appears to be of two distinct subclades; Q1a2*-M25 and Q1b-M378 (one paper found Q1-P36 both north and south but this may be Q1b).
Q1a2* appears to be distinctly Near-Eastern and has been observed in Turkey and Lebanon. Q1b was found in Pakistan, as well as in Ashkenazi Jews.

Finally, the situation concerning haplogroup Q in India is akin to that of C. No typically "Central Asian" Q lineages were found in the Subcontinent. The only Q detected was Q1a3*-M346, which is a precursor to Q1a3a-M3, the dominant subclade in Native Americans. This again reveals India's position as a demographic "hub" in prehistoric times.

In contrast, Altaic speakers (Koreans, Hazaras and Dungans) were found to carry Q1a1-M20.

There are pan-Turanists on the Internet (including this forum) who disseminate misinformation, particularly the connection between haplogroups C and Q in Iran with "Turkic influence".

This post conclusively proves the forms of haplogroup C and Q in India and Iran are mostly ancient subclades. Therefore, any Turkish or Mongolian-derived Y-DNA C or Q in these countries represents a minority of the minority.

Note: Indian results based on Sengupta et al., the most concise Y-DNA SNP study on India to date.
Iranian results based on Regueiro et al., El Sibai et al, Al Shamali et al and two separate papers by Nasidze et al.



I have read that the original Aryan phenotype was dark anyways and that lighter skin/hair/eyes were obtained through mixing with finno-uralic and tocharian women.


The settled Indo-Iranians (Persians, Medians, Vedic Indians and perhaps Bactrians) were the only ones who used the term "Arya".

Not even the Scythians referred to themselves as "Arya". They were known by the Persians as Saka, the Greeks as Scythae and ancient Indians as Shak.
Greek sources state that the Scythians called themselves Skolotoi, which linguists conclude is derived from the proto-Indo-European word for "archer". This fits with their nomadic lifestyle and reliance on projectile warfare.

The term "Arya" was erroneously transposed to refer to all Indo-European speakers when the Indo-European languages were first studied in the 19th century. Furthermore, the imagery of "Aryans" being exclusively or mostly fair-featured is a relic of the Third Reich's pseudoscience.

Unfortunately, most of the quotations I've been presented with from the Rig Veda by Indians concerning the phenotype of the Vedic Indians do not seem to be agreed upon, or are contradictory.

However, we have enough self-depictions of the ancient Iranians to know how they looked like. The consistency between these pictures is very welcoming.

Central Asian Iranian from Uzbekistan (http://www.ioa.ucla.edu/news-events/events-calendar/Kidd_image.jpg)
Darius III and his brother below (http://www.knowledgenews.net/picturethis/dariusiii_v2_380.jpg) (Greek tapestry of Alexander the Great in battle)
Persian Immortals (http://lifegoesonintehran.com/images/03_2008/10-louvreiran.jpg) (Enlistment restrictions set exclusively to able-bodied Persians and Medians, dark skin presumably a tan)
Iranian nobles (http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/Iranian-nobles.jpg) (Roman artwork, two dark-haired men and one white-haired elderly man)

The Scythians of Europe were described as red-headed and light-eyed by ancient Greek intellectuals.
The Scythians of Asia showed themselves to be both fair haired (http://www.erugsdirect.com/images/History4.jpg) but also dark (http://www.lessing-photo.com/p2/070201/07020154.jpg).
As they did not go by the name "Arya", their phenotype is irrelevant to this discussion, as they were not "original Aryans".

Tuohikirje
2010-08-13, 19:21
About Scythians, Sarmatians and Gelonis.
This is a sitation from the Finnish Tiede.fi i.e. Science.fi forum.
It has some interesting aspects.


Herodotus writes that the Gelonii were formerly Greeks, having settled away from the coastal emporia among the Budini, where they "use a tongue partly Scythian and partly Greek.

The Budini for their part, being a large and numerous nation, is all mightily blue-eyed and ruddy. And a city among them has been built, a wooden city, and the name of the city is Gelonus.

Old Indian: sárman- n. `shelter, protection, safety'; salā f. `house, mansion, hall'. In Proto-FU *sarma means a smoke hole in a tent to let the smoke out.

The Budini for their part, being a large and numerous nation, is all mightily blue-eyed and ruddy. And a city among them has been built, a wooden city, and the name of the city is Gelonus. Of its wall then in size each side is of thirty stades and high and all wooden. And their homes are wooden and their shrines. For indeed there is in the very place Greek gods’ shrines adorned in the Greek way with statues, altars and wooden shrines and for triennial Dionysus festivals in honour of Dionysus ”

Above the Sauromatae (Sarmatians), possessing the second region, dwell the Budini, whose territory is thickly wooded with trees of every kind. The Budini are a large and powerful nation: they have all deep blue eyes, and bright red hair. The Budini, however, do not speak the same language as the Geloni, nor is their mode of life the same. They are the aboriginal people of the country, and are nomads; unlike any of the neighbouring races, they eat lice. Their country is thickly planted with trees of all manner of kinds. In the very woodiest part is a broad deep lake, surrounded by marshy ground with reeds growing on it. Here otters are caught, and beavers, with another sort of animal which has a square face. With the skins of this last the natives border their capotes: and they also get from them a remedy, which is of virtue in diseases of the womb...Beyond the Budini, as one goes northward, first there is a desert, seven days' journey across... ”

Later located eastward probably on the middle course of the Volga about Samara. They are described as light-eyed and red-haired, and lived by hunting in their thick forests. The 1911 Britannica surmises that they were Finns of the branch now represented by the Votiaks and Permiaks, forced northwards by later immigrants. In their country was a wooden city called Gelonos, inhabited with a "distinct race", the Geloni, who according to Herodotus were Greeks that became assimilated to the Scythians. Later writers add nothing to our knowledge, and are chiefly interested in the tarandus, an animal which dwelt in the woods of the Budini and seems to have been the reindeer (Aristotle ap. Aelian, Hist. Anim. xv. 33).

Polako
2010-08-14, 05:00
About Scythians, Sarmatians and Gelonis.
This is a sitation from the Finnish Tiede.fi i.e. Science.fi forum.
It has some interesting aspects.

The frequency of R1a1a in Finland is way too low for any strong links between modern Balto-Finns and Scythians.

Every single skeleton from the Bronze and Iron Ages linked to the Scythians was R1a1a, except one, which was C, and incidentally also came out East Asian in terms of a brief SNP autosomal analysis. The one Scythian proper skeleton tested to date was R1a1a via Y-SNP analysis and Russian/Polish in terms of autosomal STRs.


We also performed Y-SNP typing of one Scytho-Siberian specimen from the Sebÿstei site in the Altaï Republic (Central Asia) dated from the middle of the Wfth century BC. ... The additional analysis performed on Xiongnu specimens revealed that whereas none of the specimens from the Egyin Gol valley bore this haplogroup, the Scytho-Siberian skeleton from the Sebÿstei site exhibited R1a1 haplogroup.

Christine Keyser et al., Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people (http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/?p=087abdf3edf548a4a719290f7fc84a62&pi=0), Human Genetics, Saturday, May 16, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0


The assignment method was performed from only the allelic frequencies of the seven STR loci considered in the consensus genotype. The probability of observing an individual with the Kizil skeleton STR profile was the highest in the two eastern European populations (Russia and Poland). Indeed, the likelihood that the Kizil skeleton STR profile occurred in these two populations was 10 times higher than in other European populations, 100 times higher than in eastern Asian populations, and about 100,000 times higher than in Indian populations.

...

We conclude that our analysis of genetic data obtained from a skeleton recovered in a Scytho-Siberian kurgan (2500 years old) links this ancient skeleton to several European populations that live in the neighboring region of Central Asia and shows that the Scytho-Siberian population contained a European component (Voevoda et al. 2000; Clisson et al. 2002).

Ricaut, Francois-X et al., Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/human_biology/v076/76.1ricaut.pdf), Human Biology - Volume 76, Number 1, February 2004, pp. 109-125, DOI: 10.1353/hub.2004.0025

Warlord
2010-08-14, 05:15
Slavs have 50% R1a1a at most. Okay I'll give you that.

But what about the other half, mtdna, does that coincide with the Scythians?

Does a Slavic mtdna haplogroup even exist?

Also, who lived in North-East Europe before the Indo-Europeans got there? It could have not been empty.

---------- Post added 2010-08-14 at 04:19 ----------

Anyways... attaching oneself to a central Asian Indo-Iranian tribe is NOT a substitute for legitimate indigenous ancestry.

Polako
2010-08-14, 05:22
But what about the other half, mtdna, does that coincide with the Scythians?

Funny you should ask...


Specimen S24 was found to belong to haplogroup I, subclade I4. Exact matches to this I4 type were mainly found in northern and eastern Europe individuals. The fact that one ancient Scandinavian specimen (0–400 AD) bore this sequence gives direct evidence of the antique presence of such sequence in the north of Europe (Melchior et al.2008).

...

As shown in Table 5, and particularly in Fig. 3, the current distribution of the ancient mtDNA haplotypes can be broadly divided into three different geographic poles. The first is represented roughly by eastern and northern Europe, the second by the Volga–Ural region and the third by southern Siberia. It is interesting to note that the distribution of the paternal and maternal lineages is close. Indeed, except for the Volga–Ural region, both maps overlap. This would mean that the story of women matches well that of men. In other words, the migrations in which south Siberian specimens were involved seemed to be “whole-population movements” rather than “war-like movements” involving the men only. The fact that East Asian mtDNA sequences appeared at the Iron Age could signify that once settled, migrants of supposed European ancestry began to establish relationships with groups coming from the east and to take Asian women as wives.

So...high frequency of R1a1a plus North/East European mtDNAs (and European metric and non-metric cranial features).

Warlord
2010-08-14, 05:28
Funny you should ask...



So...high frequency of R1a1a plus North/East European mtDNAs (and European metric and non-metric cranial features).

^ ehhh, that's a bit sketchy. It wouldn't be good enough evidence to win a case in court, that's for sure.

---------- Post added 2010-08-14 at 04:30 ----------


migrants of supposed European ancestry began to establish relationships with groups coming from the east and to take Asian women as wives.

Ha, whoever wrote this obviously has no knowledge of nomadic life. There were no wives, just different concubines you sleep with every night, and if you so happen to impregnate her, oh well, half Asian baby.

Polako
2010-08-14, 05:35
^ ehhh, that's a bit sketchy. It wouldn't be good enough evidence to win a case in court, that's for sure.

It's only sketchy to people who are desperate for a different version of events.

None of the data to date shows anything else except a spread of a group of people virtually identical to modern Balto-Slavs from the western steppes during the Copper and Bronze Ages.

---------- Post added 2010-08-14 at 04:36 ----------


Ha, whoever wrote this obviously has no knowledge of nomadic life. There were no wives, just different concubines you sleep with every night, and if you so happen to impregnate her, oh well, half Asian baby.

Hey man, you need to find another hobby than getting banned from this forum.

Warlord
2010-08-14, 05:48
Hey man, you need to find another hobby than getting banned from this forum.

Suck my Scythian dick you wanna-be steppe nomad.

You're the biggest joke on the internet, how you managed to convince forumites that Poles are related to Scythians is a mystery. Oh well, Cultists have that effect on people, mention the same bullshit over and over again and people will eventually accept it as the truth.

Kshatriya
2010-08-14, 07:45
What a load of nonsense.
People tend to disregard things that are beyond their understanding. Therefore your condemnation of my arguments is merely due to your ignorance, alongside a failed attempt to refute what I have mentioned so far. I will now go on to deal with these so called statements and questions regarding the same..

Another screwed up self-hating hindu posturing with fake "racial" pride.
What you're spewing with your weakly structured arguments is purely poppycock. Race and Ethnocentrism is central to Rajput tradition. The Rajput code of ethics stresses above all upon the solidarity and preservation of the brotherhood and caste at all costs, even if it means death over dishonour. Being proud of your ancestry is precisely being proud of your forefathers and your race as a people, and therefore honoring your ancestry is maintaining your integrity and character, holding strongly onto your cultural roots. My ancestors did precisely this and that is why, Rajputs are a name to be remembered and didn't fade away into the sands of time like other ancient peoples. Accounts and praises of our glory are and will be integral parts of the history of India. Being proud of your people is exactly the opposite of "self-hating".

Who are you trying to fool with the brazen lie that "aryans"
So explain how the lowly indian "pariahs" became the elite of the martial "aryan" rajputs?? :lol:
Rajputs are direct descendants of the Kshatriyas of the Old Kingdoms. The Rajputs belong to the true martial races and expanded their empires all the way to the Central, United and the Western regions of India. Rajputs have a well organized and efficiently documented ancestry dating back to the Puranic ages, and all Rajputs claim descent from certain Vanshas-clans. Thus, it is easy to ascertain the sources whence the true Martial races of Hindusthan draw, or claim to draw, their lineage. Most of the Puranas contain portions of historical as well as geographical knowledge ; but the Bhagavat, the Skanda, the Agni, and the Bhavishya are the chief guides. These genealogies and sacred volumes are maintained by a body of Pandits (Brahmins), as is the case for most authentic Kshatriyas. The extracts of these genealogies will reveal that the sizable majority of Rajputs are made of all the genealogies of the great races of Surya and Chandravansh.

Also, the 2006 study by Sanghamitra Sengupta reveals, that the Rajputs (of various clans) have a primarily R1-R2-J2 assortment, which is very typical of most Upper caste Hindus irrespective of region.

Rajput (India, North, South Asia; High Caste, Indo-European)

5/28 = 17.8% H1–M052
1/28 = 3.57% H-M069
9/28= 32.14 % R1a1-M017
1/28 = 3.57% C5-M356
3/28 = 10.71% J2b2-M241
1/28= 3.57% J2a-M410
2/28 = 7.14% L3-M357
1/28= 3.57% F*-M089/M213
1/28 = 3.57% J1-M267
4/28= 14.28% R2- M124

Autosomally, as far as the tests my fellow Rajput acquaintances have taken, and also the papers, though very few in number, done on Indians in general, also reveal that Rajputs, like most Upper castes are predominantly West Eurasian. An accurate concluding remark would be that the Rajputs are comparitively the least altered descendants of the Rajas of the Vedic tribes.

So think before you speak, you little insolent rodent.

..are a different race than the "vast majority" of indians who you contemptuously dismiss as "pariahs"?
I use Pariah as an umbrella term for Shudras, Dalits and Adivasis. I cannot employ lower caste as a term, as the latter two groups are outside of the system. Don't take offense to the usage of the word buddy, because by the way you're coming at me with all this gung-ho attitude, it's evident that you're sensitive to the term. It's similar to the term Pandit, don't need to whine about it.

..Who in his right mind would conclude that these inbred rajput royals represent a non-indian race?
There is no single "Indian" ethnicity, never has and never will be. "India" is a sad excuse for a nation, a 20th century creation at that, currently run by Moslems and Pariahs. It is, and always will be Hindusthan and not "India". Whoever spoke of anything non-"Indian". I am a Hindu Rajput, period. I don't recognize the fraud word "Indian". It is a useless term to lump all sorts of ethno-linguistic, religious and racial groups, including non-Hindu ones.

..Here is a video about modern day rajputs. They look blacker than punjabi sudras and outcastes
Absolute nonsense through and through. Rajputs are described as very pale skinned by all accounts, both Indian and foreign. Most Rajputs range from an olive to warm tanned shade of light brown, with brunet white and rosy white skinned not being uncommon. Rajputs are the dominant ethnic group of Rajasthan, and largely comprise of the high Aryan population for this North Western region. It is due to Rajput dominance that the region is reputed for having a brave warrior spirit. The spiritual and martial castes of India, among whom the Rajput falls under are physically predominantly of the NordIndid and the robust IndoBrachid Aryan sub races. Rajputs tend to have very leptorrhine and prominent, highly pitched and long noses. An examination of Rajput skulls would show that skull is powerfully made and the whole cranium and face give the impression of great physical strength. The Rajputs even outside of Rajasthan in the Dogra lands, the United Provinces, the Punjab and Central India, as a race of people are immediately distinguished from other generic Hindus of the same region by their. In a group, 1/5 will have coloured eyes. Italian, British (Europeans in general) and even Mughal accounts speak of the great physical build, handsome features and tall statures of the Rajputs.

Typical, ignorant non-Indians, who think every Tom, Dick and Harry on the streets of Rajputana are Rajputs. Rajputs are an elite, not meant for public viewing by any mleccha or pariah.

Now let us deal with the misconceptions of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phTgVREZ26M&feature=related)..

0:11 and 0:14 are not a Rajputs. These are the typical instrument playing tribes who hail from the nomadic tribes of the deserts.

0:26 are most likely not Rajputs, but the Shudra servants of Rajputs who serve as ushers and guards.

0:35 I believe these are authentic Rajputs. As you can see the dark skinned man has very sharp features despite being dark skinned.

1:18 are definitely not Rajputs. Furthermore, the Pagdi/turban style is non-Rajput. They seem like generic non-Rajput Rajasthanis to me.

1:52 You will never see a Rajput acting so servile. A Rajput is immediately discerned from a crowd by his very proud and authoritarian, almost imperious and dogmatic way of behaving in general. Even if they are paupers, they always tend to be full of themselves, but never boisterous and rude/uncouth. Dignity is central to Rajput code of conduct.

If this man is a Rajput, I can only feel sad that some modern Rajputs' plight is as such..

The same goes for the so called Rajputs shown in the rest of the video, who are in fact Rajasthani Shudras.

Typical Rajputs
187801877918778
Two Rajput men and old man Rajput at the back, in contrast to the Melanid Rajasthani Pariahs
18781

Regardless, skin tone and race really have no definitive co relation in Hindusthan.

Kanshi Ram and Daler Mehndi respectively, Punjabi Dalits. Very typical Punjabi skin tone (light brown), and they are lighter than many Saudi Arabians. Yet, they exhibits typical Dalit-Australoid features.
1877418777

Dark skinned Rajputs from Rajputana, mostly due to heavy UV exposure from the desert sun. Despite being dark skinned, they have very finely moulded features. Many may be coloured eyed/haired, in turn contrasting with their skin tone.

Rajput man, compare his morphology to European woman.
18776

Beautiful, dark skinned, brunette haired and hazel eyes Rajput woman.
18775
Even then, these dark skinned variants tend to be a shade of brown with ruddy under tones. And nothing at all like the tawny brown-black skin tone of Dalits. The only Punjabi Dalits who are predominantly Indid are the Chuhras. The others show clear GrazilIndid and Weddid influences. The Chuhras of Punjab have an average nasal index of 75.2 (messorrhine) based upon the measurements of 80 male individuals of the Chuhra caste of Punjab.

Typical Punjabi Chamars


YouTube- khalsa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVVpBAgqtS4)
YouTube- nihang singh:singha de bolbaley (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgoZz19m5YY)
YouTube- Nihung Singh Dose Sick Jakaraa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He2jbp9tsQc&feature=related)
YouTube- funny nihang singh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NKuRzAS9ZQ&feature=related)

birko19
2010-08-16, 22:48
Haplogroups a side, is there any reason not to believe that the Indo-Iranians (Original Aryans) originated somewhere in South Central Asia? Scythians existing in modern day Eastern Europe does not exactly prove to me that the Indo-Iranians originated there, if anything I would say it's the other way around, meaning Scythians just migrated west from Central Asia while all the other Indo-Iranian waves migrated more south to India, Iran, and the Near East.

Keep in mind that I'm only talking about Indo-Iranians (Aryans) here, I'm not talking about Indo-Europeans in general.

interstedinanthro
2010-08-16, 23:09
Slavs have 50% R1a1a at most. Okay I'll give you that.

But what about the other half, mtdna, does that coincide with the Scythians?

Does a Slavic mtdna haplogroup even exist?

Also, who lived in North-East Europe before the Indo-Europeans got there? It could have not been empty.

---------- Post added 2010-08-14 at 04:19 ----------

Anyways... attaching oneself to a central Asian Indo-Iranian tribe is NOT a substitute for legitimate indigenous ancestry.

I agree on the last part. Its even sort of weird for even Indians to claim Scythian ancestry considering they were more likely to be an Iranian tribe rather than Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan.

---------- Post added 2010-08-16 at 22:15 ----------



There are pan-Turanists on the Internet (including this forum) who disseminate misinformation, particularly the connection between haplogroups C and Q in Iran with "Turkic influence".



There are pan-Turanists who say Indian gujjars descend from turks. Of course the "study" was conducted by an indian without any knowledge but they endorse the hypothesis.

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

These guys have a nasal index somewhere near 66, exhibit light eyes more frequently than brahmins, and are sharper featured than most jatts from what I have read. But turks claim them. They claim J2 is turkish as well.

---------- Post added 2010-08-16 at 22:42 ----------

Kshatriya, are rajputs really that light eyed? Rajputs have light eyes at probably one of the highest frequencies but 20% seems inflated. Also are there rajputs with light eyes other than hazel or green?

Indocentrist
2010-08-17, 01:44
Rajputs are a name to be remembered and didn't fade away into the sands of time like other ancient peoples. Accounts and praises of our glory are and will be integral parts of the history of India.

Don't make me laugh. You are poster boys for the irrationality of the hereditary caste system. Here we have an example of a hereditary warrior caste that failed miserably to defend India against handfuls of invaders and yet continues to preen and posture ridiculously as if they have been gloriously successful warriors! Rajputs have a well deserved reputation as traitors. For after being defeated over and over again by much smaller armies, they sided with the muslim invaders against their own hindu countrymen. This treachery is reflected in your own contempt for the masses of hindus and your pitiful desire to be racially lumped with the west and central asian muslim invaders.



Rajputs are direct descendants of the Kshatriyas of the Old Kingdoms. The Rajputs belong to the true martial races

A true martial race does not roll over so easily and turn traitor as rajputs have historically done.



Rajputs, like most Upper castes are predominantly West Eurasian. An accurate concluding remark would be that the Rajputs are comparitively the least altered descendants of the Rajas of the Vedic tribes.

That is your servility to your west eurasian muslim masters speaking. These 19th century rajput rajas in the video i Provided look nothing like west eurasians. If they are the "least altered descendants" of vedic rajas then the conclusion is inescapable: the vedic rajas looked no different from the sudras and pariahs of India. In other words the aryan invasion theory is pure bunk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jByKxkOXvc

I think it is telling that you neglected to debunk this video. Do explain why rajput rajas tended to look like "pariahs" :D




I use Pariah as an umbrella term for Shudras, Dalits and Adivasis.

And those inbred rajput rajas look no different from these "pariahs", you deluded crackpot. Actually they look blacker than sudras like the jats and outcastes like the chamars.



It is, and always will be Hindusthan and not "India".

:lol:

Your servility towards the muslim invaders is disgusting. Hindustan is a word used by the muslim conquerors, India is the word used by the british conquerors. You miserable traitors, incapable of defending India, served both these conquerors as cannon fodder. Why prefer the muslims over the british?

The correct word if you intend to be nationalist is "Bharat".



Rajputs are described as very pale skinned by all accounts, both Indian and foreign.

BS. You are as black and brown as any indian. Pictures dont lie. It shows your idiocy that you are desperately clinging to accounts by your mughal masters even after the advent of photography.



In a group, 1/5 will have coloured eyes.

You pulled that lie out of your colored ass, quite like joshk and other frauds are wont to do. I challenge you to prove it. :D



Now let us deal with the misconceptions of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phTgVREZ26M&feature=related)..

0:26 are most likely not Rajputs, but the Shudra servants of Rajputs who serve as ushers and guards.

1:52 You will never see a Rajput acting so servile. Dignity is central to Rajput code of conduct.

If this man is a Rajput, I can only feel sad that some modern Rajputs' plight is as such..

The same goes for the so called Rajputs shown in the rest of the video, who are in fact Rajasthani Shudras.

Again you are pulling crap out of your ass. Do you know these people? As for servility, how do you think treacherous rajputs acted towards their mughal and british masters?

interstedinanthro
2010-08-17, 03:03
Not all rajputs are traitors. Some rajput clans are the most self respecting people in all of India and great warriors. These are a minority among Rajputs and many are traitors. Jatts, Sikhs, Ahirs, Gujjars, Rors, and Gurkhas are the true defenders of India from Muslims imo. Rajputs were the first to convert to Islam. They fought against Marathas, Hindu Jatts and Sikhs rather than Muslims. But still Rajputs like Maharana Pratap are the best in indian history.

---------- Post added 2010-08-17 at 02:52 ----------

Also why would Rajputs be proud of their male haplogorups? L3-M357 and J1-M267 along with other C and F hapolgorups shows pastun and arab ancestry.

Jaska
2010-08-18, 14:59
There is low % of HG-N (propably N1c1) at Brahmins of NW India. That ofcource doest not mean that Aryans were Finns but if you read those 2 attachments you get my point. Early Indo-Iranians and Uralic speakers of Volga-region were pretty mixed. So there should be HG-N precense at India if there was "Aryan invasion" as N1c1 was precent in the starting zone of Indo-Iranians.

Interesting point. But actually N1c seems to have been more northern, probably not present at the steppe before the russianization. And so far there have been found no N in India or Pakistan:

http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929707623532
(PDF freely downloadable)



Stop posting nonsense please.
There's no connection between orja and Arya.
Arya was first used to describe a noble person in India during the Vedic period in the Indus.
It’s not nonsense: it is a fact that there are plenty of Aryan (= Indo-Iranian; Iran comes from the word *Aryanam, too) loanwords in the Uralic languages. There is a semantic difference if you begin with the meaning ‘noble’, but of course it was (when borrowed) seen as an ethnonym, with no other meaning than the particular group of people (see the parallel Slav --> slave). The saami cognate oarji means ‘south’, Finnish word orja ‘slave’, and they come from the form *orja – and this truely seems to come from the ethnonym *Arya (there are several cases where Aryan *a --> Finno-Ugric *o).

It would be difficult to connect 'south' to 'slave' by any other way than assuming a people who lived in south (relatively) and were taken as slaves.



The frequency of R1a1a in Finland is way too low for any strong links between modern Balto-Finns and Scythians.
Hmmm, the frequency is not everything: more crucial is, are the haplotypes close to each other or not.

Kshatriya
2010-08-18, 17:13
You are poster boys for the irrationality of the hereditary caste system.
It is interesting to see that the distaste for caste and its classification as a social evil has such a widespreadness among you non-Indians who tend to read Jewish fabricated journals on India which tend to exaggerate the whole situation and the system in general. If you believe that the underlying irrationality in this system is the lack of that of ensuring that birth does not determine destiny, and that individuals must begin with a clean slate in building one's life is the ideal, then the idea of inheriting ancestral money and property should also be seen as being equally unfair as caste stratification, using that logic. After all, in today's world, nothing determines our life's trajectory as much as money. The fact that opponents of caste-based reservations are open to using economic criteria suggests that even they accept the unfairness of birth-determined wealth. A caste is not equatable to a class. The Pandits were socially forward, but traditionally speaking, they were to lead a life of austerity and dedicated their lives to the sacred texts, along side constant tapas, meditating for hours a day and living in poverty. Why is caste seen as such a backward anachronism and inheritance on the other hand regarded as such a modern idea? Your anti-Hindu rhetoric simply fails to refute any of my claims, due to it's weak structure and it's logic-less arguments.

Here we have an example of a hereditary warrior caste that failed miserably to defend India against handfuls of invaders and yet continues to preen and posture ridiculously as if they have been gloriously successful warriors!
The Rajput ethos is martial, in spirit, and fiercely proud and independent, and emphasizes lineage and tradition. That is the generally accepted fact, and you as a non-Indian have no right to condemn the great valour and spirit of the Rajput warriors who laid down their lives for our Hindu brethren so many times down the line. Rajput patriotism is regarded as legendary, and is almost unmatched by most Kshatriya castes to this day, thus taking it's rightful place as almost an ideal with a fanatical zeal of sorts to it. Rajput warriors were often known to fight until the last man.

The Rajputs are willing and ready to war against Pathans or rebellious Mughal nobles and are preferred over Mughals in wars.
-Donald F Lach

Also to be remembered the practice of Jauhar by High Caste Hindus especially Rajputs. When Rajputs knew that they did not have a chance against the legions of Muslim invaders, the women would self-immolate by jumping into burning pyres and men charging ahead to certain death with aim of beheading as many Muslim enemies as possible.

Rajputs have a well deserved reputation as traitors.
You are a non-Indian, a mleccha at that. What would you know about the peopling and the history of India? If at all, the nation known as Bharat is by no means sovereign because in order for a nation to be sovereign, it must not be controlled by outside forces, which it ultimately succumbed to. Unfortunately many of the Pandits and a significant amount of Baniyas have in some instances manipulated and used their powers bestowed onto them by the us Rajputs to control politics in their favor. It is noted that, for example, Daulat Ram Haldia, a Khandelwal Baniya, conspired with the Mughals and the Afghans to invade Jaipur.

For after being defeated over and over again by much smaller armies, they sided with the muslim invaders against their own hindu countrymen.
Nonsense. The Muslims invaders always had larger armies, this is a historical fact. The vile Muhammadan employed his forces from all over the Islamic world, yet the Islamic expansion faced the brave Rajputs, Jatts and Mahrattas. These warriors have all, in many a instances humiliated the Musalman, be it the Arab, Pashtun or Turk.

The race hostility between the Mughal and the Afghan was disappearing and they were making common cause against the Hindu.
-Edgar Saltus (acclaimed Historian)

This treachery is reflected in your own contempt for the masses of hindus and your pitiful desire to be racially lumped with the west and central asian muslim invaders.
Contempt? That is your own interpretation of my pride for my ancestors. As a Rajput I am merely preserving and honouring my lineage, and yet seek to advance the nation as a whole. But that does not mean we need to race mix, what kind of logic is that? It is a natural tendency for human races to be averse against other races they encounter, it is a basic reflex for their own self preservation. The caste system merely took this to another level, and that's all. Even then, race mixing ultimately did take place. But still, who is better, the Hindu dvijas who maintain most of their racial stock inherited from their Indo-Aryan ancestors despite living alongside alien races for thousands of years, or some White colonials who mingled with their host inhabitants and gave out sizable mixed groups like Anglo-Indians; Mullatos, Mestizos, etc in just a short while of contact? "Multi-culturalism" is a fraud concept and is pro-race mixing. And you, as a non-Indian, "Indocentrist", are a flaming mongrelist trying to lump all Indians as "black and brown" with your ignorant rhetoric, even though the various ethno-linguistic/caste groups in India differ in folk tales, customs, rituals, theological beliefs,ancestry and lineages, not to mention genetics and physical race. But unity in diversity is precisely the motto in India. Every Hindu is my brother, from the cunning Pundit to the nimble Bhil. Yes, they (we) are all gifts and children to our (not yours, ours, us Sanatana Dharmis) Bharatmata. Caste conflict is equally discouraging and disheartening to our Mother, therefore, as an upper caste Hindu I have the obligation to break such barriers. Still, racial cooperation doesn't call for us inbred Rajputs ;) to race mix with the other races of India.

A true martial race does not roll over so easily and turn traitor as rajputs have historically done.
You little meddlesome non-Indian swine, you know absolutely nothing about the history of the Islamic invasion, and it's resistance by the martial races of India. Do not speak of a subject you are ignorant of, nor do you need to involve yourself in the affairs of other nationalities. It is the generally accepted fact amongst all credible Indologists, archeologists, anthropologists, ethnologists and historians that the Rajput classes essentially embody the freedom struggle against the Arab, Pashtun and Turkic-Mongol invaders. The only reason why Islamic expansion couldn't be contained is due to the disunity among the clans of the Rajputs, and also the Warrior classes in general. I acknowledge the pettyness of the matter, but still, the resistance of the clans far exceed the traitors, who form(ed) a minority among Rajput clans, and were spat upon by the rest of the Rajput community, and are regarded as an inferior class to this day. I also wholeheartedly agree that the real onus of warding of the inhumane Muhammadans from India was in Punjab and by the Sikh classes. The gurus hailed mostly from the Khatri (Punjabi Kshatriya) and Brahmin classes, yet they set aside their differences and gave the power of the sardar and kirpan to the dalits and turned them into a soldierly lot living in dignity and respect. The fact of the matter is, the Sikhs, successful in defeating the Mohammaden forces, caused the Muhammadan to target the feudalistic Rajputs. But still, the majority of Rajput clans put up as strong a resistance as the Sikhs, this is historically recorded in numerous texts. I have more elaborate information on the Islamic resistance and the Rajputs, but I couldn't care to waste my breath with a person who wishes to slander me and moreover, who's agenda is mainly to troll.

These 19th century rajput rajas in the video i Provided look nothing like west eurasians.
West Eurasian is a genetic term synonymous to "Caucasoid" and "Europid" in physical anthropology. The term has to do with the origins of the genetic entity/race and nothing with the location and it's present day inhabitants, whoever they may be. The Rajas however, look fully Europid/Caucasoid physically.

If they are the "least altered descendants" of vedic rajas then the conclusion is inescapable: the vedic rajas looked no different from the sudras and pariahs of India. In other words the aryan invasion theory is pure bunk.
It is obvious that you are ignorant and oblivious to the fact that the probably Kurgan generated Aryan migrations into South Asia was but one of numerous Indo-European migrations into other parts of the world, bringing to those parts of the world their religion/theological beliefs, culture, technology, lifestyle and also social structure, and to a much lesser extent, their genes. And these Aryans, despite living alongside non-Aryan races to a high degree, due to the varna system have maintained much of their original racial stock. Aryan blood in India is in reality, confined to the High Castes and region wise mostly Punjab, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir and to a lesser extent Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan.

So, dear Indocentrist, taking into account your absurd arguments and assertions are extremely incoherent to what anthroplogists, ethnologists and geneticists have observed and researched, please answer the following questions accordingly -

Why do all statistical anthropometric records by numerous anthropologists exhibit a trend, wherein the higher castes are immediately distinguishable from the general population, having features moulded along finer lines, with lighter complexions and a relative high frequency of coloured hair/eyes, atleast in comparison to the general populace, even in the regions far removed from the North-West?

Why does the Indo-Aryan expansions specifically co relate with the advent of the Vedic Aryans, the shift in language to Indo-European derived tounges throughout the most of India, alongside the entrance of a certain racial type that was absent otherwise, if upper caste Hindus, as you idiotically assert, are originally aboriginals?

Why has genetics, the most plausible source as far as such a matter is concerned, that the upper castes, and to a lesser extent North Indians, are considerably closer to Europeans, specifically Northern Europeans whereas lower caste East and South Indians are more related to East Asian and Oceanian populations mostly?


I think it is telling that you neglected to debunk this video.
Okay, let me debunk it for you, if that helps you sleep better at night.

0:44 NordIndid-IndoBrachid, going in a Dinaro-CroMagnid fashion

1:07 and 1:31 They are predominantly NordIndid, with slight other influences, mostly GracilIndid, which is also not uncommon for Rajputs, as a group, very leptosomic and Europid looking, despite dark skin owing to high energy lifestyle and exposure to UV rays.

1:40 IndoBrachid mostly, going in a Taurid-CroMagnid fashion with slight Weddid admixture.

2:00 Partially reduced Indo-CroMagnid/Indo-Brachid

2:14 He is Raghubir Singh, Maharao Raja of Bundi. He was a Hada Rajput, an offshoot of the Chauhan clan. The Hadoti region was also known for it's stiff resistance against the Mughals. A brave, noble people they are. He seems to be mostly Indid with Iranid and Weddid influences, but that might be individual variation, of course.

2:22 IndoBrachid-GrazilIndid mostly.

2:42 GracilIndid, mostly

2:48 Very robust, mesomorphic and aggressive looking IndoBrachid Rajput.

The Ajmer clans are the only ones with significant GracilIndid-Weddid influences, due to intermixture with the Bhils, an Adivasi group.

It shows your idiocy that you are desperately clinging to accounts by your mughal masters even after the advent of photography.
I could say the same for you, as your inability to refute arguments other than using low-brow, strawman arguments and your apathy and rejection of genetic and phenotypic facts observed by extremely credible and qualified anthropologists, ethnologists and geneticists speaks volumes of your credibility. Furthermore this post contradicts itself and fails to fulfill it's purpose, as I can also say that you don't seem to have moved on from the advent of black and white photography. I have furnished a few colour photographs representing average Rajputs. Highly amusing and troll-like, and thus I would think it is correct to say that I am wasting my time having this debate with you.

Actually they look blacker than sudras like the jats and outcastes like the chamars.
I have noticed you have a tendency to use the word "blacker". Since when is race and cranio-facial features measured by something as plastic as skin tone? Rajasthan is a desert, of course as a non-Indian, you wouldn't know that. Rajputs have resided in the reason for thousands of years, yet retain a mostly olive to warm tanned brown skin tone, with extremely pale skinned and dark brown(ruddy hued) variants. Also, I have already refuted your erroneous claim that Rajputs are "blacker" than the Punjabi Chamars, and can disprove your claims in an even more elaborate manner via anthropometry. The varna system has essentially stratified the races of Bharat into social classes and thus physical and genetic traits are accordingly strained into particular varnas. But of course, as any geneticist or anthropologist will tell you, region is also a determining factor. But in the case of India, there is also the caste apsect which comes into play, and this dates back to ancient times.

Old man NordIndid Rajput with Indo-Melanid Shudra servant and Arab merchants.
19606

The correct word if you intend to be nationalist is "Bharat".
I used the word Hindusthan in the sense, it is the sthan (place/land) of Hindus (Sanatana Dharmis), and did not intend to use the word with regards to the history and etymology of the issue. Slip of the tounge, obviously. And you, as a non-Indian need not be bothered as such, so therefore you need to stop butting into our issues.

You pulled that lie out of your colored ass,
..so an Afrocentrist of African extraction assumably, is who I am dealing with here, eh? Highly interesting. Your use of words specific to the slavery era not only expose your servility and high inferiority complex towards the White man, but also has exposed your true identity. Pretty sad, as the Black man is not the same, but essentially equal to the White man, and has a lot of potential. Individuals who are driven by idiocy, as exemplified by you, serve to act as a disincentive to the progression of otherwise mostly genuine Blacks.

I challenge you to prove it.
I have no precise statistics to quote as far as hair+eye colour pigmentation is concerned. But a number of Indian and British anthropologists have acknowledged the presence of an appreciatable frequency of light eyes among the Rajputs of the Dogra lands, the Rajputana, and in a very small degree among those of the Uttar Pradesh and Central India. I also concluded that statement via personal experience, while observing relatives and Rajput acquaintances.

Green eyed, NordIndid>Indo-CroMagnid Rajput
19608

Do you know these people? As for servility, how do you think treacherous rajputs acted towards their mughal and british masters?
Traitors like Man Singh are a minority among the Rajput clans. For example, it is noted that Maharana Pratap refused to have his meals with Man Singh. Man Singh questioned Rana Pratap as to why he wouldn't do so? Rana Pratap gave a fitting reply, that he had sold his honour to the enemy. The Rajput nobles were also noted to be secretly making a mockery of Man Singh for a long time now, as Jodhabhai was married to Akbar. Man Singh took this as an insult to Akbar and himself. He knew Rana Pratap was making an excuse to avoid him. He refused to dine with Amar Singh. He remarked, "I will come again and then will have a dinner". Understanding the hidden meaning a noble of Pratap remarked "well, don't forget to bring your uncle Akbar". The Rajput clans have all fought valiantly against those who sought to destroy the Hindu's freedom and our heritage

Also note, the Bengal regiment, where Brahmins and Rajputs formed the majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857

interstedinanthro
2010-08-18, 17:46
Most Rajputs are dark. But an extremly large portion of Rajasthan is a desert so what other color would they be?

Even then its not that hard to find rajputs like this:

Kshatriya
2010-08-18, 17:55
The second individual is Nakuul Mehta, who hails from the royal family of Udaipur. Do you have any idea how hot Udaipur can get? Yet this individual is brunet-white skinned, highly interesting, and also blue-grey eyed. Handsome boy, I hope he does well. One would think such traits would get eliminated via sexual selection, selective breeding and phenotypic factors in a hot, desert environment like Rajasthan, but voila! After roughly 5000 years of inhabiting a desert, such traits are not too hard to find, almost common.

interstedinanthro
2010-08-19, 03:09
I was reading somewhere that Caucasoids in general have the ability to adapt skin tone to environment and living conditions. So it would not be suprising that Rajasthani upper classes would be lighter if they can avoid the sun.



Anyways his eyes are weird. They are light but in other pics look pure green, blue-green, green-grey. The majority of Rajput light eyes I have seen are green and not blue, grey, blue-green, blue-grey or greey-grey if green grey is even possible.

Sometimes blue eyes in pics seem to be the result of the sun shining weirdly.

Like here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wanderlust79/3618897358/in/photostream/

It is intresting that these traits show up despite the fact that every Indian has some amount of Veddoid in them just that upper castes tend to have little but still H y-dna and M mtdna exists in every group.

Also the rajput dna is intresting. The L clade is L3 and is associated with pashtuns/afghanistan and not the L1 found in indians. How did Rajputs get this dna?

Kshatriya
2010-08-19, 05:14
I was reading somewhere that Caucasoids in general have the ability to adapt skin tone to environment and living conditions. So it would not be suprising that Rajasthani upper classes would be lighter if they can avoid the sun.
The Europids/Caucasoids are the most diverse breed of man. Contrary to popular belief, not all Europids are very pale skinned with a high frequency of coloured eyes/hair. Regardless, Rajputs everywhere have been recognized as being on the apex of the social scale along with the Brahmins, for example, both socially and racially and in Uttar Pradesh with the Brahmin, the Rajput, the Khattri, rerpesenting a primarily "milk just tinged with coffee" skinned, long-headed and largely fine-nosed type, and also in some ways, the upper and pedigreed Muslims fall under this type, with a highly pitched nose and robust cranium and stature. Skin colour, as fraudulent and plastic a measure of race as it may be, is caused by the presence of pigments in the epidermis, produced by the action of multiple hereditary factors for the protection of the underlying tissue against the ultra-violet rays of the sun. Also, every race is no uniform in it's pigmentation and qualitative characteristics. The genes that produce pigments act in co-operation with environmental conditions and some degree of alteration in their expression. Thus, under the extreme heat of Rajputana the genes producing dark pigments probably were more stimulated than those producing lighter tints, and thus the skin colour of some the Rajputs turned from olive to a ruddy tinged brown. And once again I must mention, their dark skin is nothing at all like the tawny brown-black skin tone of the Pariahs in the same region. Historical records and ancient Hindu texts frequently mention the "Gaura"/"Golden" tone to be ideal as far as skin pigmentation is concerned. Which means, the upper strata of Hindu society is where this trait is/was frequently expressed, as the high castes were the most responsible for contribution to Indic culture, irrespective of regional and ethno-linguistic differences.

Sometimes blue eyes in pics seem to be the result of the sun shining weirdly.
Those are not blue eyes, but rather the result of cataract. The clouding that evelops in the crystalline lens of the eye gives of a false perception of blue eyes.

Also the rajput dna is intresting. The L clade is L3 and is associated with pashtuns/afghanistan and not the L1 found in indians. How did Rajputs get this dna?
That probably has to do with severe genetic isolation. Also note that L3 is found in reasonable frequencies among the Burusho, Kalash and other ethnic groups in the Caucasus and Near East.

Indocentrist
2010-08-19, 05:45
Rajputs everywhere have been recognized as being on the apex of the social scale along with the Brahmins, for example, both socially and racially and in Uttar Pradesh with the Brahmin, the Rajput, the Khattri,

Interestingly, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, the heartlands of the "apex of the social scale" Rajputs and Brahmins happen to be two of the most deeply impoverished states in India.....




rerpesenting a primarily "milk just tinged with coffee" skinned

:lol:

You keep pulling all these lies about rajputs being "very very light skinned", west asian looking, with 20% incidence of light eyes etc etc, out of your very dark-skinned ass, even though anyone with any color eyes can see that rajputs, like brahmins and every other hindu caste are very dark skinned, black haired folks who if they step anywhere west of the Indus River would stand out for their indian phenotypes and skin color. You are clearly a pathologically deluded, slavish fellow, ashamed of your indian origins.



Skin colour, as fraudulent and plastic a measure of race as it may be, is caused by the presence of pigments in the epidermis, produced by the action of multiple hereditary factors for the protection of the underlying tissue against the ultra-violet rays of the sun.

That does not explain why your ass is as black/brown as your face does it?



I must mention, their dark skin is nothing at all like the tawny brown-black skin tone of the Pariahs in the same region.

The video of rajput maharajahs I posted makes a liar out of you. Those inbred kshatriyas look no different from the hindu masses you despise so much, you disgusting traitor.



Historical records and ancient Hindu texts frequently mention the "Gaura"/"Golden" tone to be ideal as far as skin pigmentation is concerned.

Show us the those historical records you servile fraud. The reality is that the hindu gods and goddesses, and the heros of the hindu epics, are almost uniformly depicted as black/dark. For example Krishna is depicted as shyama sundara or beautiful black.

Indocentrist
2010-08-19, 06:08
Most Rajputs are dark. But an extremly large portion of Rajasthan is a desert so what other color would they be?

Even then its not that hard to find rajputs like this:

Of course most rajputs, as most indians of any caste, are very dark skinned. Yet servile indians keep posting pics of lighter outliers in order to suck up to euro racists and validate their ridiculous appropriation of aryans. You did it yourself.

Here is what steretypical rajputs look like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jByKxkOXvc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phTgVREZ26M&feature=related


The Maharaja of Jaipur:

interstedinanthro
2010-08-19, 13:17
Of course most rajputs, as most indians of any caste, are very dark skinned. Yet servile indians keep posting pics of lighter outliers in order to suck up to euro racists and validate their ridiculous appropriation of aryans. You did it yourself.

Here is what steretypical rajputs look like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jByKxkOXvc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phTgVREZ26M&feature=related


The Maharaja of Jaipur:

Rajputs do exhibit different skin tones than most Indians though. They are both lighter and darker. I have seen Rajputs who have white skin to those with black skin. Most Indians just vary from light brown to dark brown.

---------- Post added 2010-08-19 at 12:26 ----------

Himachal Pradesh probably has a high percentage of Rajputs (maybe even the majority of HP is Rajput) and that state is doing quite well. One of the least corrupt states known for its schools, hospitals, tourism with a unique agricultural industry

Of course that state is being ruined by Pashtuns , Israelis, and Europeans involved in drug production and trading so maybe this doesn't apply anymore.

Kshatriya
2010-08-19, 18:08
Interestingly, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, the heartlands of the "apex of the social scale" Rajputs and Brahmins happen to be two of the most deeply impoverished states in India.
When I spoke of the social aspect of the matter, my argument denoted the pre-British period for the most part, but of course, it continues on to a certain extent today. The reason why "Uttar Pradesh is one of the most deeply impoverished states in India" as per your words is because neither Dr Ambedkar nor his proteges and followers have provided effective leadership to the Shudras and Dalit communities for their overall development. Today one of the followers of DR Ambedkar is heading the largest state of the country – Mayawati, Kanshi Ram’s protégé. It is a well known fact that Mayavathi was supported by even the UP Brahmins in the last election, naturally, she would need their support as they constitute approximately 13% of the UP population. Upper caste Thakurs (who are known to be low class Muslim appeasing Brahmins) and of course former lower caste Muslims have also played a key role in electing Mayavathi as Chief Minister, in the hope that she brings UP out of it’s sad state. Now it’s been an open debate for a long time whether this so called Dalit nationalists is really working towards the progression and upliftment of the community she claims to represent and embody, or whether she is using her own brethren as a mere scapegoat to accumulate power. Successive Dalit leaders have done absolutely nothing worthwhile to the community after getting elected with their own ethnic compatriots’ support. It’s been 63 years since these people came into power, but nothing has changed for them. India’s economic progression and private sector boom has been the sole handiwork of the upper castes, fact. Mayavathi is one of the highest tax payers in the country and is suppose to possess Rs.6000 crores of assets, and she is planning to erect statues of Ambedkar, Kanshi Ram and herself, spending a whooping Rs 1000 crore amount in cash for the same. Now tell me, this is common sense to think as such..wouldn’t the money be better used for the uplifment of the thousands of people below poverty line in Uttar Pradesh, who mainly belong to the Dalit community? Her rule doesn’t seem to have made a difference, and poverty levels have not come down. Dalits have not come out of their poverty by supporting these fraudulent, political parties who’s propaganda consist of false-promises and hate mongering. Neither have Dalits benefited from changing their own outfits or by changing religion. Their situation continues to be pathetic as always, even under their so called Dalit messiahs like Ambedkar and Mayawati. What they’re doing/done is exploiting votes and playing around with caste politics. They’re merely feeding the mass what they want to hear, or making them hear what can instigate votes, but not giving them what they need.
Why Mayawati flaunts cash | Deccan Chronicle | 2010-03-26 (http://www.deccanchronicle.com/op-ed/why-mayawati-flaunts-cash-008)

Think before you spew your pro-Dalit, anti-Upper caste bullshit.

rajputs, like brahmins and every other hindu caste are very dark skinned, black haired folks
Foul mouthed, uneducated troll. You know nothing about the peopling and the races of India. These sort of comments only reflect on your character and ignorance. You are a non-Indian, who has absolutely no experience in meeting the various castes and tribes of India. As a person who has taken time to understand the dynamics of the matter and has traveled extensively all over South Asia, my opinion holds more water than yours. The trend observed by various anthropologists is undeniable. There is enough genetic diversity within the Indian tribes to classify them as separate identifiable races. Why do you think that, for example, there is so much anti-Brahmin and anti-North Indian elements in Tamil Nadu? The local Tamils regard the Brahmins as being alien, immoral, evil Aryan migrants with an alien set of customs and culture, which is apparently detrimental to the whole of Tamizhagam.

Which is also precisely what the British observed, and since they had the power, and more so, the resources, they implemented the pan-Indian anthropological survey. Your ignorance is irrelevant to the easily discernable differences among the inhabitants of South Asia. Let us set the record straight once and for all.

Since you assert that the Rajput Maharajas are indistinguishable from the Indians otherwise, let us compare the Rajputs and a non-dvija Rajasthani.

Rajput ~ Nasal Dimensions


Height of Nose
Average ~ 51.2
Maximum ~ 61
Minimum ~ 43



Breadth of Nose

Average ~ 36.9
Maximum ~ 44
Minimum ~ 31



Nasal Index

Average ~ 70.6
Minimum ~ 53


Pariah Rajasthani ~ Nasal dimensions


Height of Nose

Average ~ 44.8
Maximum ~ 52
Minimum ~ 37



Breadth of Nose

Average~ 37.7
Maximum~ 35
Minimum~ 30



Nasal Index

Average~ 84.1
Minimum~ 63


The metric comparison tells us the Rajput is primarily of a NordIndid-(robust)IndoBrachid racial make up whereas the non-Rajput Rajasthani has Weddid and GrazilIndid influences.

I don't get it, if even the nomadic, caste-less tribes of Rajasthan can have coloured hair and eyes..

..then why shouldn't Aryan descended Rajputs?

Because for a matter of fact, even the "lowest" Rajputs, like the Bhil Rajputs of Pushkar who went into war and ended up getting lost in the deserts of Rajasthan, ,are very coloured haired/eyed as compared to those otherwise. They are noted to practice ancestor worship.

Bhil Rajputs
197291973019731

Does that make any sense to you?

The Maharaja of Jaipur
Partially reduced IndoBrachid (~CroMagniform) and fully Europid/Caucasoid. Dark skin due to desert climate + UV exposure + high energy lifestyle.

Just as to the average Indian all Africans are the same, be it a Sudanese, Nigerian, Pygmy, Khoisan, Horner or North African, just because you know absolutely nothing about us Indains, doesn’t make it the accepted fact, contrary to your wishful thinking. I am in fact happy that you think the way you do and spew the nonsense that you spew, as it serves to keep as much distance between your kind and mine.


who if they step anywhere west of the Indus River would stand out for their indian phenotypes and skin color.
Funny you mention this, because Pakistanis themselves acknowledge that the Hindu Aryan castes resemble Pakistanis more than they do “Dravid Indians”, by their words. Also, do note that the sizable majority of Sindhis and Punjabis are in fact converted Jatts, Saraswat Brahmins and Rajputs, but well, we all know that the region has been prone to spinelessness. You will see various Aryan nationalists of Pakistani extraction claiming that Pakistanis and the Punjabis-Kashmiris /Upper caste Hindus are similar and are out of place among “Dravid Indians”. Furthermore, you will see Iranian Aryan nationalists claiming that the light brown skinned peoples of Pakistan and the Hindu Aryans are the by product of “Iranians” migrating there and subjugating and consequently displacing, but also giving their “Iranian culture” to the “Dravid aboriginals of the area”. Of course all this is highly infuriating, and the implications of such brash statements are high.

It is highly amusing to see an individual like you applying his own situation and insecurities on self respecting castes like the Rajputs, and this is of course driven by your own insecurities on the matter. See, “Indocentritst”, I can see through your agenda. You, for whatsoever reason, are an African American with an inferiority complex of sorts. Thus, you choose weak targets to carry out your little propagandas upon, and who else better to choose but the tolerant (too tolerant for our own good, actually) Hindus?
“Indocentrist” likes to smear mud on Indians and make us look bad so as to somehow justify the position of his fellow Negroes on a social scale. Why he wants do that, I have no idea. That has to do with his own agenda, and that is not of my concern, until it involves me.The fact that I was slandered without a single refutation of the facts I have presented other than some low-quality videos and foul mouthed, straw man and low-brow insults, alongside the lack of any citations speaks volumes as far as your credibility and intelligence is concerned. Your username, your posting style and your topics of interest are utterly incongruent. Evidently, you are a troll not meant to be taken seriously.


The reality is that the hindu gods and goddesses, and the heros of the hindu epics, are almost uniformly depicted as black/dark. For example Krishna is depicted as shyama sundara or beautiful black.

As usual, you expose your ignorance due to your idiotic statements, meddlesome mleccha. Hindu Gods have always been depicted as Gaura, as the Vedic people put it themselves, with the women having a rosy hue in comparison to the men. The only avataras of Lord Vishnu which are dark are Lord Rama and Lord Krishna, but this is because Vishnu himself is said to be the colour of a rain-cloud which is a non-human colour, just so you know, before you start spewing your Afrocentric poppycock one again, and thus these two avataras took on the same shade. The Valmiki Ramayana clearly mentions Lord Rama of having an impressive physique, standing at seven feet tall with extremely long arms. Sri Valmiki attributes Rama’s skill in archery to his long arms. Lord Krishna is also described as having extremely handsome, charming and fine cut features, albeit he was slightly on the chubby side as per some sources. On the other hand, in both these Avataras, Sri Shesha, who is Lord Vishnu’s snake is born as the Lord’s younger brother as in the case of Lakshmana and the older brother as in the case of Sri Balarama. Adishesha is known to be a White snake, and this reflects upon the colour of his avataras, wherein both Lakshmana and Balarama are described as being extremely White skinned.
19714

As far as the Goddesses are concerned, they turn dark skinned and demonic in appearance during their destructive forms.

If you are referring to Lord Shiva, that is a long story related to the Kurma Avatara of Lord Vishnu. But to cut a long story short, Lord Shiva drank the Hala-Hala poison, and as opposed to popular belief, it is only his neck that turned blue/dark. Lord Shiva is otherwise described as being fair as the Moon. Ancient depictions of the Hindu trimurti depict Lord Shiva as being milky skinned and light brunette-blond haired.
19713

All other mythological figures from Sri Arjuna to Lord Indra from the Hindu texts are described as golden skinned. You would have to read them to know, of course, once again, as a non-Indian, you essentially have no idea what you’re talking about.

However, just for reference sake, quotes from various Hindu/Indian texts.


"May Goddess Saraswati, who is fair like the jasmine-colored moon, and whose pure white garland is like frosty dew drops; who is adorned in radiant white attire, on whose beautiful arm rests the veena."


"Wise men have set forth certain things that add beauty to a woman. Blackness is desirable in four places: eyes, eyebrows, eyelashes and hair. Whiteness in four: teeth, skin, hair-parting and the whites of the eyes. Redness in four tongue, lips, cheeks and buttocks. Roundness in four face, head, knees and heels."


As per the Kama Sutra, the following women are not to be enjoyed -

A leper
A lunatic
A woman turned out of caste
A woman who reveals secrets
A woman who publicly expresses desire for sexual intercourse
A woman who is extremely white
A woman who is extremely black
A bad-smelling woman
A woman who is a near relation
A woman who is a female friend


Description of Maha Gauri
She is as white as a conch, moon and Jasmine. With four arms and the fairest complexion of all. Mahagauri radiates peace and compassion. She is often dressed in a white or green sari.

Goddess Durga
19711

In destructive form here, as Kali
19712

Scenes from the Mahabharata
1971519716

Hindu Saptarishis
19717197181971919720

As you can see, the depictions point out to the fact that such features essentially were concentrated in the higher castes, as they were responsible for these depictions.

Of course most rajputs, as most indians of any caste, are very dark skinned. Yet servile indians keep posting pics of lighter outliers in order to suck up to euro racists and validate their ridiculous appropriation of aryans. You did it yourself.

What does the White man have to do with the authenticity and relevance of physical and genetic differences? Once again, you seem to be validating your own identity based upon the cruel rules Whites forced on you. I have seen your posts on the ancient Egyptians, and how they would be forced to drink from the slave taps. What kind of spineless nonsense is that?

The British have nothing to do with the racial demographics and ideals in India. The British were merely driven by the need to acquire material and political resources and power wherever they went. As far as Indians are concerned, they collated extremely useful and informative data, something Indians hadn't done themselves. They merely collated what they observed, and thereon propagated their observations. Also, they didn't claim every population they ruled. Did you see the same happen to Africans of SE Asians? You are naturally more empathetic towards people who are more similar to you.

There was no need to "divide and rule" as there was nothing to divide, since Indians as a people have always been divided by linguistic, theological and ethno-cultural differences. That doesn't mean we cannot be an enlightened and united people now.

Now you can piss of on an electric fence for all I care, you sorry fuck, I have exhausted and refuted everything you have had to say.

End of discussion.

Indocentrist
2010-08-19, 23:10
When I spoke of the social aspect of the matter, my argument denoted the pre-British period for the most part, but of course, it continues on to a certain extent today. The reason why "Uttar Pradesh is one of the most deeply impoverished states in India" as per your words is because neither Dr Ambedkar nor his proteges and followers have provided effective leadership to the Shudras and Dalit communities for their overall development.

Pathetic. The brahmins of Uttar Pradesh are poor too. Many of them clean toilets for a living. Shouldn't that make them untouchables? Another example of the stupidity and hypocrisy of the caste system.

BTW, where is your excuse for Rajasthan's abject poverty and backwardness?



my opinion holds more water than yours.


I have already shown that you are a pathological deluded liar. Opinions of proven liars do not hold water at all.



Pakistanis themselves acknowledge that the Hindu Aryan castes resemble Pakistanis more than they do “Dravid Indians”, by their words. Also, do note that the sizable majority of Sindhis and Punjabis are in fact converted Jatts, Saraswat Brahmins and Rajputs, but well, we all know that the region has been prone to spinelessness. You will see various Aryan nationalists of Pakistani extraction claiming that Pakistanis and the Punjabis-Kashmiris /Upper caste Hindus are similar and are out of place among “Dravid Indians”.


You stupid, servile, treacherous snake; getting off on the opinions of pakistanis. :sick: Last time I checked the pakistanis absolutely loathe hindus, regardless of whether they are rajputs, jats or "dravidians".



The only avataras of Lord Vishnu which are dark are Lord Rama and Lord Krishna


These blackskinned avatars, described as shyama sundara (beautiful black), are the most popular of the hindu gods. Rama is the epitome of Aryan manhood. And Krishna is the most beloved god of the Rajputs. Meerabai the rajput princess is famous as a devotee of Krishna.


Sri Valmiki attributes Rama’s skill in archery to his long arms.

Valmiki who wrote the hindu epic Ramayana was an outcaste; and Vyasa who wrote the Mahabharata, the other great hindu epic, is described as black-skinned...


As far as the Goddesses are concerned, they turn dark skinned and demonic in appearance during their destructive forms.

If dark is demonic why are Rama and Krishna portrayed thusly?



However, just for reference sake, quotes from various Hindu/Indian texts.

Source? You keep pulling white lies outta your black/dark ass as usual. Nowhere are any of the heroes of the puranas depicted as white, much less blond. You are a self-hating, servile idiot who has bought into the aryan invasion theory hook line and sinker. Absolutely pathetic. Posting ridiculous contemporary white-washed portraits of hindu gods and goddesses who are clearly depicted as dark in the scriptures proves your stupidity and your desperate desire to suck up to western racists, who in case you didn't know despise your sorry colored ass.



Also, they didn't claim every population they ruled. Did you see the same happen to Africans of SE Asians? You are naturally more empathetic towards people who are more similar to you.

The British ranked indians below southeast and east asians as shown by the fact that malays were ranked above Indians of all castes in the South African apartheid system and the japanese were given the status of "honorary whites". In colonial India the mongoloid gurkha soldiers were given access to british military canteens while rajputs, sikhs and other natives of India were barred. You are a pathetic spineless suckass.

Kshatriya
2010-08-21, 11:36
The brahmins of Uttar Pradesh are poor too. Many of them clean toilets for a living. Shouldn't that make them untouchables? Another example of the stupidity and hypocrisy of the caste system.
None of this has any direct relevance to the topic in hand i.e "Original Aryans". If you want to discuss this off-topic issues which you have brought up, please open a new thread. I will only address relevant points so as to comply with the Rules of the Forum.

I have already shown that you are a pathological deluded liar. Opinions of proven liars do not hold water at all.
Indocentrist, I would appreciate it if you furnished citations for your claims via quotes from anthroplogists, statistics and other sources. I have provided sources and can name Anthropologists and Geneticists off hand if you wish to refer to them.

You stupid, servile, treacherous snake; getting off on the opinions of pakistanis.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I specifically mentioned that the things they say are highly infuriating, and the implications of such brash statements are high. My point was to illustrate an immature, but still noteworthy non-Indian, South Asian perspective of the physical differences between the various Castes and Tribes of India, as opposed to your ignorant, African American perspective where every Indian "looks the same", which of course, you assert mainly to somehow make African Americans seem better, or justify their position on a social scale by somehow demoralizing Indians.

These blackskinned avatars, described as shyama sundara (beautiful black), are the most popular of the hindu gods. Rama is the epitome of Aryan manhood. And Krishna is the most beloved god of the Rajputs. Meerabai the rajput princess is famous as a devotee of Krishna.
There is no one "popular Hindu God". Non-Dvijas differentiate themselves by the basic Shaivaite-Vaishnavite split. God is above petty human agenda, God doesn't have a race, therefore he isn't "Aryan", ignorant , blasphemous, disrespectful, non-Indian. Regardless, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna did have dark skin. Yes, dark skin, so what? Lord Rama was described as being of robust stature, with long, powerful arms with lotus eyes and appealing facial features. Stop trying to be a blasphemous dog by trying to assert that our Gods looked like your idea of an "Aboriginal" or whatever.
19920

If dark is demonic why are Rama and Krishna portrayed thusly?
Please learn how to comprehend, I specifically mentioned that dark skin is associated with a demonic/destructive form only as far as Goddesses are concerned.

Valmiki who wrote the hindu epic Ramayana was an outcaste; and Vyasa who wrote the Mahabharata, the other great hindu epic, is described as black-skinned.
Irrelevant, still. The physical appearance of Sri Vyasa is still subject to debate. Different sources quote different things. The only uniform description of his physical appearance is that he was extremely fierce looking.

Source? You keep pulling white lies outta your black/dark ass as usual. Nowhere are any of the heroes of the puranas depicted as white, much less blond.
Filthy Negroe, know your place and control your tounge. Whoever spoke of anything Blonde? Lord Shiva is merely an exception, other mythological figures are described as golden skinned and dark haired.

Posting ridiculous contemporary white-washed portraits of hindu gods and goddesses who are clearly depicted as dark in the scriptures proves your stupidity and your desperate desire to suck up towestern racists, who in case you didn't know despise your sorry colored ass.
I cannot converse with the vulgarities and assumptions involved in all your posts. The descriptions are taken from various sources, including the Puranas, SMB , Ramayana and the Mahabharata. The word Gauri (which is Goddess Parvati's alias) itself means fair. And please, "Indocentrist", present me these paintings wherein Gods and Goddesses are "depicted as dark in the scriptures". Indologists like Fritz Staal, Josef Witzel et all have repeatedly affirmed that the ideal skin tone and the descriptions of the Vedic Aryans implies that the ideal skin tone was not "White and Blonde" but Golden and dark haired.
The Rig Veda, the most ancient Aryan text clearly mentions the pigmentation prevalent among the Vedic Aryans.

"Thou, Indra, art the destroyer of all the cities, the slayer of the Dasyus, the prosperer of man, the lord of the sky." - RgV. VIII 87.6

The Rig Veda praises the god who "destroyed the Dasyans and protected the Aryan colour." - Rg.V. III 34.9

It then goes on to thank the god who "bestowed on his white friends the fields, bestowed the sun, bestowed the waters." - Rg.V. I 100.18

Indra - 1.100.18 - "He, much invoked, hath slain Dasyus and Simyus, after his wont, and laid them low with arrows. The mighty Thunderer with his fair-complexioned friends won the land, the sunlight, and the waters."

Indra - 1.101.1 - "SING, with oblation, praise to him who maketh glad, who with Rjisvan drove the dusky brood away. Fain for help, him the strong whose right hand wields the bolt, him girt by Maruts we invoke to be our Friend."

Indra - 1.103.3 - "Armed with his bolt and trusting in his prowess he wandered shattering the forts of Dasas. Cast thy dart, knowing, Thunderer, at the Dasyu; increase the Arya's might and glory, Indra.

"For him who thus hath taught these human races, Maghavan, bearing a fame-worthy title, Thunderer, drawing nigh to slay the Dasyus, hath given himself the name of Son for glory."

That's enough proof for you, Afrocentric scum. You are not worthy of hearing our glorious epics.

The British ranked indians below southeast and east asians as shown by the fact that malays were ranked above Indians of all castes in the South African apartheid system and the japanese were given the status of "honorary whites". In colonial India the mongoloid gurkha soldiers were given access to british military canteens while rajputs, sikhs and other natives of India were barred. You are a pathetic spineless suckass.
Your constant mention of segregation laws that basically dehumanized your kind essentially contradicts your accusations towards me. In short, you validate your identity with regards to what the White man has to say. Slave mentality is evident. So many whiplashes, yet the servility wasn't whipped out of you eh? The fact of the matter is those who constantly and consistently resisted British rule, and have sacrificed their lives for the greater good of all of the denizens of "India" have been mostly from the Higher Castes, specifically the Rajputs. Brahmins, Khatris and Rajputs at a certain point of time were not permitted into the British Army for reasons, because many of them were educated and the British feared they could move up in ranks and start a revolt and raise nationalism amongst the soldiers. It is the Jatts who remained loyal till the end. They were mostly enlisted in the British Army fighting along with British soldiers against India. Why? Because it provided a steady pay and food, and it also made alliances with the British lords who ruled the lands, and were promised to retain farmland (as Jats are primarily barons and land owners) for their own purposes. The British feared the more educated type of Hindus/Sikhs/Muslims because of the influence they could bring. Please refer to the Bengal Regiment and Sepoy Mutiny, but of course, as a lying Afrocentrist who likes to claim the achievements of other civilizations due to the lack of his own/thereof, you wouldn't be aware. Gurkhas are spineless traitors, known fact. Gurkhas are only quasi-"Mongoloid". They are in fact part Kshatriya and also to a lesser extent Brahmin paternally, and don't look like full blown Mongoloids, further reinforced by the high incidence of R1a1a among Gurkha males. You are not an Indian, yet you try to make Indians seem like whatever suits your own agenda? Speak for yourself, filthy creature. Know your place in society you filthy Afrocentrist, continue with the only things your Jewish masters make you do - creating mindless nonsense in the name of music, prostitution and drug dealing. You have no sense of your own culture, race and tradition, which is mainly attributed to the fact that you have none of it, filthy slave. Also, stop taking about our culture, and tend to your own, bloody inferior non-Indian.

Now you can continue to whine all you want, but that doesn't change reality. If your perverse actions and thoughts help you sleep better at night, then continue to do so. Because that is all you were, are and ever will be fit for. There is a certain amount of civility a Rajput can maintain, but when the person at hand is a troll..

jpz79
2010-12-04, 03:25
Iranian Q does not resemble the the mongoloid type, and is likely a pre-LGM artifcact, that was 'nearly' washed out by the local (or, at least, relatively local) formations of Haplogroups R, J, G, and early forms of Haplogroup I.

InquiringMind
2010-12-04, 17:06
Aryans=Indian Descendant People

Masahiroguren
2010-12-04, 18:25
If there is a noble bloodline in India, it seems to me the word "noble" is an oxymoron,or an arcane ambiguity only aryans themself can understand.

Sheikh-Ubayd
2010-12-04, 18:56
Therefore, respecting your view as an outsider, we could conclude for now, as controversial a topic it may be, that the only people who truly have the rights to the usage of this word are the Hindu Aryan classes and Zoroastrian Iranians/Parsees.

Are Kurdish Zoroastrians allowed to refer to themselves as "aryans"?

MadWorld
2010-12-04, 23:29
Are Kurdish Zoroastrians allowed to refer to themselves as "aryans"?

I dont get how religion has to do with the title.

"Hinduism" technically speaking is not a religion, just some word (from Iranians) the English used to label all the religions of India. And "Hindu" itself means "black", and "slave laborer" so its basically equivalent to the English derogatory term for blacks, "nigger". Therefore a "Hindu Aryan", makes any sense ,at least in the Nazi definition?

In conclusion,
Race does not exist, therefore original aryans did not exist, thus everyone posting in this forum to prove that they exist are obtuse.

EliasAlucard
2010-12-05, 00:45
Are Kurdish Zoroastrians allowed to refer to themselves as "aryans"?Kurdish Zoroastrians certainly do have aR1an ancestry, no question about that. But they're quite mixed with Semites and Dravidians and other non-Aryan populations.

You might as well ask if mestizos and castizos are allowed to refer to themselves as Spaniards? At the end of the day it's a topic of how exclusive ethnonyms should be.

In any case Kurds are genetically closer to the original Aryans than ethnically pure Dravidians are.

Indocentrist
2010-12-05, 15:05
And "Hindu" itself means "black", and "slave laborer" so its basically equivalent to the English derogatory term for blacks, "nigger". Therefore a "Hindu Aryan", makes any sense ,at least in the Nazi definition?


I don't think the word hindu itself means "black", though persians, turks and others did consider the people who lived east of the Indus/Sindhu river (India proper), as black. THe Greek historian Herodotus even speculated that the semen of the ancient Indians must be black to account for their complexion. :lol:

The idea that aryan=white is a 19th century european race fantasy. The reality is quite different.

MadWorld
2010-12-05, 17:14
I don't think the word hindu itself means "black", though persians, turks and others did consider the people who lived east of the Indus/Sindhu river (India proper), as black. THe Greek historian Herodotus even speculated that the semen of the ancient Indians must be black to account for their complexion. :lol:

The idea that aryan=white is a 19th century european race fantasy. The reality is quite different.

What reality? You think any cares about it meaning "noble"? No... Its like no one uses the word "gay' to describe "happy" people... The word lost its meaning, deal with it.

Indocentrist
2010-12-05, 18:03
What reality? You think any cares about it meaning "noble"? No... Its like no one uses the word "gay' to describe "happy" people... The word lost its meaning, deal with it.

The reality that the people who called themselves "aryans" the most consistently, the vedic hindus of India, weren't of white european stock. Deal with it.

Now show us where you learned that the word hindu means black. It is generally assumed that the word comes from the Sindhu River, now called the Indus River.

MadWorld
2010-12-06, 04:01
The reality that the people who called themselves "aryans" the most consistently, the vedic hindus of India, weren't of white european stock. Deal with it.

Now show us where you learned that the word hindu means black. It is generally assumed that the word comes from the Sindhu River, now called the Indus River.


There is no source on that, and it is assumed so it can conceal the real meaning of the word, and the ignorance with it.. IT doesnt even make sense, since there are so many persian words that start with "ss" or "sh" or "ess".... So how could they not have pronounce "Sindhu"?

"Hindu-e-falak" from persian literature means "black sky", hindu meaning "black" "e" meaning "of" and "falak" meaning sky or saturn.

Now if you just googled hindu, or hinduism you may get some of these links,
http://tritiopokhkho.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/a-note-on-history-meaning-of-word-hindu/

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/about_the_name_Hindu.htm

http://www.sikhspectrum.com/072008/hindu.htm

Indocentrist
2010-12-06, 06:03
"Hindu-e-falak" from persian literature means "black sky", hindu meaning "black" "e" meaning "of" and "falak" meaning sky or saturn.

Now if you just googled hindu, or hinduism you may get some of these links,
http://tritiopokhkho.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/a-note-on-history-meaning-of-word-hindu/

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/about_the_name_Hindu.htm

http://www.sikhspectrum.com/072008/hindu.htm

There is something very fishy going on here. The persian for black is "siyah". And if you google "hindu-e-falak" all the links are about the definition of hindu by dubious sources, none about the actual persian literature where they claim its from. If you believe the links you provided hindu means black/slave/thief/looter/servant etc etc. There is clearly a dishonest agenda going on here. The name of no nation, race or religion is defined in such ridiculously offensive juvenile terms.

You need to do better. Provide us with an objective persian source, a dictionary or literary work, where the word hindu is defined as black, slave etc as you claimed.

MadWorld
2010-12-06, 07:03
There is something very fishy going on here. The persian for black is "siyah". And if you google "hindu-e-falak" all the links are about the definition of hindu by dubious sources, none about the actual persian literature where they claim its from. If you believe the links you provided hindu means black/slave/thief/looter/servant etc etc. There is clearly a dishonest agenda going on here. The name of no nation, race or religion is defined in such ridiculously offensive juvenile terms.

You need to do better. Provide us with an objective persian source, a dictionary or literary work, where the word hindu is defined as black, slave etc as you claimed.


Last time i check languages do not have only one word for one definition, something called synonyms.

And if you read the text maybe you would have spotted this, but no you read the first sentence and then i won and so you had to spew some shit to look good.

"Further, in addition to “black” and “slave”, Persian and Urdu dictionaries describe other demeaning or contemptuous meaning of “Hindu”:

Persian Dictionary - Lughet-e-Kishwari, Lucknow, 1964: chore (thief), dakoo (dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave).

Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat, part 1, p. 615: Turkish: chore, raahzan and lutera (looter); Persian: ghulam (slave), barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black).

Persian-Punjabi Dictionary (Punjabi University Patiala): native of Indian subcontinent, dacoit, waylayer, thief, slave, black, idol, beloved."

Even the indian source states what I have stated, god damn dictionary agrees with me.

In conclusion,

You need to do better, persians not pronoucing "s" so they end up pronoucing "sindhu" as "hindu" is a joke, As dubious as it "sounds" it makes the most sense.

Indocentrist
2010-12-06, 20:36
Last time i check languages do not have only one word for one definition, something called synonyms.

Show us an online thesaurus or dictionary in which the synonyms for hindu are black, slave, thief, servant etc. You have to back up your offensive claims.


Even the indian source states what I have stated, god damn dictionary agrees with me.


What are you, retarded? That source is not a dictionary, that is some dubious agenda-driven site that claims to be quoting from a dictionary. Knowing the hostility between muslims and hindus in India anyone with a brain would suspect malicious dishonesty and slander here.

It is ridiculous to see a persian relying on dubious indian sources to define persian words. :whoco: You need to do better than that. If what you keep repeating is actually true then it shouldn't be so hard to back it up with legitimate sources. Right?

Humata
2010-12-06, 21:31
If we take a reductionist stance on this debate, focusing on facts;

- "Hind" in Persian is derived from "Sindh" and the peoples of the Indian Subcontinent are collectively known as natives of "Hindustan" in Persian.
- The Persian word for black is Siyah/Siah. Entering "black" into FarsiDic (http://www.farsidic.com/default.aspx) demonstrates this;
'عبوسانه ، سياهي ، دوده ، لباس عزا، سياه رنگ ، سياه رنگي ، سياه كردن'
Most of the words are inclusive of "siah" (i.e. siahi, siah-rangi, siah-kardan, siah-rang) and none mention "hind".
- Again, through FarsiDic, the word for slave does not have any cognates of "Hind".

Thus, "black" and "Hindu" have no apparent relation in the contemporary Persian language and any sources that state otherwise should be read with caution. Whether there was an older, additional use for the word "Hindu" is irrelevant as it is no longer used in contemporary Persian.

MadWorld
2010-12-07, 03:25
Show us an online thesaurus or dictionary in which the synonyms for hindu are black, slave, thief, servant etc. You have to back up your offensive claims.



What are you, retarded? That source is not a dictionary, that is some dubious agenda-driven site that claims to be quoting from a dictionary. Knowing the hostility between muslims and hindus in India anyone with a brain would suspect malicious dishonesty and slander here.

It is ridiculous to see a persian relying on dubious indian sources to define persian words. :whoco: You need to do better than that. If what you keep repeating is actually true then it shouldn't be so hard to back it up with legitimate sources. Right?

A) "im not retarded"
B) Sorry but the average person here doesn't see two shit difference between a paki and an indian, so dont give me this "anyone with a brain" crap.
C) "I am not persian" (having genetic make up related to those people is just only 1 factor that makes you "that" or "this")
D) I dont get it, you have not posted anything against mine, other than just saying "state the source", "state the source" and again "state the source"

---------- Post added 2010-12-06 at 22:28 ----------

[QUOTE=Humata;254311]If we take a reductionist stance on this debate, focusing on facts;

- "Hind" in Persian is derived from "Sindh" and the peoples of the Indian Subcontinent are collectively known as natives of "Hindustan" in Persian.
- The Persian word for black is Siyah/Siah. Entering "black" into FarsiDic (http://www.farsidic.com/default.aspx) demonstrates this;
'عبوسانه ، سياهي ، دوده ، لباس عزا، سياه رنگ ، سياه رنگي ، سياه كردن'
Most of the words are inclusive of "siah" (i.e. siahi, siah-rangi, siah-kardan, siah-rang) and none mention "hind".
- Again, through FarsiDic, the word for slave does not have any cognates of "Hind".

Thus, "black" and "Hindu" have no apparent relation in the contemporary Persian language and any sources that state otherwise should be read with caution. Whether there was an older, additional use for the word "Hindu" is irrelevant as it is no longer used in contemporary Persian.[/QUOTE
]
That is modern, I am talking about the past language, obviously hindu lost its meaning in today sense, but things like "hindu kush", "hindu-e-falak", "hindustan", what do they mean?:confused:

Humata
2010-12-07, 15:01
That is modern, I am talking about the past language, obviously hindu lost its meaning in today sense, but things like "hindu kush", "hindu-e-falak", "hindustan", what do they mean?:confused:

The etymology of Hindu Kush is controversial; some attribute it to Hindu slaves who could not survive the intensely cold mountain weather (Kush = Koshtan, to kill). The range went by other Iranian names in ancient times, raising the possibility Hindu Kush may actually be non-Iranian in origin, as we see continuity in other mountain ranges inhabited by Iranians (Zagros, Elborz, possibly Pamir).

I am not familiar with the etymology of "Hindu-e-Falak", but it should be clear by now that Hindu Kush and Hindustan are both jointed through geography and are in the vicinity of the Sindh/Indus river.

Indocentrist
2010-12-07, 16:59
"im not retarded"

You sure argue like a retard.



Sorry but the average person here doesn't see two shit difference between a paki and an indian, so dont give me this "anyone with a brain" crap.

Tell that to the pakis. Besides, what the hell does that have to with the issue here? Anyone with a brain can see that what you think about the similarity between pakistanis and indians is irrelevant to the meaning of the word hindu.



"I am not persian" (having genetic make up related to those people is just only 1 factor that makes you "that" or "this")

Your family is from iran. You talk a lot about Iran. You boast ad nauseam about iranian contempt for indians/pakistanis. What does that make you? German?



I dont get it, you have not posted anything against mine, other than just saying "state the source", "state the source" and again "state the source"

If you make outrageous claims in an open forum expect to be challenged to back it up.



That is modern, I am talking about the past language, obviously hindu lost its meaning in today sense,

You link to dubious sites that in turn quote from dictionaries from Lucknow and Lahore dated from a few decades ago and now claim you are talking about "past language"?:whoco: How far back are you talking about? Show us the non-modern persian literature in which hindu is defined as slave, thief, black etc


but things like "hindu kush", "hindu-e-falak", "hindustan", what do they mean?:confused:

Hindukush means hindu-killer, hindustan means land of the hindus. Only a complete moron would try to use these words to back up his outrageous definitions of hindu.

MadWorld
2010-12-13, 19:06
You sure argue like a retard.





Your family is from iran. You talk a lot about Iran. You boast ad nauseam about iranian contempt for indians/pakistanis. What does that make you? German?



Doesn't make you less retarded for fighting over the internet does it?

Anways,

So if i tallk about you being a dumb ass, makes me a dumb ass? oh wait it makes me german. lol?

I barely talk about "Iran" on this forum. And no it doesn not make "Iranian" or "german" :confused: even if i talk about Iran.

Anyways, like it or not i believe that its a racial slur, it sounds likely. Thats that (You wont change my mind).

the_aarya
2011-03-01, 03:00
why hindus always forget that aaryawarta was not limited till sindhu but it was on both sides of sindhu river? simply persians calling them people living beside sindhu makes no sense as rarely any persian would have came near sindhus with large numbers before hindu tag was given .
people should grow up to accept reality.
even if considered hindu is not abuse still whats the need to have word when divine scripture gives better option ? if once you can change it from aarya to hindus whats guaranty that you will not change it again in future ?
that time there were persians and muslims what if next time chinese mongrels name you nitwit will you say in future "garv se kaho ham nitwit hai" ? :D
hindu is nothing more than tag without any damn essence of what i actually follow , any moron can be hindu just by taking birth or getting converted , Sanatan dharma doesn't work like this ... you become noble of thoughts and deeds then only your an Aarya else your un-aarya no matter which family your born

......Be Aarya

Gurvinder_Mann
2011-03-11, 05:03
The very true meaning of the word is a noble, a non barbarian, someone that follows Vedic lifestyle, speaks a language that is Sanskrit or derived from Sanskrit, from noble bloodlines, the descentants of the Vedic civilisation in Indic lands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryavarta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mleccha

Northwest Indians, Higher caste Indians in other regions of India, Afghans, some Persians all these people are descendants of the Indo-Aryan tribes. They were originally from the Bactria in Afghanistan - they certainly were not - these Nordic Germans as Nazism Psuedo-Science theory has many believing. Obviously with such a complex discussion like this - with so many people claiming Aryans (even though all the Aryan culture and the vedic culture was practiced in the South Asian sub-continent) - instead of arguing about who were the true Aryans. I am rather content with the fact that I know, and what I believe is the truth - so I don't really need to prove anyone wrong :)

conrad
2011-03-14, 06:26
they certainly were not - these Nordic Germans as Nazism Psuedo-Science theory has many believing.

Well surely at least some of them had Nordic-like features. I mean how else did light hair & eyes get into India?

Reality Check
2011-03-14, 07:38
Well surely at least some of them had Nordic-like features. I mean how else did light hair & eyes get into India?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2643/4013703832_d2e69707aa.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2234/2201092725_3e6aa805f0_z.jpg

^ here is some light eyed bedouin kids, and it should be proof enough that light hair and eyes are quiet common enough in the neareast. The caucasoid admixture in india is majority of the time strongly from west asia than europe. Hell even europeans have very important west asian ancestry, like all those r1b coming from Anatolia for instance. Also I believe Brazilians are more nordic and carry more light hair and eyes among themselves than comparing to east-indians on average.

conrad
2011-03-14, 07:46
Well generally speaking, light eyes & hair is sort of a tracking device, kind of like how they put those chips on dolphins fins and track their migration pattern during mating season. So it's a similar concept, in one way or another those fair Bedouins have some North-European ancestry, whether it was from the Ottoman slave markets or Mameluke I don't know, but same can be said about India. Of course we know that India never came under Ottoman influence & it is even attested in the Vedas that Aryans had yellow hair and came from the north, probably corresponding to the Andronovo culture.

Reality Check
2011-03-14, 08:24
Well generally speaking, light eyes & hair is sort of a tracking device, kind of like how they put those chips on dolphins fins and track their migration pattern during mating season. So it's a similar concept, in one way or another those fair Bedouins have some North-European ancestry

light eyes & hair are not just specific to Nordics or even North Europeans as whole. its like how nappy hair and dark brown skin is not only common in Africans, because non-Africans have it also. light eyes & hair is just as much Indigenous to middle east and Australasia(at-least blonde hair is for Australia). Therefore this tracking device will not always end up in Europe, and using it as proof for Nordic ancestry is half-hearted at best.

Unless you can prove to me without a shadow of a doubt, that having light eyes & hair is not Indigenous to the middle east, you have pretty much nothing to convince me other-vice.


it is even attested in the Vedas that Aryans had yellow hair and came from the north

the vedas don't say Aryans had yellow hair or they came from the north. but the vedas do says the gods & demons have different coloured hair, multiple limbs and so forth.

aeon
2011-03-14, 19:52
It is quite clear by now that the original Aryans were the Andronovo people who descended via Afanasyevo from tribes of the Sredny Stog/Khvalynsk/Samara cultures between the Dnieper and the Volga. They were blond Nordids/Cromagnoids.

Prithvi
2011-03-14, 19:54
Well generally speaking, light eyes & hair is sort of a tracking device, kind of like how they put those chips on dolphins fins and track their migration pattern during mating season. So it's a similar concept, in one way or another those fair Bedouins have some North-European ancestry, whether it was from the Ottoman slave markets or Mameluke I don't know, but same can be said about India. Of course we know that India never came under Ottoman influence & it is even attested in the Vedas that Aryans had yellow hair and came from the north, probably corresponding to the Andronovo culture.

They were not none of Vedic people described themselves with such features and all gods and ruling family's are described with dark hair and dark eyes and anyone beyond Indus river was considered Barbarians and Vedic people never mentioned anything about migration from one place to another like Jewish people did in the Bible.

In Zoroastrian the Gods are considered Asuras/ Ahuras and Devas/ Deavas are considered Demons and in Hinduism the Asuras/Ahuras are considered Demons and Devas/ Deavas are considered Gods.

These are the first ruling dynasty during Vedic Period - Suryavanshi [ Solar Dynasty ], Chandravanshi [ Lunar Dynasty ], Agnivanshi [ Fire Dynasty ] and none of them are described the way you imagine.

These were the first Manu [ Humans] born on earth according to Vedas and again repeated in Mahabharata and none of them are described to the way you imagine.

- Satyavrata & Shraddha were the first Manu and their 10 children.

1. Vena
2. Dhrishnu
3. Narishyan
4. Nabhaga
5. Ikshvaku
6. Karusha
7. Saryati
8. Ila
9. Prishadhru
10.Nabhagarishta

Prithvi
2011-03-14, 20:11
It is quite clear by now that the original Aryans were the Andronovo people who descended via Afanasyevo from tribes of the Sredny Stog/Khvalynsk/Samara cultures between the Dnieper and the Volga. They were blond Nordids/Cromagnoids.
"
No they dint originated from these regions even by genetics.

If anything they came from South Asia or Central Asia [ Anatolia ] Thats where the first Indo European language was found and Hittites, Hellenic, Sanskrit, Avestan were the earliest known Indo European scripts.

Even if you go by Genetics most Indo European speakers carry Haplogroup R (Y-DNA) and its descendent's Haplogroup R1a and R1b to some to some extent and R did not originate in the regions you mentioned if anything it originated anywhere from South Asia to Western Asia.

conrad
2011-03-14, 22:23
the vedas don't say Aryans had yellow hair or they came from the north. but the vedas do says the gods & demons have different coloured hair, multiple limbs and so forth.


"With him too is this rain of his that comes like herds: Indra throws drops of moisture on his yellow beard. When the sweet juice is shed he seeks the pleasant place, and stirs the worshipper as wind disturbs the wood."


"Thou, Indra, art the destroyer of all the cities, the slayer of the Dasyus, the prosperer of man, the lord of the sky." - RgV. VIII 87.6


The Rig Veda goes on to use the word “black” in a number of instances to describe the Dasyu:



"Indra, the slayer of Vrittra, the destroyer of cities, has scattered the Dasyu (hosts) sprang from a black womb."


"Indra protected in battle the Aryan worshipper, he subdued the lawless for Manu, he conquered the black skin."


"At the swift draught the Soma-drinker waxed in might, the Iron One with yellow beard and yellow hair. He, Lord of Tawny Coursers, Lord of fleet-foot Mares, will bear his Bay Steeds safely over all distress."

aeon
2011-03-14, 23:07
"
No they dint originated from these regions even by genetics.

If anything they came from South Asia or Central Asia [ Anatolia ] Thats where the first Indo European language was found and Hittites, Hellenic, Sanskrit, Avestan were the earliest known Indo European scripts.

Even if you go by Genetics most Indo European speakers carry Haplogroup R (Y-DNA) and its descendent's Haplogroup R1a and R1b to some to some extent and R did not originate in the regions you mentioned if anything it originated anywhere from South Asia to Western Asia.

Where R originated is irrelevant to the question what the original Aryans were. They were what I said, it's a scientific fact, however much it may hurt your Indocentric feelings.

conrad
2011-03-14, 23:12
They were what I said, it's a scientific fact, however much it may hurt your Indocentric feelings.

:lol: "scientific fact". Dude we don't even know who or what the Huns exactly were and that was just 1800 years ago, let alone the Aryans of 4,000 years ago. This whole notion that Aryans were hordes of Nordic men is obviously not the reality, more plausible is that there was a handful of fair ones among the bunch & only the fair ones got attention because the indigenous people who haven't seen this phenotype were mesmerized by them. I'm willing to bet my life that the vast majority of Aryans had dark hair & eyes with light skin.

See here:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/solution-to-problem-of-indo-aryan.html

Rochefaton
2011-03-14, 23:20
:lol: "scientific fact". Dude we don't even know who the Huns were and that was just 1800 years ago, let alone the Aryans of 4,000 years ago. This whole notion that Aryans were hordes of Nordic men is obviously not the reality, more plausible is that there was a handful of fair ones among the bunch & only the fair ones got attention because the indigenous people who haven't seen this phenotype were mesmerized by them. I'm willing to bet my life that the vast majority of Aryans had dark hair & eyes.

How is that "more plausible"? At least aeon can cite research that shows the Andronovo skeletons were predominatly fair-haired, and that the Andronovo culture has been linked to the Indo-Iranians.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/


Out of 10 human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the Krasnoyarsk region, 9 possessed the R1a Y-chromosome haplogroup and one C haplogroup (xC3). mtDNA haplogroups of nine individuals assigned to the same Andronovo horizon and region were as follows: U4 (2 individuals), U2e, U5a1, Z, T1, T4, H, and K2b.

90% of the Bronze Age period mtDNA haplogroups were of west Eurasian origin and the study determined that at least 60% of the individuals overall (out of the 26 Bronze and Iron Age human remains' samples of the study that could be tested) had light hair and blue or green eyes.

conrad
2011-03-14, 23:34
How is that "more plausible"? At least aeon can cite research that shows the Andronovo skeletons were predominatly fair-haired, and that the Andronovo culture has been linked to the Indo-Iranians.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/

& what about the remaining 40%...? :)

Exactly.

Rochefaton
2011-03-14, 23:36
& what about the remaining 40%...? :)

Exactly.

That still means the majority were fair-haired and eyed. Which is in contrast to what you stated. 60 > 40.

conrad
2011-03-14, 23:40
That still means the majority were fair-haired and eyed. Which is in contrast to what you stated. 60 > 40.

When a study mentions fair hair, obviously it is not to be taken seriously. Some Euro-centrist garbage without a doubt, I wonder what the methodology was? Fair hair can be bred into the gene pool in a very little period of time. Actually the Kalash were thought to be Aryas but guess what, they showed no relation to Europeans whatsoever. They are a isolate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rosenberg2007.png

conrad
2011-03-14, 23:42
Also with a haplogroup like R1b1b2a1a2d3, I wonder what's your fascination with Aryans? Even a Kurd has more to do with them than you. :lol:

Rochefaton
2011-03-14, 23:43
When a study mentions fair hair, obviously it is not to be taken seriously. Some Euro-centrist garbage without a doubt, I wonder what the methodology was? Fair hair can be bred into the gene pool in a very little period of time. Actually the Kalash were thought to be Aryas but guess what, they showed no relation to Europeans whatsoever. They are a isolate.

lol Whatever, man. You yourself stated that most Indo-Iranians were originally dark-haired and eyed. I offered you aDNA with contrary results, and then you denounce the whole idea and offer up a strawman after you realize 40% is less than 60%.



---------- Post added 2011-03-14 at 22:44 ----------


Also with a haplogroup like R1b1b2a1a2d3, I wonder what's your fascination with Aryans? Even a Kurd has more to do with them than you. :lol:

No real fascination. I was just offering some evidence to back up aeon's claim, since it is based in fact. You are clearly the one with the issues here.

Good day, sir.

conrad
2011-03-14, 23:44
lol Whatever, man. You yourself stated that most Indo-Iranians were originally dark-haired and eyed. I offered you aDNA with contrary results, and then you denounce the whole idea and offer up a strawman after you realize 40% is less than 60%.

Good day, sir.

There is no way they can pin-point the percentages like that "40% 60%". It's impossible. By the way who conducted this study? The university of Adolf Hitler? :lol:

---------- Post added 2011-03-14 at 22:45 ----------


l
Good day, sir.

Exactly, you can't refute my Kalash argument. Good day to you as well.

Rochefaton
2011-03-14, 23:49
There is no way they can pin-point the percentages like that "40% 60%". It's impossible. By the way who conducted this study? The university of Adolf Hitler? :lol:

---------- Post added 2011-03-14 at 22:45 ----------



Exactly, you can't refute my Kalash argument. Good day to you as well.

If you dig up 26 skeletons, test their pigmentation genes, and 16 of them have the genotype for fair-hair and eyes, that means more than 60% had fair hair and eyes, and rest did not. That is why it is not "impossible" to know. You should research more before opening your mouth.

@ Kalash statement,

There is nothing to refute. The origin of fair-hair and eyes in the Kalash and their genetic isolation has nothing to do with this debate. Why even mention it?

conrad
2011-03-14, 23:57
You should research more before opening your mouth,

"Opening your mouth" :lol: I don't know about you but I don't own a voice activated keyboard...



There is nothing to refute. The origin of fair-hair and eyes in the Kalash has nothing to do with this debate. Why even mention it?

Because you & Aeon are trying to say that the fair hair & eyes is a sign of European origin when it could have evolved independently, like in the Kalash & even in Melanesians.

Anyways you are wrong, because the Andronovo remains may have been 60% fair-hair & eyes but that doesn't change the fact that the Aryas formed in modern Afghanistan, way after the Andronovo horizon, by this time they were a entirely different people since they absorbed indigenous populations of the Hindu Kush.

Rochefaton
2011-03-15, 00:01
"Opening your mouth" :lol: I don't know about you but I don't own a voice activated keyboard...



Because you & Aeon are trying to say that the fair hair & eyes is a sign of European origin when it could have evolved independently, like in the Kalash & even in Melanesians.

I never said that. The Andronovo culture was located in Asia, anyways. I just wanted to offer proof to show that aeon's claim of fair-haired remains from the Andronovo was backed by scientific research, not just the thoughts of some random dude on the interweb.


Anyways you are wrong, because the Andronovo remains may have been 60% fair-hair & eyes but that doesn't change the fact that the Aryas formed in modern Afghanistan, way after the Andronovo horizon, by this time they were a entirely different people since they absorbed indigenous populations of the Hindu Kush.

If that is your argument, then you may have a point. As I said, I just wanted to show the proof that the Andronovo remains, which have been linked to the Indo-Iranians, were predominatly fair-haired and eyed.

conrad
2011-03-15, 00:05
I never said that. The Andronovo culture was located in Asia, anyways. I just offered proof to show that aeon's claim of fair-haired remains from the Andronovo was back by scientific research, not just some random guy behind a keyboard's thoughts.



If that is your argument, then you may have a point. As I said, I just wanted to show the proof that the Andronovo remains, which have been linked to the Indo-Iranians, were predominatly fair-haired and eyed.

Ok, I just thought that you were saying that 60% of the Aryans who invaded India had fair hair & eyes, because there is no way the Andronovo people could have retained that level of purity some 800 years later after wandering around Central Asia prior to arriving in India.

Prithvi
2011-03-15, 02:10
The Rig Veda goes on to use the word “black” in a number of instances to describe the Dasyu:

That has been translated out of contest and Dasyu has nothing to do with skin color.

Dark skin in Sanskirt is "Krsna Tvac" and Light skin is "Shweta Tvac"

Rama is described as Krsna Tvac and he is descended from Vedic Solar Dynasty and Goddess Saraswati is described as Shweta Tvac and she is mother of Vedas.

Dasyu has more symbolic meaning the first Vedic Manu king Vena was described as Dasyu because he became evil and corrupt same thing can be said about Ravana & he was a Bhramin and son of Lord Brahma he is refereed to as Dasyu because he was an evil and corrupt ruler.

About Indra having "Golden hair" that is because he is a SOLAR deity he is described as having golden nails and golden skin too.

Prithvi
2011-03-15, 02:14
Where R originated is irrelevant to the question what the original Aryans were. They were what I said, it's a scientific fact, however much it may hurt your Indocentric feelings.

Where R originated is relevant because thats what most Indo European speakers carry it would be silly to ignore that.

There is no scientific evidence that Aryans originated in Volga the first Indo European speakers were Hittites, Hellenic, Vedic and Avestan.

None of those languages originated in Eastern Europe :lol:

Polako
2011-03-15, 02:31
Ok, I just thought that you were saying that 60% of the Aryans who invaded India had fair hair & eyes, because there is no way the Andronovo people could have retained that level of purity some 800 years later after wandering around Central Asia prior to arriving in India.

Of course they didn't. They started mixing with Asians once they moved past the Urals during the early Bronze Age, and then more so after that.

Reality Check
2011-03-15, 03:59
The Rig Veda goes on to use the word “black” in a number of instances to describe the Dasyu:

Whats your point? What does this have to do with our previous discussion?


Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

the vedas don't say Aryans had yellow hair or they came from the north. but the vedas do says the gods & demons have different coloured hair, multiple limbs and so forth.



"With him too is this rain of his that comes like herds: Indra throws drops of moisture on his yellow beard. When the sweet juice is shed he seeks the pleasant place, and stirs the worshipper as wind disturbs the wood.

notice I said aryans weren't mentioned as having yellow hair, which is still correct. Indra isn't even a human aryan person, he is a supernatural deity. Agni the fire god is mentioned to have red hair. Even if aryans had light hair or whatever, using this religious texts to prove racial features the way you used is generally dishonest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Aakra_%28Buddhism%29


Actually the Kalash were thought to be Aryas but guess what, they showed no relation to Europeans whatsoever. They are a isolate.

Proves my point, light eyes in kalash is mainly indigenous and not from nordic europeans.

Polako
2011-03-15, 04:19
Proves my point, light eyes in kalash is mainly indigenous and not from nordic europeans.

They just create their own cluster when run in STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE because they're inbred. It doesn't mean they don't have European admixture.

Sub-Saharan African admixture doesn't show up in Sardinians for the same reasons, unless you really look for it.

Reality Check
2011-03-15, 05:17
They just create their own cluster when run in STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE because they're inbred. It doesn't mean they don't have European admixture.

Sub-Saharan African admixture doesn't show up in Sardinians for the same reasons, unless you really look for it.

No my point is not that kalash don't have any European heritage whatsoever, because if the neighboring burusho carry something like 9% north european admixture, I am pretty sure that the kalash carried some too. All I'm saying is that light eyes and hair are just as much indigenous to west asians(west asian ancestry is more stronger in indians) as it is in europeans. And I said it before and say it agian, I don't think light eyes are that common in india, than comparing to some latin american countries for example.

conrad
2011-03-15, 06:45
because if the neighboring burusho carry something like 9% north european admixture, I am pretty sure that the kalash carry some too.

Exactly. So why not just admit that your beloved Aryans came from Europe? How else did this 9% north-Euro admix. get to central/south Asia?

Reality Check
2011-03-15, 13:16
Exactly. So why not just admit that your beloved Aryans came from Europe? How else did this 9% north-Euro admix. get to central/south Asia?

Because for one thing I don't view the Khvalynsk/Samara cultures(the origin of indo-europeans) as being typically european. I view the caucasus region too exotic a place to fit into any north-european criteria. Maybe we can view the northeastern caucasus as being at the very edge of europe, but thats as far it goes.

Also the burusho aren't indo-europeans, they happen to be a language isolate. they should be the aboriginal people of the hindu-kush area before the coming of the aryans. And this north-Euro admixture could have already been present before the coming of the indo-iranians. For example, the kalash mtdna haplogroup profile seem to share some similarity with some Finno-Ugrian groups in russia. Finally Gujaratis should carry probably 2% north-Euro admixture, and light eyes seem to crop up for them typically like other northwest indians. Therefore neolithic west asian ancestry has to be the major reason behind the depigmented phenotype popping up.

Gungnir
2011-03-15, 13:37
Aryans were the people who used to live in Iran and migrated(invaded) to north western India and established the Vedic civilization. When it died out so did the aryans. Fragments of their culture still exist due to their religious text and the caste system.

aeon
2011-03-15, 19:57
Because for one thing I don't view the Khvalynsk/Samara cultures(the origin of indo-europeans) as being typically european. I view the caucasus region too exotic a place to fit into any north-european criteria. Maybe we can view the northeastern caucasus as being at the very edge of europe, but thats as far it goes.


So Khvalynsk/Samara is now in the Caucasus. LOL.

Whether you count the area between the Dnieper and the Volga as North European does not matter, what matters is that it had North Europid population at the time the original Aryans started to expand from there to the east/south-east.

Reality Check
2011-03-15, 23:01
Whether you count the area between the Dnieper and the Volga as North European does not matter, what matters is that it had North Europid population at the time the original Aryans started to expand from there to the east/south-east.

your absolutely right, its doesn't matter if I consider the Dnieper and the Volga as being North European or not. What matters most is how in the world did these original Aryans bring their Dagestani genetic component into south-asia. I mean its telling when the two surviving non-Indo-European speaking Pakistani populations: the Brahui (Dravidian) and Burusho (linguistic isolate) tend to carry less Dagestani admixture than their Indo-Iranian counterparts.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UOHFTxL-bOA/TQuHfDc4FtI/AAAAAAAAAQk/bx6NRagQN5k/s1600/ADMIXTURE_10.png

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2010/12/dages.png

Esekon Kimatt
2011-03-15, 23:17
Indians/Afghans/Pakistanis/Iranians and Turkistanis are all Aryans

conrad
2011-03-16, 00:16
your absolutely right, its doesn't matter if I consider the Dnieper and the Volga as being North European or not. What matters most is how in the world did these original Aryans bring their Dagestani genetic component into south-asia. I mean its telling when the two surviving non-Indo-European speaking Pakistani populations: the Brahui (Dravidian) and Burusho (linguistic isolate) tend to carry less Dagestani admixture than their Indo-Iranian counterparts.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UOHFTxL-bOA/TQuHfDc4FtI/AAAAAAAAAQk/bx6NRagQN5k/s1600/ADMIXTURE_10.png

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2010/12/dages.png

Well it could mean Proto-I-E's took Dagestani-like women as their wives. When trying to figure out this riddle it's better to look past all the biases.. Russians with their Pan-Slavicism, Indians with their Indo-centrism & Dienekes is probably just some Middle-Eastern guy who would place the PIE homeland under his feet just for the fuck of it. AFAIK he supports a PIE urheimat in Anatolia, kind of stupid.

aeon
2011-03-16, 00:32
your absolutely right, its doesn't matter if I consider the Dnieper and the Volga as being North European or not. What matters most is how in the world did these original Aryans bring their Dagestani genetic component into south-asia. I mean its telling when the two surviving non-Indo-European speaking Pakistani populations: the Brahui (Dravidian) and Burusho (linguistic isolate) tend to carry less Dagestani admixture than their Indo-Iranian counterparts.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UOHFTxL-bOA/TQuHfDc4FtI/AAAAAAAAAQk/bx6NRagQN5k/s1600/ADMIXTURE_10.png

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2010/12/dages.png

This "Dagestani" admixture was brought by Neolithic agricultural migrants from the Middle East. There is no reason to think that it was part of the original Aryans' gene pool. The original Aryans did not live in the Middle East including the Caucasus and were not Neolithic agriculturalists.

---------- Post added 2011-03-15 at 23:35 ----------


Russians with their Pan-Slavicism.

Supported by scientific facts.

Abstract The excavation of a frozen grave on the Kizil site (dated to be 2500 years old) in the Altai Republic (Central Asia) revealed a skeleton belonging to the Scytho-Siberian population. DNA was extracted from a bone sample and analyzed by autosomal STRs (short tandem repeats) and by sequencing the hypervariable region I (HV1) of the mitochondrial DNA. The resulting STR profile, mitochondrial haplotype, and haplogroup were compared with data from modern Eurasian and northern native American populations and were found only in European populations historically influenced by ancient nomadic tribes of Central Asia.

The assignment method was performed from only the allelic frequencies of the seven STR loci considered in the consensus genotype. The probability of observing an individual with the Kizil skeleton STR profile was the highest in the two eastern European populations (Russia and Poland). Indeed, the likelihood that the Kizil skeleton STR profile occurred in these two populations was 10 times higher than in other European populations, 100 times higher than in eastern Asian populations, and about 100,000 times higher than in Indian populations.

Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200402/ai_n9373553

conrad
2011-03-16, 00:37
This "Dagestani" admixture was brought by Neolithic agricultural migrants from the Middle East. There is no reason to think that it was part of the original Aryans' gene pool.

Then why is it only present in high castes but not in others? Your Neolithic theory makes no sense.

conrad
2011-03-16, 00:42
Supported by scientific facts.



On the contrary, findings showed that only west Slavs are related to the Afanasevo folk. Russians are almost completely left out, except a few near St.Petersburg.

Prithvi
2011-03-16, 01:41
Aryans were the people who used to live in Iran and migrated(invaded) to north western India and established the Vedic civilization. When it died out so did the aryans. Fragments of their culture still exist due to their religious text and the caste system.

Vedic people were not from Iran, and even if there was any sort of migration like that they would have recorded it in their texts like the Jewish people did the Vedic people dint and its one of the oldest Indo-European religion that is still being followed so obviously we know more about our religion than you guys.

Indus Valley Civilization that Eurocentrics claim that was "destroyed" by these "Invaders" shares most of its most of its symbolism and Iconography [Sacred Bull, Swastika, Wheel] and Architecture with Indo European/Vedic religious beliefs than with anything else. Most notable seal is the one called "Pashupati" which was made in Indus Valley in 3000/4000 B.C and thousands of years later the same symbolism is found on Celtic bronze pot made in 1st Century B.C and even most Eurocentric scholars believe this to be Indian Symbolism. :lol:

Vedic civilization and Sanskrit was there before the Iranian Avestan even by the origins of Indo European language & the Zoroastrian religion came after Hinduism and Buddhism.

Indo- Aryans dont share much genetic similarity with Iranic people. R1a is quite rare in Iran but it has high frequency in India and Pakistan.

R1a in South Asia has the highest level of diversity of Y-STR haplotype variation within R1a1a compared to Eastern or Western Europe.

South Asian R1a1a is OLDER than Eastern European R1a1a, suggesting that South Asia is the more likely locus of origin.

Obviously these people dint look like some fantasy Nordic people like Eurocentric people would like to imagine.:lol:

Prithvi
2011-03-16, 01:55
Then why is it only present in high castes but not in others? Your Neolithic theory makes no sense.

I doubt this even applies to Hindu Castes it seems like its mainly found in Muslim caste population of India and Pakistan especially among Shia muslims.


http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/middle-eastern-and-sub-saharan-lineages.html

aeon
2011-03-16, 07:54
On the contrary, findings showed that only west Slavs are related to the Afanasevo folk. Russians are almost completely left out, except a few near St.Petersburg.

So West Slavs are related to Afanasyevo. So much for your Dagestani babble.

---------- Post added 2011-03-16 at 06:55 ----------


Then why is it only present in high castes but not in others?

I do not know. All I know is that we are discussing original Aryans here, who by all tokens were North Europids and not Dagestani sand niggaz.

Polako
2011-03-16, 08:13
On the contrary, findings showed that only west Slavs are related to the Afanasevo folk. Russians are almost completely left out, except a few near St.Petersburg.

One of the near haplotypes was common in the Russian Federation and Ukraine, but not put on the map as multiple dots by the authors.

conrad
2011-03-16, 09:03
So much for your Dagestani babble.


It's not my babble but Dienekes', a man who knows more about genetics than you will ever know in your entire life. :)



I do not know. All I know is that we are discussing original Aryans here, who by all tokens were North Europids


Don't be so sure about that, I'd hate to see how you'd react when you find your fantasy flushed down the toilet as new genetic evidence might prove otherwise.

amenoameno
2011-03-16, 09:05
orginal aryan clearly an exotic face. At least judging from this statue.

conrad
2011-03-16, 09:09
orginal aryan clearly an exotic face. At least judging from this statue.

Are you retarded or something? That statue is from Mohenjo-daro (pre-Aryan).

Gungnir
2011-03-16, 10:12
It cracks me up when people try to prove the ethnicity of a people based on stylized art. "See the marks in the hair? That means they had curly hair and were black!" lmao

Pioterus
2011-03-16, 10:59
T
Dark skin in Sanskirt is "Krsna Tvac" and Light skin is "Shweta Tvac"

Rama is described as Krsna Tvac and he is descended from Vedic Solar Dynasty and Goddess Saraswati is described as Shweta Tvac and she is mother of Vedas.

Geez - did anyone of slavic speakers noticed that? Krsna Tvac sounds almost like Krasna/ Krassiwija Twarz - Beautiful Face (in some mix between russian and polish languages) and Shweta Tvac is Święta/ Świetlista Twarz - meaning (in contemporary polish I mind you!) Saint Face/ Radiating Face.

I think someone should make some studies on similarities between living slavonic languages and sanskrit and do it NOW! Dump the old Church Slavonic, use the REAL languages.

Loxias
2011-03-16, 11:12
So would the word for black/dark in Sanskrit (kṛṣṇa) share the same root with the modern Slavic word for red and beautiful?
I wonder how such a thing could have happened. Perhaps a connection to blood (krov?) that can look both red and dark according to circumstances?

Wojewoda
2011-03-16, 11:13
Geez - did anyone of slavic speakers noticed that? Krsna Tvac sounds almost like Krasna/ Krassiwija Twarz - Beautiful Face (in some mix between russian and polish languages) and Shweta Tvac is Święta/ Świetlista Twarz - meaning (in contemporary polish I mind you!) Saint Face/ Radiating Face.

I think someone should make some studies on similarities between living slavonic languages and sanskrit and do it NOW! Dump the old Church Slavonic, use the REAL languages.

I think you will like the following thread then (in Polish):

http://histmag.org/forum/index.php/topic,10317.msg221384.html#msg221384

Pioterus
2011-03-16, 11:19
I think you will like the following thread then (in Polish):

http://histmag.org/forum/index.php/topic,10317.msg221384.html#msg221384

I know it Woj, I started my "education" there :D

http://histmag.org/forum/index.php?board=211.0

Viraj and Skaurus are discussing extremely interesting stuff and they do it in a very non-biased way. :thumbsup:

---------- Post added 2011-03-16 at 11:24 ----------


So would the word for black/dark in Sanskrit (kṛṣṇa) share the same root with the modern Slavic word for red and beautiful?
I wonder how such a thing could have happened. Perhaps a connection to blood (krov?) that can look both red and dark according to circumstances?

Also Tvac - Twarz (more or less Tvash for english speakers)

I suppose a lot of Ph.D's could be written on this, the problem is that western "slavic langauges specialists" can't even speak any slavic language (I mean really speak!) - how could they make any research?
I know it is almost impossible to learn Polish, but hey - Norman Davies, a welsh historian, did it very well.

I see a field for russian/ polish/ balcan/ etc... researchers, young and rebellious ones. REBEL against old wisdom, research new discoveries.

Wojewoda
2011-03-16, 12:02
So would the word for black/dark in Sanskrit (kṛṣṇa) share the same root with the modern Slavic word for red and beautiful?
I wonder how such a thing could have happened. Perhaps a connection to blood (krov?) that can look both red and dark according to circumstances?

Here is the standard etymology:



Krishna

eighth avatar of Vishnu, 1875, from Skt. krshnah, lit. "the Black One," from PIE *kers-no-, suffixed form of base *kers- "dark, dirty" (cf. O.C.S. crunu, Rus. coron, Serbo-Cr. crn, Czech cerny, O.Prus. krisnas "black," Lith. kersas "black and white, variegated").





"Arjuna said, 'I will, O son of Virata, tell thee my ten names. Listen thou and compare them with what thou hadst heard before. Listen to them with close attention and concentrated mind. They are Arjuna, Falguna, Jishnu, Kiritin, Swetavahana, Vibhatsu, Vijaya, Krishna, Savyasachin and Dhananjaya."

"Uttara said, 'Tell me truly why art thou called Vijaya, and why Swetavahana. Why art thou named Krishna and why Arjuna and Falguna and Jishnu and Kiritin and Vibhatsu, and for what art thou Dhananjaya and Savyasachin? I have heard before about the origin of the several names of that hero, and can put faith in thy words if thou canst tell me all about them.'

"Arjuna said, 'They called me Dhananjaya because I lived in the midst of wealth, having subjugated all the countries and taking away their treasures. They called me Vijaya because when I go out to battle with invincible kings, I never return (from the field) without vanquishing them. I am called Swetavahana because when battling with the foe, white horses decked in golden armour are always yoked unto my car. They call me Falguna because I was born on the breast of the Himavat on a day when the constellation Uttara Falguna was on the ascendent. I am named Kiritin from a diadem, resplendent like the sun, having been placed of old on my head by Indra during my encounter with the powerful Danavas. I am known as Vibhatsu among gods and men, for my never having committed a detestable deed on the battle-field. And since both of my hands are capable of drawing the Gandiva, I am known as Savyasachin among gods and men. They call me Arjuna because my complexion is very rare within the four boundaries of the earth and because also my acts are always stainless. I am known among human beings and celestials by the name of Jishnu, because I am unapproachable and incapable of being kept down, and a tamer of adversaries and son of the slayer of Paka. And Krishna, my tenth appellation, was given to me by my father out of affection towards his black-skinned boy of great purity.'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04044.htm

But "krishna" sounds indeed much more like "krasna" which means both "beautiful" and "red"/"bright red" in the feminine gender:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Polish

If I new anything about linguistics I would bet some money that in Vedic Sanscrit "krs" or "krsn" meant also "beautiful". But unfortunately I don't.

EDIT: Here we go:



ākṛṣṭa — attracted; SB 4.26.13


http://vedabase.net/a/akrsta

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attractive

;)

EDIT: Bingo!



The very name Kṛṣṇa indicates the all-attractive person, and thus Lord Kṛṣṇa, the source of all beauty and pleasure, is certainly "the favorite thing or person; delight; and pleasure." Ultimately these terms can refer only to Kṛṣṇa.


http://bhagavatam.net/sb/10/27/4/

Pioterus
2011-03-16, 12:13
But "krishna" sounds indeed much more like "krasna" which means both "beautiful" and "red"/"bright red" in the feminine gender:

I think the key lies in "sounds (...) like" the problem with this old approach is that it was used by scientist who never spoke ANY slavic language, they couldn't "taste" it or listen to words they were "dismembering". They couldn't tell a difference between Czarny, Crny (black) and Krasny (beautiful, red)?
Why there was never any living language used, language that has ascertained continuity through ages as for example polish? Most modern slavic languages were reconstructed from scraps during XIX century, polish and russian were the only two that were still in wide use since... ever = PIE (I mean they evolved continously from PIE to modernity). No one cared to base their studies on them, but instead on some articficial OCS?

Geez who called them scientist? Themselves?

Polako
2011-03-16, 12:18
Geez - did anyone of slavic speakers noticed that? Krsna Tvac sounds almost like Krasna/ Krassiwija Twarz - Beautiful Face (in some mix between russian and polish languages) and Shweta Tvac is Święta/ Świetlista Twarz - meaning (in contemporary polish I mind you!) Saint Face/ Radiating Face.

This is absolutely incredible. It's almost modern Polish, if you ignore the spelling.

---------- Post added 2011-03-16 at 11:26 ----------


It's not my babble but Dienekes', a man who knows more about genetics than you will ever know in your entire life. :)

Ancient DNA results show R1a1a to be Andronovo, Corded Ware and Tarim Basin. Talk about a smoking gun. Other ancient DNA shows J (F*) and G to be Neolithic.

But Dieneks seems to think that J and G are Indo-European.

So either he's not smart enough to draw the right conclusions from the obvious data we have, or he's biased and will keep dribbling shit until more ancient DNA comes through, including full genome sequences of the Andronovo mummies. And then he'll hopefully find another hobby.

Pioterus
2011-03-16, 12:27
This is absolutely incredible. It's almost modern Polish, if you ignore the spelling.

I think in regards to civilisations and science this kind of things are called "blind spots".
How this happened? In this case simply - Kultur Kampf of XIX century, myths of Celts being steppic nomads etc... all the western linguists of old were simply too biased to see that.

And then came ze Germans with their nazi ubermensch and it seems they simply stole it from... us and then tried to remove "Ze Original AR1Ans" ;) from face of the planet (they carried a lot of genocides against polish inteligentsia, the simple folk were to remain as slave labour).

Wasn't Nietsche a true unsung genius, maybe he truly was a Pole or a Sorb as he felt he was?:

"Aber auch als Pole bin ich
ein ungeheurer Atavismus. Man würde Jahrhunderte zurückzugehn haben,
um diese vornehmste Rasse, die es auf Erden gab, in dem Masse
instinktrein zu finden, wie ich sie darstelle."

Ecce Homo - available at Project Gutenberg

Wojewoda
2011-03-16, 12:43
(...) Light skin is "Shweta Tvac" (...)

"Shweta" sounds like "święta" in Polish meaning "saint" (in feminitive gender), but also has the same root as "święta" (holidays), "świecić" (to give light), "świt" (dawn/sunrise) and "świat" (the world), "oświecić" (to enlighten).

Sounds like solar cult or fire worshiping to me.

Pioterus
2011-03-16, 12:49
"Shweta" sounds like "święta" in Polish meaning "saint" (in feminitive gender), but also has the same root as "święta" (holidays), "świecić" (to give light), "świt" (dawn/sunrise) and "świat" (the world), "oświecić" (to enlighten).

Sounds like solar cult or fire warshiping to me.

Sauromats - Svaromats - those who pray to Svar (Swar in polish means very hot weather, a ubersunny, hot day).

Saruman! :D

Wojewoda
2011-03-16, 13:04
Sauromats - Svaromats - those who pray to Svar (Swar in polish means very hot weather, a ubersunny, hot day).

Saruman! :D

I have always believed that Sauromates were called this way by the Greeks because they invented - or at least used extensively - "scale armour" (see picture) which looked to Greeks as the skin of the lizard:



(...) σαῦρος (sauros meaning "lizard" or "reptile").

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_squamata

So lizard-people - reptalians. ;)

Pioterus
2011-03-16, 13:13
I am not a linguist, in fact I am economist, so please note (for non-polish speakers) the striking resemblance found in my previous posts - they are striking for a man from a street.

Those Suromatai - Svaromatai thing is just why this similarities should be checked closely by real, scientifically prepared linguists - to avoid some nonsense and find the "ultimate" truth, not to establish new, now "panslavic", myths.

I, myself, am used to be treated as second class white man by westerners, my self esteem lies too deep to be hurted or bolstered by any new discovery of my peoples past. I live for the future and in present I want to build a better world for my children.

But I cannot help myself... (...)Saruman, the white but Saruman of many colours (...) :D

Polako
2011-03-16, 15:40
^ There's a fairly young type of R1a1a1, possibly a subclade, shared by Poles and North Indians, which fits quite well with these crazy language similarities.

Honestly, I didn't know how similar they were until this thread today. Some of these phrases are basically as if someone was speaking with a funny accent in Polish.

Wojewoda
2011-03-16, 16:28
^ There's a fairly young type of R1a1a1, possibly a subclade, shared by Poles and North Indians, which fits quite well with these crazy language similarities.

Does it have a name in Peter Grozdz classification?

Pioterus
2011-03-16, 19:16
^ There's a fairly young type of R1a1a1, possibly a subclade, shared by Poles and North Indians, which fits quite well with these crazy language similarities.

Honestly, I didn't know how similar they were until this thread today. Some of these phrases are basically as if someone was speaking with a funny accent in Polish.

I definitely suggest you reading the histmag.org discussions as linked in previous e-mails (unless you know them). I am pretty sure you could also contribute greatly to them :evilgrin:

conrad
2011-03-17, 06:35
, including full genome sequences of the Andronovo mummies.

When will they do that already? That should have been their first priority! :mad:
In the mean time anyone who wants to know how Aryan they are should just add a Tajik on 23andme and compare themselves to him/her.

Prithvi
2011-03-18, 11:04
^ There's a fairly young type of R1a1a1, possibly a subclade, shared by Poles and North Indians, which fits quite well with these crazy language similarities.

Honestly, I didn't know how similar they were until this thread today. Some of these phrases are basically as if someone was speaking with a funny accent in Polish.

Sanskrit is the oldest of all Indo Iranian/Indo Aryan languages.

Prithvi
2011-03-18, 11:05
Geez - did anyone of slavic speakers noticed that? Krsna Tvac sounds almost like Krasna/ Krassiwija Twarz - Beautiful Face (in some mix between russian and polish languages) and Shweta Tvac is Święta/ Świetlista Twarz - meaning (in contemporary polish I mind you!) Saint Face/ Radiating Face.

I think someone should make some studies on similarities between living slavonic languages and sanskrit and do it NOW! Dump the old Church Slavonic, use the REAL languages.

Geez there was no Slavic languages before Sanskrit.

Sanskrit talks about the Solar Dynasty/ Raghu race = Descendent's of Vedic Solar Dynasty invading central Asia steppes to Transoxiana also known as "Vankshu" in Sanskrit.

"The warrior Raghu leads a military expedition to Transoxiana. He defeats and subjugates local people along the way (presumably on his march through Central Asia) until he reaches the Vankshu, as the ancient Indians called the Oxus River. There, Raghu's army battles the Hepthalites, or White Huns, whom the Indians called Hunas and Mlecchas (barbarians). The Hepthalites are defeated, and the Raghuvamsha boasts of "The exploits of Raghu, whose valor expressed itself amongst the husbands of the Huna women, became manifest in the scarlet color of their cheeks."

This was later turned in to Poem and Drama in 1st century B.C by Kalidasa called "Raghuvamsa" which translates to "Raghu Clan".

6th century Gothic historian

"The Western Huns, upon the death of Attila, "disfigured their faces horribly, with deep wounds, so that the gallant warrior should be mourned not with the lamentations and tears of women, but with the blood of men." A similar custom was observed among the Kutrigurs, Turks, Magyars, and Tajiks."

Prithvi
2011-03-18, 11:27
Are you retarded or something? That statue is from Mohenjo-daro (pre-Aryan).

Ermm try to respect other peoples opinion instead of calling them retarded.

Indus Valley Civilization has more to do with Vedic religious believes, Symbolism and Iconography than with any other civilization.

All the way from Swastikas and Fire pitts and Sacred bulls and step well are Vedic religious believes and well known Indus Valley stamp called "Pashupati" which was made in 3000 B.C and the same Iconography is found on 1st century B.C Gundestrup cauldron bowl and most scholars believe this to be Indian Symbolism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashupati
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundestrup_cauldron

conrad
2011-03-18, 15:02
A very good paper about the Indo-Aryans & the Slavic connection:


If we do the math, using the published statistics, we see that in Europe, ~61 million Slavic
speaking males have the genetic marker R1a1, but on the Indian sub-continent, the number is
almost four times higher, at ~240 million males.


Therefore, the R1a1 expansion from the Indian sub-continent to the Balkans must have
occurred prior to this Finno-Ugric expansion ~10,000 years ago; thus avoiding an mixing
with the populations with the Finno-Ugric genetic marker.
The reverse major population movement, from Europe to India, within the last 10,000
years, is highly unlikely. Such a migration would have brought a Finno-Ugric genetic
marker Hg N3 and also the paleolithic, more than 20,000 years old Hg I to India.


the subsequent split into Slavic and Indo-Aryan speakers predates the origin of farming.



It is significant, that Hg N3 and also Hg I did not reach Iran and India. This can be
taken as another indication that the migration(s) carrying Hg R1a1 did not originate in
Europe. A northern, central or east European origin of Hg R1a1, and the subsequent
expansions and migrations would have picked up both Hg I and Hg N3 chromosomes and
the linguistic affinities with Sanskrit and taken them eastward in the direction of India.
However, high frequency of Hg R1a1 chromosomes, and the high linguistic affinities with
Sanskrit are primarily common only to Slavic and Indo-Aryan populations. This is not the
case for other European or eastern European genetic markers such as Hg I and Hg N3,
since Hg I and Hg N3 are absent from India.


Furthermore, their data shows that the highest frequency of what could be the oldest
c-haplotype, namely c-Ht 17 of the M17 lineage, occurs in India, where it was observed
in 10.5% of the males or ~57.5 million men. In Eastern Europe, it occurs at 9.5% or in
~12 million males, in the Balkans at 3.8%, in Western Europe at 0.3% and Middle East
at 2.5%. Another haplotype, c-Ht 19 has been found almost exclusively in the Balkans,
Eastern Europe and India. Here again India represents 8%, Eastern Europe 4%, Balkans
0.5% and Western Europe 0.2% of the male population with this haplotype. The percentages
and absolute numbers suggest the direction of the gene flow. These statistics are also an
indication that the gene flow appears to be from India to Europe.

http://www.korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik08/indo_aryan.pdf

Could it be? Slavs came from India? Mind-boggling stuff, if true.

Wojewoda
2011-03-18, 16:18
Could it be? Slavs came from India? Mind-boggling stuff, if true.

Source:

The Hindu Institute of Learning, Toronto, Canada

:whoco:

conrad
2011-03-18, 16:39
Source:

The Hindu Institute of Learning, Toronto, Canada

:whoco:

So? Some good points were still made. I'm sure many of these "studies" on the Andronovo remains were done by people of European descent & you don't seem to have a problem with that, so why complain about this?

BTW I can refute one of their arguments at the top of my head.
Reason why haplogroup I wasn't found alongside R1a1 in India is because most of haplogroup I (I1a) spread to Eastern Europe very recently with the expansion of east Germanic tribes. In Poland it was with the various Germanic tribes like Vandals, Goths, etc. & In Russia it was with the Varangians, so this was all A.D.

Wojewoda
2011-03-18, 16:50
I'm sure many of these "studies" on the Andronovo remains were done by people of European descent & you don't seem to have a problem with that, so why complain about this?

But they were at least scientists. I am sure that "The Hindu Institute of Learning, Toronto, Canada" doesn't employ scientists. It probably even doesn't exist at all.

EDIT. Come on, this is the work of some crazy Slovenian nationalists:



In many instances, the Slovenian language appears to be gramatically closer to
Sanskrit than other Slavic languages and even Indic languages such as Hindi, Bengali and
Gujarati.


...who had read too much Alinei with his PCT:


The coalescence of Hg R1a1, the most frequent genetic marker in Indo-Aryan and
Slavic populations, very likely occurred more than 100,000 years ago. Only if the most
recent common ancestor of such a large percentage of Indo-Aryans and the Slavs lived
more than 100,000 years ago, could the male population with this genetic marker grow
to such high absolute numbers of 325 million men representing more than ~10 % of the
world’s total male population.

:whoco:

conrad
2011-03-19, 10:50
But they were at least scientists. I am sure that "The Hindu Institute of Learning, Toronto, Canada" doesn't employ scientists.


What's your definition of scientist? You mean someone who gets paid for their work? Anyone can be a scientist, even amateur geneticists like Dienekes. I guess if you're employed with some University it makes it "official" though.



It probably even doesn't exist at all.

A simple google search shows that it does exist.



EDIT. Come on, this is the work of some crazy Slovenian nationalists:


What Slovenian would take the effort to claim that Aryan invasion of India didn't happen? The paper gave you Slovenian words as examples, nothing that you can't go and verify yourself. By the way, notice that Slovenians have the highest concentration of dots considering their small area:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Ystr.jpg

Pioterus
2011-03-19, 13:02
Geez there was no Slavic languages before Sanskrit.

Yeah, sure, they stilled dwelled in proto-Pripet marshes, just starting to learn how to get from tree-tops to walk the earth.

You know what - you still keep the old, retarded, Kultur Kampf allochtonic theory about slavyans originating out of blue in VI century AD, alive. It's genetic genealogists like Underhill who already put this theory where it belongs - into the german-nationalistic/ WEuropeanocentric set of fairytales. Altogether with steppic celts theories.

It's funny how non-europeans keep the old dead european battles alive :whoco:

---------- Post added 2011-03-19 at 13:32 ----------

And for the record - I do not believe some 2500-3500 YBP there was any slavic language similar to polish or russian. And as I already written here - those are only two slavonic languages that continously evolved from their PIE-root to modernity. I do not believe there is any other direct descendant of PIE proto language families (as PIE surely was not any existing language of it's own) alive today.

With Arya's conquering India we look into some steppic IE horse riding "bandits", self proclaimed ubermenschen, godlike-supermen-rapists and so on, a standard ideology behind all european conquests done anywhere in the world. There is really no point to think they were a bit different from Nazis or English rulers of India in their onw time.

All western indo-european languages have tons and tons of semitic and old-euro admixtures and the rest is old dead. That's why I am amazed no one made an approach at drawing comparisons between sanskrit and both of polish and russian.

Based on what I got from Mr Kortland's: www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art066e.pdf

And he's a dutch guy, not some slavocentrist.

conrad
2011-03-23, 10:25
What do you guys think of Dienekes blog about Hurrians?


Interestingly, the names of the kings of the Mitanni state were of Indo-Aryan origin, and
a number of Indo-Aryan gods (Mitra, Varuza, Indra, Nāsatya) are mentioned in the Mitanni
texts, alongside the indigenous gods (cf. Burrow 1973:27—30). The Hittite archives of Àattušaš
have revealed the oldest known horse-training manual. This work, written ca. 1345 BCE by a
Mitanni horse-trainer named Kikkuli4, contains 1080 lines on four tablets. It begins with the
words: ‘Thus speaks Kikkuli, master horse-trainer of the land of Mitanni’. Several Indo-Aryan
technical terms for horse training are mentioned in this manual: aikawartanna ‘one turn (of the
course)’ (cf. Sanskrit eka-vartana-), terawartanna ‘three turns’ (cf. Sanskrit tri-), panzawartanna
‘five turns’ (cf. Sanskrit pañca-), sattawartanna ‘seven turns’ (cf. Sanskrit sapta-), and
nawartanna (for *nawa-wartanna) ‘nine turns’ (cf. Sanskrit nava-). The word aššuššanne
‘horse-trainer’ combines the Hurrian suffix -anne with an Indo-Aryan-sounding root aššušš
(cf. Sanskrit áśva-‘horse’).

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/02/common-ancestor-of-indo-european-and.html

http://www.nostratic.ru/books/%28432%29bomhard-hurrian.pdf

conrad
2011-03-31, 20:09
How is that "more plausible"? At least aeon can cite research that shows the Andronovo skeletons were predominatly fair-haired, and that the Andronovo culture has been linked to the Indo-Iranians.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/

The most important thing about Aryans are that they practiced cremation and the bodies disposal to open air. Kurgan people, Andronovo people all of them practiced grave burial which has nothing to do with Aryan practices.

Polako
2011-04-03, 05:28
The most important thing about Aryans are that they practiced cremation and the bodies disposal to open air. Kurgan people, Andronovo people all of them practiced grave burial which has nothing to do with Aryan practices.

The Aryans were a mix of Indo-Europeans and the sedentary populations they conquered. So their culture was not exactly like that of the proto-Indo-Europeans.

corda
2011-04-04, 08:25
The most important thing about Aryans are that they practiced cremation and the bodies disposal to open air. Kurgan people, Andronovo people all of them practiced grave burial which has nothing to do with Aryan practices.

Really?
http://books.google.pl/books?id=x5J9rn8p2-IC&lpg=PA340&ots=VNTeQY5lgB&dq=%22the%20main%20custom%20was%20cremation%22&pg=PA340#v=onepage&q=%22the%20main%20custom%20was%20cremation%22&f=false

EliasAlucard
2011-04-04, 10:52
A very good paper about the Indo-Aryans & the Slavic connection:

http://www.korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik08/indo_aryan.pdf

Could it be? Slavs came from India? Mind-boggling stuff, if true.It's possible, and there's likely some truth in this hypothesis considering how Europeans have a slight drag toward the east, on a PCA-plot, in comparison with Semites. However, this hypothesis that Slavs and other Indo-European speakers came to Europe from the Indian subcontinent, must've occurred at a time when there was no Australoid/Oceanic admixture in India. Because if modern Europeans have an Indian subcontinent ancestry, then there must be a good explanation as to why they lack Australoid admixture whereas modern Indo-Aryan speakers have a sizeable Tamil admix.

Just looking at the Y-DNA and ignoring the autosomal DNA is not a good way to establish a stable ancestry theory.

Vasishta
2011-04-04, 13:08
The Aryans were a mix of Indo-Europeans and the sedentary populations they conquered. So their culture was not exactly like that of the proto-Indo-Europeans.
Are you asserting that cremation as a custom is pre-Vedic in nature in a South Asian context?

But Dienekes seems to think that J and G are Indo-European.

Once again in an Indian context, it is the upper caste Hindus and the Indus Valley ethnic groups that have the highest amount of G and J2.

Surely the Indo-Aryans couldn't have assimilated so many non-Aryan (presumably of Neolithic origin?) males into their fold that too in such numbers (going by the frequency of J2 and G) given the staunchness and orthodoxy that they brought along with them in the form of Dharmashahstra - Varnashrama/the caste system.

J2 and G are concentrated within ethnic groups generally believed to have been descended from the ancient Vedic tribes - is it not plausible to atleast consider the possiblity that these two haplogroups formed part of the ethnogenesis of the Vedic Aryans, albeit secondary in comparison to R1a1a?

Polako
2011-04-04, 13:17
Are you asserting that cremation as a custom is pre-Vedic in nature in a South Asian context?

No, I'm saying it was apparently an Aryan custom, but the Aryans weren't the proto-Indo-Europeans, so it really doesn't matter that the Andronovo buried their dead in tombs.

---------- Post added 2011-04-04 at 12:26 ----------


Once again in an Indian context, it is the upper caste Hindus and the Indus Valley ethnic groups that have the highest amount of G and J2.

Surely the Indo-Aryans couldn't have assimilated so many non-Aryan (presumably of Neolithic origin?) males into their fold that too in such numbers (going by the frequency of J2 and G) given the staunchness and orthodoxy that they brought along with them in the form of Dharmashahstra - Varnashrama/the caste system.

J2 and G are concentrated within ethnic groups generally believed to have been descended from the ancient Vedic tribes - is it not plausible to atleast consider the possiblity that these two haplogroups formed part of the ethnogenesis of the Vedic Aryans, albeit secondary in comparison to R1a1a?

G and J2 might well be Indo-Aryan - ie. common in the ancestral groups that formed the Indo-Aryans. But I don't consider them early Indo-European - ie. they were not common in the groups that took part in the initial Indo-European expansion during the late chalcolithic.

Nigel
2011-04-06, 00:04
Where did the Indo-European language family originate in your view? India?

That I don't know for sure but Sanskrit is the real Aryan language and this has been spoken in Northern India. The speakers of Sanskrit created the Vedic Civilisation and only in this period these Indo-Europeans in India called themselves nobel or Aryan.

Nigel
2011-04-06, 03:01
Aryan speakers were Sanskrit speakers. Sanskrit is the Aryan language and the derived languages such as Hindi, Punjabi, Kashmiri etc descent from Sanskrit so present day Aryan speakers are mainly in India.

Italian Norman
2012-05-20, 21:00
I've not read all the pages of the thread, but I'll simply say what (IMO) are the Aryans:


The Aryans were those people that spoke an Indo-European language and designed themselves as "noble ones, etc...". Their Homeland was located in what is now the region of the lakes of Urmia and Van in Southern Caucasus-Anatolia. They were dark-haired, light (or light brown)-skinned brachycephals (most likely Taurids, Alpinids) and some East-Mediterranids and dolychocephals that moved eastward of the Caspian Sea, mixing with blonde-haired dolychocephals and, through teaching them their language, culture, religion, etc. they founded with them the Proto-Indo-Iranian culture, and from that location they spread their culture in the Indus Valley. They formed with the native population of Proto-Mediterranids (Dravidians) the Indus Valley Civilization. Later on, a portion of this population went westward because of internal problems (Mahabharata Wars) between the worshippers of the Vedic gods and those worshipping the new Zoroastrian faith. After the drying of the Saraswati river, a lot of problems made the people of Indus Valley migrate eastward, to the Ganga planes. Just in this period the Indus Valley people began to put on paper their religious and historical tradition (RigVeda).

VIKING75
2012-11-06, 08:15
[QUOTE=Indocentrist;169521]




And those inbred rajput rajas look no different from these "pariahs", you deluded crackpot. Actually they look blacker than sudras like the jats and outcastes like the chamars.



Just to let you know that Jats are not shudras . I DONT BELIEVE IN CASTE SYSTEM but the the haplogroups of the shudras referred as scheduled castes in modern connotations and the tribal population have completely different haplogroups than that of Jats of India. Jats have haplogroups R1a1a in high percentange. Not required to give further details about R1a1a ,its self explanatory now who Jats are.