Nungali Posted July 4, 2017 here is more infor on Aryans ... from an academic historical perspective ... not quick google of the word'Aryan' , nor wiki , nor listening to ranting ; Who were the Aryans? Aryans of the Avesta and Rig Veda The Indo-Iranian group whose members composed the Zoroastrian scriptures, the Avesta, and the Hindu scriptures such as the Vedas, called themselves Aryans (Airya/Airyan in the Avesta and Arya/Aryan in the Vedas). The Zoroastrian and Hindu scriptures are the only known ancient texts that contain references to Aryans. Of these two sources, the Avesta contains the preponderance of references to being Aryan, a concept central to the Avesta and Zoroastrian heritage. The next contemporaneous references are in the inscriptions of the Achaemenian Persians (see Achaemenian History as well as our page on Naqsh-e Rustam), and classical Greek texts such as those of Herodotus and Strabo [Aria, Arioi, Ariane etc.], where the the references are exclusively regarding the Medes' and Persians'ancestry and their Central Asian connections. Similarity in Avestan & Rig Vedic Languages The languages of the two scriptures, the Zoroastrian Avesta and Hindu Rig Veda, are similar but not identical, indicating that at the time of their composition, the people of the Avesta and the Rig Veda were related and close neighbours - in a fashion similar to two provinces within one country - provinces where the people spoke two dialects of the same language. The following is an example of the closeness of the Avestan Old Iranian and Rig-Vedic (Sanskrit) languages: Old Iranian/Avestan: aevo pantao yo ashahe, vispe anyaesham apantam (Yasna 72.11) Old Indian/Rig Vedic: abade pantha he ashae, visha anyaesham apantham Translation: the one path is that of Asha, all others are not-paths. [The Rig-Vedic translation of the Avestan was provided to this writer by Dr. Satyan Banerjee.] For further information, please see the Avestan Languages page. Aryan Homeland At the time the earliest sections of the Avesta and Rig Veda were composed, the Aryans were residents of the Aryan lands or Aryan nation, called Airyana Vaeja or Airyanam Dakhyunam in the Avesta and Arya Vartain the Hindu scriptures. In the Avestan and Hindu texts, Airyana Vaeja or Arya Varta was a beautiful but mysterious mountainous land (see Airyana Vaeja as Paradise). While the precise location of the original Aryan homeland is lost to us, we have been left with ample clues which allow us to draw reasonable conclusions about its likely location, the mountain regions of Central Asia. We further discuss the possible location of Airyana Vaeja in our Aryan Homeland Location page. Airyana Vaeja and the other nations of the Avesta are further referenced and listed in the Aryan Homeland in Scripture page. The name Airyana Vaeja was contracted over the years to Airan Vej, Iran Vej (in Middle Persian texts) and finally to Iran. The two Indo-Iranian Aryan groups eventually ceased to be close neighbours. They separated and migrated to present day India and Iran, becoming Indians and Iranians in the process. Therefore, as an added definition, the Aryans were those members of the Indo-Iranian family who originated in Airyana Vaeja or Arya Varta, the Aryan homeland. Reasons for Aryan Migration The reasons for the migration of the Aryans are discussed in the Aryan Homeland in Scripture page. The reasons for the separation of the two Aryan groups could have been a widening difference in their religious beliefs - beliefs that were antithetical to one another, but beliefs that nevertheless shared common roots. The separation is discussed further in the page on Aryan Religions. Climate change and a degradation of the food production capability of the original homeland could also have been a reason or an added reason. Aryan History The history of the Aryans is found in the scriptures of the original Aryans, the Avesta, the Vedas, supporting religious texts, and the legends as well - legends such as the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi. Historical evidence of Aryan trade and conquests provide supporting information. The early history of Zoroastrianism is closely intertwined with the history of the Aryans - a history we examine in some detail starting with our page on the Prehistory of the Aryans. http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/prehistory.htm and the westerners views on what they think 'Aryan' means ; http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/western.htm 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 Quote At the beginning of the 19th century, the Germans were going through a low phase in self esteem, for they had nor the cultural heritage like the British or French, and neither the expansion capabilities like other European powers. As a means to show that they came from great heritage, they started to look at the East as a possible "urheimat". The study of Indian Texts was just gaining popularity, and seeing the similarity in language, they proposed that India was the land they all came from. By the end of the century, owing to nationalistic, chauvinistic policies, this whole theory was reversed, and it was said that Indians came to India from Europe. The Britishers capitalised on this, and proposed the Aryan Invasion Theory, and later when enough evidence was not found for that, they changed it into the Aryan Migration Theory. https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-actual-Aryans-Europeans-Iranians-or-Indians Quote The Arya means noble or civilized in Sanskrit (Ancient Language of North India), which itself is the oldest understood Aryan language along with Avestan the language of the Ancient Iranians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 26 minutes ago, Nungali said: Europeans 'Aryans' That's a blatant racist phrase you are using. Quote For obvious reasons explained above, Jews and church leaders have attempted to obfuscate the true origins of the Aryan race. If you want to know the truth, please read the article at http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285. Balaresque et al. state: "The relative contributions to modern European populations of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers from the Near East have been intensely debated. Haplogroup R1b1b2 (R-M269) is the commonest European Y-chromosomal lineage, increasing in frequency from east to west, and carried by 110 million European men... The distribution of this lineage, the diversity within it, and estimates of its age all suggest that it spread with farming from the Near East. Taken with evidence on the origins of other lineages, this indicates that most European Y chromosomes descend from Near Eastern farmers... Previous studies suggested a Paleolithic origin, but here we show that the geographical distribution of its microsatellite diversity is best explained by spread from a single source in the Near East via Anatolia during the Neolithic ... in contrast, most maternal lineages descend from hunter-gatherers ..." In other words, most Europeans have Crô-Magnon mitochondrial DNA because Neolithic farmers took the land and women of the hunter-gatherers. NOTE: ISOGG changed the name of HG R1b1b2 (R-M269) to HG R1b1a2 (R-M269).If you do not agree with the above quote about the Fertile Crescent origins of the Aryan race, and refuse to read or believe any of the scientific articles that support the theory that the ancestors of all Eurasian races lived in the African Sahel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahel before they immigrated into the Fertile Crescent, why waste your time by reading any further? So http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2517 What's so hilarious about this stupid Aryan Empire Neo-nazi b.s. is that the racists cite the genetic research of "farmers" and say that the Aryan genetics if from the culture of farming. Yep - white skin is from Malnutrition from wheat monocultural farming lacking vitamin D. Hilarious! The rest of that article is hilarious! Quote The Aryan farmers who colonized southern Europe took their women. They are the ancestors of the dark skinned southern European "Whites". Aryan Europeans. A racist term if there ever was one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted July 4, 2017 What a great source ! and a post of quotes with no comments to show what point it is you think you are making .... .. and some 'selective quoting' as well ... well done ! Would you like some words you dont know so you can rush and look them up and try to find something to support your views of insisting Nazi definitions must be the ones that hold weight ? Looking at your quote ; Its some other dudes opinion . non referenced from a 'give your opinion site' and its worded like rubbish ! It is well known in the fields of anthropology and Archaeology that 'Empire based' Eurocentric views misinterpreted evidence up to a time when ( strangely enough other peoples and 3rd word countries started getting their own academic researchers and trained people in these fields. and ) 'evidence based ' research * began to hold sway . Before this the 'theory' was Aryan invasion of India. After that and after much more archaeology was done, the 'migration theory' became more prominent . There is also teh OOI theory (out of India theory ) which postulates anything from , a reversal of this process , to replacing Africa as the origin of mankind , its strongly supported by The Indian nationalist Party and fundamentalists that take the Vedas as literal historical truth . * See Toby Wilkinson ' A History of Ancient Egypt - From the First Farmers to the Great Pyramid ' ... he has a special section in it describing the reasons for , the advent of and how 'evidence based research' developed within archaeology . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted July 4, 2017 and now, you are putting up your own quotes and sources and you are criticising and mocking them yourself .... okay then , go for it ! Okay , I am out of here ... have fun with that . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 9 minutes ago, Nungali said: What a great source ! and a post of quotes with no comments to show what point it is you think you are making .... .. and some 'selective quoting' as well ... well done ! Would you like some words you dont know so you can rush and look them up and try to find something to support your views of insisting Nazi definitions must be the ones that hold weight ? Looking at your quote ; Its some other dudes opinion . non referenced from a 'give your opinion site' and its worded like rubbish ! It is well known in the fields of anthropology and Archaeology that 'Empire based' Eurocentric views misinterpreted evidence up to a time when ( strangely enough other peoples and 3rd word countries started getting their own academic researchers and trained people in these fields. and ) 'evidence based ' research * began to hold sway . Before this the 'theory' was Aryan invasion of India. After that and after much more archaeology was done, the 'migration theory' became more prominent . There is also teh OOI theory (out of India theory ) which postulates anything from , a reversal of this process , to replacing Africa as the origin of mankind , its strongly supported by The Indian nationalist Party and fundamentalists that take the Vedas as literal historical truth . * See Toby Wilkinson ' A History of Ancient Egypt - From the First Farmers to the Great Pyramid ' ... he has a special section in it describing the reasons for , the advent of and how 'evidence based research' developed within archaeology . Quote the old Aryan 'Empire' that stretched from (now ) western China to (now ) Turkey , Quote 'Caucasian Chinese mummies ' , how the Aryans were not to be defined by race or ethnicity Quote and put up a picture of a painting of an old Aryan King from Pishdadian dynasties ( before history ) in very much Chinese looking robes features and hairstyle. So you say Aryran was an "old empire" - and then you say that "caucasian" looking Chinese mummies are "not defined by race" - and then you say that an Aryan king has Chinese looking robes - yet you don't think that the Aryans created Chinese culture? Your claim is hilarious - it is full of confusion and self-circular tautologies. So take your first claim: Quote "Old aryan empire" Google search it. First hit: https://books.google.com/books?id=FOnsCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT284&lpg=PT284&dq="old+aryan+empire"&source=bl&ots=uQtVQt4brZ&sig=8DWn6a1I7n9_vMQtW043pB8goQQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnys_31O7UAhXDwVQKHSoEAxgQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q="old aryan empire"&f=false Quote The invention of history in this movement's written sources is quite amazing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted July 4, 2017 Before I go , though, for more rational others ... I never said where the people that came into Central Asia came from . Errrrmmmm .... all one has to do is follow the coast line out of Africa, through Ethiopia , hop a few 'sand bars' that blocked the two entrances to Red Sea and Persian Gulf .... and you are at the Indus and up into Central Asia . and we have good evidence of trade between ancient Tigris Euphrates area, Central Asia ( via southern shoreline and the Indus valley. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted July 4, 2017 11 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said: So you say Aryran was an "old empire" - Nope ! Go back and read what I DID write ! and ALLLLLL the references I made to explain it . 11 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said: and then you say that "caucasian" looking Chinese mummies are "not defined by race" - and then you say that an Aryan king has Chinese looking robes - yet you don't think that the Aryans created Chinese culture? Ummmm ... if one WERE to extrapolate as you are ... the above would seem to infer that the 'Aryan' King was Chinese ! 11 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said: Your claim is hilarious - it is full of confusion and self-circular tautologies. My claim ? Or what your mistaken ideas of about what my claim actually is ? If the 2nd , ... I agree then ... that is hilarious 11 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said: So take your first claim: Google search it. Ah yes ... google ''' the modern man;s educator 11 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said: First hit: https://books.google.com/books?id=FOnsCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT284&lpg=PT284&dq="old+aryan+empire"&source=bl&ots=uQtVQt4brZ&sig=8DWn6a1I7n9_vMQtW043pB8goQQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnys_31O7UAhXDwVQKHSoEAxgQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q="old aryan empire"&f=false okay, I play your stupid game and see what my computer puts up as first google hits < types in ' old aryan empire' > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_peoples ... do you even know how your google works ??? and why it throws certain sites up first . 'Aryan Empire ' ( note the punctuation marks ) is a collection of ' Nations ' (not the punctuation marks ) You a funny guy ..... do you know what it means when someone puts some thing in these things " .... " ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Nungali said: I also remind people that I am NOT suggesting Europeans 'Aryans' Quote It's always funny when Eastern or Northern Europeans claim Aryan ancestry or whatever. It would be like a Middle Eastern or South Asian trying to claim Slavic or Germanic ancestry. http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/24396-Aryan-theories/page22 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 45 minutes ago, Nungali said: Nope ! Go back and read what I DID write ! and ALLLLLL the references I made to explain it . Ummmm ... if one WERE to extrapolate as you are ... the above would seem to infer that the 'Aryan' King was Chinese ! My claim ? Or what your mistaken ideas of about what my claim actually is ? If the 2nd , ... I agree then ... that is hilarious Ah yes ... google ''' the modern man;s educator okay, I play your stupid game and see what my computer puts up as first google hits < types in ' old aryan empire' > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_peoples ... do you even know how your google works ??? and why it throws certain sites up first . 'Aryan Empire ' ( note the punctuation marks ) is a collection of ' Nations ' (not the punctuation marks ) You a funny guy ..... do you know what it means when someone puts some thing in these things " .... " ? So that's your Aryan Empire? (quotes meaning a collection of nations?). haha. It's not very old is it? Maybe 700 BCE. So the Oracle Bones you cite are from around 700 BCe. The Tarim Basim mummies go back much older. The Tocharian language in China is one of the oldest Indo-European languages - the 2nd oldest. So the Chariot-Horse Indo-European culture is looking more like this. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-29705.html Edwin Bryant - The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture (Oxford Uni. press / 2003) http://penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/52-3/mallory.pdf Quote The Iranian language group is very closely related to Indo-Aryan, the branch of Indo-European that occupies the northern two thirds of India; these language groups presumably shared a common origin in the steppe region, during the Bronze Age, perhaps around 2500 BCE. So your map refers to the "Iranian" language group - not the 'Indo-Aryan" language group. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Nungali said: What a great source ! and a post of quotes with no comments to show what point it is you think you are making .... .. and some 'selective quoting' as well ... well done ! Would you like some words you dont know so you can rush and look them up and try to find something to support your views of insisting Nazi definitions must be the ones that hold weight ? Looking at your quote ; Its some other dudes opinion . non referenced from a 'give your opinion site' and its worded like rubbish ! It is well known in the fields of anthropology and Archaeology that 'Empire based' Eurocentric views misinterpreted evidence up to a time when ( strangely enough other peoples and 3rd word countries started getting their own academic researchers and trained people in these fields. and ) 'evidence based ' research * began to hold sway . Before this the 'theory' was Aryan invasion of India. After that and after much more archaeology was done, the 'migration theory' became more prominent . There is also teh OOI theory (out of India theory ) which postulates anything from , a reversal of this process , to replacing Africa as the origin of mankind , its strongly supported by The Indian nationalist Party and fundamentalists that take the Vedas as literal historical truth . * See Toby Wilkinson ' A History of Ancient Egypt - From the First Farmers to the Great Pyramid ' ... he has a special section in it describing the reasons for , the advent of and how 'evidence based research' developed within archaeology . http://cameronfreeman.com/socio-cultural/anthropology-religion-asian-traditions/theocratic-stage-emerging-chinese-religious-thought-practice/ Sorry - no mention of Aryan in this great overview of Shang Oracle Bone divination and Taoist philosophy. Quote The first problem is that the bronze technology of the Shang has virtually nothing to do with the bronze technology of Western Asia. The west used bronze earlier, but used a lost wax process for their casting. The Chinese used a complicated piece-mold process for most of their Bronze Age, only adopting the lost wax process much later. “The fact that Chinese bronze workers used the complicated piece-mold process for most of their history suggests that the bronze industry in China developed independently from that of the West where lost-wax bronze casting had appeared by 3500 BC.”2 http://donlehmanjr.com/China/china chapters/china book2/china26.htm Edited July 4, 2017 by voidisyinyang Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 4, 2017 Maybe I could just call myself a Neanderthal? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kongming Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, voidisyinyang said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans So I think you wanting to claim Aryan for Proto-Indo-Europeans is blatantly racist. It's not about "claiming" anything and the term "Aryan" is as valid as the more politically correct and updated "Indo-European" and "Proto-Indo-European." The term "Aryan" was used by a wide variety of scholars with no connection with the National Socialists and, as I've shown, actually has cognates and connections with the various Indo-European cultures unlike the term "Indo-European." In the end you can call them what you wish. Indo-European is the preferred term today primarily due to the controversy surrounding the employment of the term "Aryan" by NS Germany. That said I find that shaping my choice of words or language or life based around what the Nazis may or may not have said or done to be a bore and therefore I do not. 10 hours ago, Nungali said: I have posted here elsewhere " how the Aryans were not to be defined by race or ethnicity " . After they had spread across Eurasia and mixed with various other non-Indo-European people, they could be said to be no longer defined by a particular ethnic type or appearance, such as the situation is today where Irishmen, Greeks, Iranians, and Indians all look very different. Though you can see this even in ancient times where some Persians, who had mixed with the more Mesopotamian/Near Eastern peoples of the area, looked different to the various Iranic speaking people of the steppe such as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, who were often noted to have blonde hair and confused with the Celts and other northern barbarians by the ancient Greeks. The point is that the Indo-Europeans or Aryans come from one root people who were of a particular ethnic type, namely Caucasoids with more Northern European associated features. The evidence is what I discussed earlier and it boggles my mind how anyone could really deny it after reviewing the evidence. The main sources of denial in this regard are political and emotional first and foremost: "Well the Nazis believed that therefore it's bad and we must believe something else" and because it irritates some Indian Hindu nationalist types who don't like the idea that their religious tradition and culture has roots in a people with a European phenotype, especially since the British had just left. Edited July 4, 2017 by Kongming 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blue eyed snake Posted July 4, 2017 thanks Nungali and Kongmin, this a most interesting thread 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kongming said: It's not about "claiming" anything and the term "Aryan" is as valid as the more politically correct and updated "Indo-European" and "Proto-Indo-European." The term "Aryan" was used by a wide variety of scholars with no connection with the National Socialists and, as I've shown, actually has cognates and connections with the various Indo-European cultures unlike the term "Indo-European." In the end you can call them what you wish. Indo-European is the preferred term today primarily due to the controversy surrounding the employment of the term "Aryan" by NS Germany. That said I find that shaping my choice of words or language or life based around what the Nazis may or may not have said or done to be a bore and therefore I do not. After they had spread across Eurasia and mixed with various other non-Indo-European people, they could be said to be no longer defined by a particular ethnic type or appearance, such as the situation is today where Irishmen, Greeks, Iranians, and Indians all look very different. Though you can see this even in ancient times where some Persians, who had mixed with the more Mesopotamian/Near Eastern peoples of the area, looked different to the various Iranic speaking people of the steppe such as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, who were often noted to have blonde hair and confused with the Celts and other northern barbarians by the ancient Greeks. The point is that the Indo-Europeans or Aryans come from one root people who were of a particular ethnic type, namely Caucasoids with more Northern European associated features. The evidence is what I discussed earlier and it boggles my mind how anyone could really deny it after reviewing the evidence. The main sources of denial in this regard are political and emotional first and foremost: "Well the Nazis believed that therefore it's bad and we must believe something else" and because it irritates some Indian Hindu nationalist types who don't like the idea that their religious tradition and culture has roots in a people with a European phenotype, especially since the British had just left. You seem fixated on using the term "Aryan" and then claim that it is not because the Nazis used it. haha. Hilarious. You first state "linguistic" evidence - but the Wiki link I showed you already points out that only the Indian and Iranian cultures identified their people as a whole as Aryans - while the other linguistic links use Aryan to refer to an elite caste of people. The Nazi use of the term Aryan also referred to an elite caste of people. Therefore Aryan only applies to a particular region of people at a particular time and any other use of it is aligned with the Nazi use of the term - that is why academics don't use the term Aryan. Quote "Oswald Szemerényi has suggested[1][7] that *arya- is a loanword from an Ugaritic word meaning "kinsmen", from Proto-Afro-Asiatic *ħər (“free, noble”)" Actually, the Ugaritic word noted by Szemerényi is ’ary 'kinsman', from a different root (*ʔar-), but if we see the meaning of the terms derived from the Afro-Asiatic root proposed above, one is surprised by their close similarity with the meanings of the Indo-European terms. http://new-indology.blogspot.gr/2017/01/the-term-aryan-and-its-semitic-cognates.html So even linguistically - the term Aryan has nothing to do with certain "phenotypes." You want to connect the word Aryan to phenotype and then even connect that to European "phenotypes" - again this is just Neo-Nazi rhetoric. Quote Caucasoids with more Northern European associated features. That's Aryan to you? Hilarious - that is the standard Nazi definition of Aryan. Quote Then, the similarity of form and use of the Afro-Asiatic root *ħar/ħur- and IE *Har-ya/o- (with the adjectival suffix -ya/yo-) suggest that these concepts of nobility and freedom developed in a common cultural frame of a society where slavery and social stratification were evolving: this was possible with the Neolithic revolution, that with agriculture required hard labour and produced a surplus that allowed to maintain slaves, and was also associated with conflicts and trade that made possible the acquisition of slaves. The Semitic and the Indo-European cultural worlds appear thus to be parallel developments of the Neolithic of the Fertile Crescent: in this cultural 'tree', the Indo-Iranian branch (differently from the other Indo-Europeans) chose to name itself with the adjective or name connected with that root. As if they did not admit that members of their own people could be slaves (and normally slaves were foreigners), and/or because they believed to be especially noble in their behaviour or lineage. O.K. so the use of the word Aryan is very limited and has a particular cultural origin. Now you want to talk about Northern European phenotypes? haha. Basically the genetics are primarily from the farmers - who again got white skin from wheat malnutrition - lack of vitamin D in the diet. This farming culture started around 11,000 BCE. So what happened is that it created ecological disaster - since the forest was cut down so people could water proof their houses from the ash. Hilarious since no forest, then no rain anyway. So then from this ecological disaster of early wheat monoculture - two things happened - you had white skin farmers escape as refugee immigrants into Europe - where the people were dark skin Africans as hunter-gatherers. That was around 9,000 BCE. Also you had pastoralism develop as an escape method to the wheat monocultural farming. So then the pastoralist Yamnaya culture is Indo-European - but NOT Aryan - and the Yamnaya culture then spread into Europe around when.... http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/thousands-horsemen-may-have-swept-bronze-age-europe-transforming-local-population Quote about 5000 years ago So this is much later - Europe already had white skin people primarily from the farmers. Northern European blue eyes - like in Sweden - is also from dark skin albino eye-Africans. But the primary source of white skin in Europe is from the early wheat farmers - lack of vitamin D in the diet. Quote First, a group of hunter-gatherers arrived in Europe about 37,000 years ago. Then, farmers began migrating from Anatolia (a region including present-day Turkey) into Europe 9000 years ago, but they initially didn’t intermingle much with the local hunter-gatherers because they brought their own families with them. Finally, 5000 to 4800 years ago, nomadic herders known as the Yamnaya swept into Europe. They were an early Bronze Age culture that came from the grasslands, or steppes, of modern-day Russia and Ukraine, bringing with them metallurgy and animal herding skills and, possibly, Proto-Indo-European, the mysterious ancestral tongue from which all of today’s 400 Indo-European languages spring. They immediately interbred with local Europeans, who were descendants of both the farmers and hunter-gatherers. Within a few hundred years, the Yamnaya contributed to at least half of central Europeans’ genetic ancestry. So as I have pointed out - the white skin of Europe primarily came from the farmers of the near east-West Asia: http://sciencevibe.com/2017/05/25/most-modern-europeans-white-skin-did-not-evolve-in-europe-at-all/ Quote But not only did Europeans have dark skin for far longer than previously thought, it turns out that what’s more is that white skin for most modern Europeans did not evolve in Europe at all. A new genetic analysis of an ancient European hunter-gatherer man has revealed that he had dark skin and blazing blue eyes which has lead scientist to rethink how white skin evolved. Quote light skin evolved not to adjust to the lower-light conditions in Europe compared with Africa, but instead to the new diet that emerged after the agricultural revolution. And so Northern Europeans have more blue eyes from the African albinos. Blue eyes is an albino gene. Quote The new analysis of that DNA now shows the man had the gene mutation for blue eyes, but not the European mutations for lighter skin. The DNA also shows that the man was more closely related to modern-day northern Europeans than to southern Europeans. The discovery may explain why baby blues are more common in Scandinavia. It's been thought that poor conditions in northern Europe delayed the agricultural revolution there, so Scandinavians may have more genetic traces of their hunter-gatherer past — including a random blue-eye mutation that emerged in the small population of ancient hunter-gatherers, Lalueza-Fox said. https://www.livescience.com/42838-european-hunter-gatherer-genome-sequenced.html Quote Europeans were not what many people today would call 'Caucasian', said Guido Barbujani, president of the Associazione Genetica Italiana in Ferrara, Italy, who was not involved in the study. Instead, "what seems likely, then, is that the dietary changes accompanying the so-called Neolithic revolution, or the transition from food collection to food production, might have caused, or contributed to cause, this change," Barbujani said. So now the term Aryan is not valid to describe European phenotypes. haha. Time to lose the Nazi terminology. http://new-indology.blogspot.gr/ Kongming read this: Quote All this has nothing to do, fortunately, with the disastrous and artificial concept of a Nordic 'Aryan race'. THEREFORE WRONG: Quote The point is that the Indo-Europeans or Aryans come from one root people who were of a particular ethnic type, namely Caucasoids with more Northern European associated features. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/science/agriculture-linked-to-dna-changes-in-ancient-europe.html?mcubz=1 Quote Now, in the first study of its kind, an international team of scientists has found that after agriculture arrived in Europe 8,500 years ago, people’s DNA underwent widespread changes, altering their height, digestion, immune system and skin color. Quote The authors reiterated that there was a massive genetic difference between the first farmers who arrived in Sweden ~5,000 years ago, and a native hunter-gatherer tradition....In other words, two contemporaneous ancient populations in Sweden which were in near proximity for many generations had a genetic distance on the order of half the distance of Eurasia today.... But it is in the functional genome where there’s a twist on the story: the farmers may have looked physically more like modern Swedes than the hunters. That’s because at two SNPs which are fixed (in SLC24A5) or nearly fixed (in SLC45A5) in modern Europeans yield matches to the farmers and not the hunters. Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmer, Pontus Skoglund, Helena Malmström, Ayça Omrak, Maanasa Raghavan, Cristina Valdiosera, Torsten Günther, Per Hall, Kristiina Tambets, Jüri Parik, Karl-Göran Sjögren, Jan Apel, Eske Willerslev, Jan Storå, Anders Götherström, and Mattias Jakobsson, Science, DOI:10.1126/science.1253448 http://www.unz.com/gnxp/plows-of-the-gods/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=plows-of-the-gods Quote Prehistoric population structure associated with the transition to an agricultural lifestyle in Europe remains contentious. Population-genomic data from eleven Scandinavian Stone-Age human remains suggest that hunter-gatherers had lower genetic diversity than farmers. Despite their close geographical proximity, the genetic differentiation between the two Stone-Age groups was greater than that observed among extant European populations. Additionally, the Scandinavian Neolithic farmers exhibited a greater degree of hunter-gatherer-related admixture than that of the Tyrolean Iceman, who also originated from a farming context. In contrast, Scandinavian hunter-gatherers displayed no significant evidence of introgression from farmers. Our findings suggest that Stone-Age foraging groups were historically in low numbers, likely due to oscillating living conditions or restricted carrying-capacity, and that they were partially incorporated into expanding farming groups. Edited July 4, 2017 by voidisyinyang 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kongming Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) I can't be arsed to debate your shotgun argumentation ramblings voidisyinyang and so I won't. I will say in conclusion that due to a wish to disprove the National Socialists many have tried to argue that the Proto-Indo-Europeans and Indo-Europeans as they spread across Eurasia weren't of a Northern European racial type, but its most certainly the case. That the Nazis used the term Aryan is, again, irrelevant because it was in use in the sense in which they used it prior to the Nazis, after the Nazis, and by people who held no political sentiments similar to the Nazis. The way these older scholars used the term "Aryan" is equivalent to how we now use the term "Indo-European" and "Proto-Indo-European", but now the emphasis is entirely linguistic rather than carrying an ethnic element which again stems entirely from the stigma associated with the Nazis. To sum up: --Celts, Germanics, Slavs, Balts--the current day Northern European peoples--possess the features I am discussing. It also so happens that the most commonly proposed Indo-European urheimat, the Steppes of Ukraine/Russia and or around the Caucasus, are homes to modern populations that display these features in large part. --Of all the various phenotypes associated with Indo-Europeans today, the only one which has a historical presence in all groups to varying degrees is the Nordic one discussed whereas other types (Mediterranean, Near Eastern, Indian, etc.) are not found in other groups. Therefore it is the only pan-Indo-European type. --We have the Tocharian/Indo-European mummies of the Tarimm basin preserved which shows the most Easterly Aryan group looked similar to modern day Europeans. There are also isolated population groups in the Near East/Central Asia who possess these features in decent number today, such as the Pamiris, Kalash, various Pashtuns, Nuristani, etc. Further to the West, various Kurds also possess these features in fair number. Punch these tribes into Google Images along with "light hair" or "light eyes" and see the evidence for yourself. --In India R1 genetics are highest in the North and among the upper two castes, which also happens to be the part of the population that have higher incidences of fair skin, light eyes,. etc. Compare Nakul Mehta to your average Indian today to take one example. --One of the major pan-Indo-European gods, the Thunderer Thor/Indra/Taranis, etc., is almost always described as a red bearded masculine man. Almost always historically people modeled the gods in their own image. --Always fascinating to note these ancient Etruscan tomb paintings which shows the ethnic difference between the native, Mediterranean, non-Indo-European Etruscan dancer and the Latin/Indo-European dancer: Edited July 4, 2017 by Kongming 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kongming said: I can't be arsed to debate your shotgun argumentation ramblings voidisyinyang and so I won't. I will say in conclusion that due to a wish to disprove the National Socialists many have tried to argue that the Proto-Indo-Europeans and Indo-Europeans as they spread across Eurasia weren't of a Northern European racial type, but its most certainly the case. That the Nazis used the term Aryan is, again, irrelevant because it was in use in the sense in which they used it prior to the Nazis, after the Nazis, and by people who held no political sentiments similar to the Nazis. The way these older scholars used the term "Aryan" is equivalent to how we now use the term "Indo-European" and "Proto-Indo-European", but now the emphasis is entirely linguistic rather than carrying an ethnic element which again stems entirely from the stigma associated with the Nazis. To sum up: --Celts, Germanics, Slavs, Balts--the current day Northern European peoples--possess the features I am discussing. It also so happens that the most commonly proposed Indo-European urheimat, the Steppes of Ukraine/Russia and or around the Caucasus, are homes to modern populations that display these features in large part. --Of all the various phenotypes associated with Indo-Europeans today, the only one which has a historical presence in all groups to varying degrees is the Nordic one discussed whereas other types (Mediterranean, Near Eastern, Indian, etc.) are not found in other groups. Therefore it is the only pan-Indo-European type. --We have the Tocharian/Indo-European mummies of the Tarimm basin preserved which shows the most Easterly Aryan group looked similar to modern day Europeans. There are also isolated population groups in the Near East/Central Asia who possess these features in decent number today, such as the Pamiris, Kalash, various Pashtuns, Nuristani, etc. Further to the West, various Kurds also possess these features in fair number. Punch these tribes into Google Images along with "light hair" or "light eyes" and see the evidence for yourself. --In India R1 genetics are highest in the North and among the upper two castes, which also happens to be the part of the population that have higher incidences of fair skin, light eyes,. etc. Compare Nakul Mehta to your average Indian today to take one example. --One of the major pan-Indo-European gods, the Thunderer Thor/Indra/Taranis, etc., is almost always described as a red bearded masculine man. Almost always historically people modeled the gods in their own image. --Always fascinating to note these ancient Etruscan tomb paintings which shows the ethnic difference between the native, Mediterranean, non-Indo-European Etruscan dancer and the Latin/Indo-European dancer: There's no such thing as a 'pure' European—or anyone else By Ann GibbonsMay. 15, 2017 , 3:00 PM Quote almost all indigenous Europeans descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East. Quote Ancient DNA records their arrival in Germany, where they are linked with the Linear Pottery culture, 6900 to 7500 years ago. A 7000-year-old woman from Stuttgart, Germany, for example, has the farmers’ genetic signatures, setting her apart from eight hunter-gatherers who lived just 1000 years earlier in Luxembourg and Sweden. So you want to claim that northern Europeans are white because of a later Yamnaya migration but that is not true. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/theres-no-such-thing-pure-european-or-anyone-else Edited July 4, 2017 by voidisyinyang Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Kongming said: I can't be arsed to debate your shotgun argumentation ramblings voidisyinyang and so I won't. I will say in conclusion that due to a wish to disprove the National Socialists many have tried to argue that the Proto-Indo-Europeans and Indo-Europeans as they spread across Eurasia weren't of a Northern European racial type, but its most certainly the case. That the Nazis used the term Aryan is, again, irrelevant because it was in use in the sense in which they used it prior to the Nazis, after the Nazis, and by people who held no political sentiments similar to the Nazis. The way these older scholars used the term "Aryan" is equivalent to how we now use the term "Indo-European" and "Proto-Indo-European", but now the emphasis is entirely linguistic rather than carrying an ethnic element which again stems entirely from the stigma associated with the Nazis. To sum up: --Celts, Germanics, Slavs, Balts--the current day Northern European peoples--possess the features I am discussing. It also so happens that the most commonly proposed Indo-European urheimat, the Steppes of Ukraine/Russia and or around the Caucasus, are homes to modern populations that display these features in large part. --Of all the various phenotypes associated with Indo-Europeans today, the only one which has a historical presence in all groups to varying degrees is the Nordic one discussed whereas other types (Mediterranean, Near Eastern, Indian, etc.) are not found in other groups. Therefore it is the only pan-Indo-European type. --We have the Tocharian/Indo-European mummies of the Tarimm basin preserved which shows the most Easterly Aryan group looked similar to modern day Europeans. There are also isolated population groups in the Near East/Central Asia who possess these features in decent number today, such as the Pamiris, Kalash, various Pashtuns, Nuristani, etc. Further to the West, various Kurds also possess these features in fair number. Punch these tribes into Google Images along with "light hair" or "light eyes" and see the evidence for yourself. --In India R1 genetics are highest in the North and among the upper two castes, which also happens to be the part of the population that have higher incidences of fair skin, light eyes,. etc. Compare Nakul Mehta to your average Indian today to take one example. --One of the major pan-Indo-European gods, the Thunderer Thor/Indra/Taranis, etc., is almost always described as a red bearded masculine man. Almost always historically people modeled the gods in their own image. --Always fascinating to note these ancient Etruscan tomb paintings which shows the ethnic difference between the native, Mediterranean, non-Indo-European Etruscan dancer and the Latin/Indo-European dancer: So now you want to claim some Latin purity - IndoEuropean is a language terminology. Quote the ethnic difference between the native, Mediterranean, non-Indo-European Etruscan dancer and the Latin/Indo-European dancer: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2007/06/lydians-etruscans/#.WVvZBlGQwqQ Your fascination is just your ignorance being projected onto reality: Quote The Etruscans had a rich literature, as noted by Latin authors. Unfortunately only one book (now unreadable) has survived, although there is always some possibility that more will turn up. By AD 100, Etruscan had been replaced by Latin. Quote The point is that there is a lot of history hidden from view during the period when the Etruscans left Anatolia. They were established in the Italian peninsula by 800 BCE, but likely were not present before 1200 BCE. This suggest their emigration was during the chaos following the collapse of the Hittie empire and the rise of Phyrgia (the western Anatolian kingdom which preceded Lydia as the preeminent power). This whole period is shadowy, so we have to focus on the variables we know and have and allow that others may always be free ranging parameters. Stop using the word "Caucasian" to mean white Quote people wanted a pretentious term somewhat less coarse than white, and since most people are geography-challenged, “Caucasian” sounds good if you want to pose as the faux-sophisticate. Quote For those readers who have qualms about the coarseness of “white,” and the genericness of “European, how about the term “Aryanoids”? It will still make you sound smarter to the herd. And, it’s just as stupid and also derived from a scientific tradition which is in disrepute. But it has the convenience that it doesn’t correspond to anything real in this world. Hilarious!! dang - that nails it. White people are from farming - not your "Aryan caucasoid" fantasy. Hilarious! White skin is malnutrition - lack of vitamin D in the diet. White skin does not mean "pure" as in Aryan. The root word Aryan is from semitic-African language, when farming first started. Those people became white due to malnutrition. Quote Caucasus, are homes to modern populations that display these features in large part. WRONG. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/stop-using-the-word-caucasian-to-mean-white/#.WVvbVVGQwqQ Later they migrated to the Steppes - to escape the ecological destruction of the early farming. The steppe culture later migrated into Europe - and then into India. Yes those people were white - but they were not the origin of white skin. The people you are referring to are called "Late-PIE" or Late Proto-Indo-European. Do you get it yet? Quote Here the authors explain it in terms of local adaptations and interactions between migrant Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and indigenous North European Neolithic cultures. The original herding economy of the Yamnaya migrants gradually gave way to new practices of crop cultivation, which led to the adoption of new words for those crops. The result of this hybridisation process was the formation of a new material culture, the Corded Ware Culture, and of a new dialect, Proto-Germanic. Volker Heyd, Kossinna's smile, Antiquity, Volume 91, Issue 356, April 2017, pp. 348-359, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.17 So the farmers were already white. The herders were white from the white farmers - the herders were "semi-nomadic" and also had wheat farming. Do you get it yet? Quote ..Here we show the genetic relationships of modern Etruscians, who mostly settled in Tuscany, with other Italian, Near Eastern and Aegean peoples by comparing the Y-chromosome DNA variation in 1,264 unrelated healthy males from: Tuscany-Italy (n=263), North Italy (n=306), South Balkans (n=359), Lemnos island (n=60), Sicily and Sardinia (n=276). The Tuscany samples were collected in Volterra (n=116), Murlo (n=86) and Casentino Valley (n=61). We found traces of recent Near Eastern gene flow still present in Tuscany, especially in the archaeologically important village of Murlo. The samples from Tuscany show eastern haplogroups E3b1-M78, G2*- P15, J2a1b*-M67 and K2-M70 with frequencies very similar to those observed in Turkey and surrounding areas, but significantly different from those of neighbouring Italian regions. The microsatellite haplotypes associated to these haplogroups allow inference of ancestor lineages for Etruria and Near East whose time to the most recent common ancestors is relatively recent (about 3,500 years BP) and supports a possible non autochthonous post-Neolithic signal associated with the Etruscans. So because the Etruscans were not white farmers - they had darker skin. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/esoh-aew061307.php The Etruscans had Mongol ethnicity - which means they were not farmer white yet. Etruscans were a cattle culture - as pastoralists. Quote By further considering two Anatolian samples (35 and 123 individuals) we could estimate that the genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia date back to at least 5,000 years ago, strongly suggesting that the Etruscan culture developed locally, and not as an immediate consequence of immigration from the Eastern Mediterranean shores. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055519 Quote As also suggested by the analysis of skull diversity [26], contacts between people from the Eastern Mediterranean shores and Central Italy likely date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly to the spread of farmers from the Near East during the Neolithic period [27], [28], but not necessarily so (we only estimated a minimum separation time between gene pools). At any rate, these contacts occurred much earlier than, and hence appear unrelated with, the onset of the Etruscan culture (Figure 5). So your white skin fetish is from the older neolithic culture - while Etruscan is from the later "indo-European" cattle migration. Hilarious! https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2Ofa_0Y5Iu8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA56&ots=U4hWezauF6&sig=luieLACBHlrkqVUozAATDRRl1kw#v=onepage&q=pastoral&f=false The Etruscan World Jean MacIntosh Turfa Routledge, Nov 13, 2014 so this book notes that the Etruscans had a better diet than the Romans and less cavities - since the Etruscans relied on cattle pastoralism more than on grain, like the romans. Hilarious - your Indo-European Cattle migrants were LESS WHITE than the Roman wheat farmers. Edited July 4, 2017 by voidisyinyang Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) Caucasoid Steppe Aryanoid? Hilarious! https://www.thoughtco.com/dairy-farming-ancient-history-171199 Quote The early farmers of the Near East seem to have over-exploited the land. Constant cultivation, over-grazing and felling trees for timber and fuel led to erosion and loss of fertility. Çatalhöyük was one of a number of sites abandoned between around 6900-6000 BC. People moved in all directions - south into Mesopotamia and to North Africa, westwards into Central and Western Anatolia, northwards into the Caucasus. This is where R1b1b2 gets into the act. It must have been in the Neolithic Levant by about 6,000 BC, in time to catch the boat to North Africa. So it could also have spread west into Anatolia. If I'm right about its origins S of the Caspian Sea, it was already in the Caucasus. Just as I stated. https://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=9491.25;wap2 Quote In particular, haplogroup R1b1a2-M269 is the most common Y-chromosomal lineage in Europe, encountered in 110 million European men, and increases in frequency westward [27,28]. So much for your Nordic R1a claim. Quote Recently published genome-wide study results showing the absence of any significant admixture for Armenians over the past 4 KYA [39] justify using this population as a reference group for addressing the issue of Neolithic migration from the Near East to Europe and the North Caucasus. Early Neolithic Southern Caucasus - NOT Indo-European as the source of most common chromosome lineage in Europe. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/ Quote The haplogroup R1b1a2-M269 is the most frequently encountered subclade in all Armenian samples, except Sasun, which differs from others due to the predominance of haplogroup T (20%) [35]. Of the lineages within haplogroup R, its subclade R1a1a-M198 is linked to the spread of Indo-Aryan languages [42] and detected with low frequencies or even absent in the analyzed populations. Quote The Caucasus cluster, comprising Abkhazians, Georgians, and Ossetians, is found to be connected to the haplogroup G-M201, which is also a marker for the Neolithic migration. So you have Caucasoid Neolithic farming migration as the most common chromosome in Europe - No Indo-Aryan source. Hilarious. Quote The haplotypes of western Armenian origin are widely scattered and mainly associated with haplotypes from the Near Eastern (Lebanese) population. In addition, there are four haplotypes shared between Armenians and Europeans (Ireland and Italy), which was not revealed in Herrera et al. [35]. So you have white lebanese, white caucosoids in armenia, white europeans - all from wheat monocultural farming spread from the Near East/West Asia into the Southern Caucus. Edited July 4, 2017 by voidisyinyang 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) Here's your pure Nordic Aryan b.s. debunked in a nice image for you. White skin in Europe is from monocultural wheat farming. http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kroonen.pdf Non-Indo-European Root Nouns in Germanic: Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis. pdf. Guus Kroonen. Quote as much as one third of the Germanic lexicon (cf. Rifkin 2007: 55) – lacks a solid Indo-European background. https://forums.skadi.info/showthread.php?t=152087 Quote e phonology of Germanic is radically different from what is reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. Kongming: Quote One example of this is the pan-Indo-European or pan-Aryan god Aryaman, who in the Avestan is Airyaman, appears as the legendary king Eremon in the Irish, and likely is related to the Irmin of the Germanic tribes. Tell us more B.S. lies!! haha. Hilarious. Now back to the truth: Quote To my mind, the most promising hypothesis regarding the Germanic substrate is the linkage with the introduction of agriculture in North-West Europe. Yep - I just posted the genetics that corroborates this argument of Guus Kroonen!! Quote the Germanic substrate is related to the non-Indo-European layer of words in Greek (“Pelasgian”), and represents the linguistic residue of the first European farmers (Kallio 2003; Schrijver (2007: 21). Checkmate: Quote The distribution of haplogroup R1b1b2 has thus become geographically and linguistically compatible with the Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis that is evident for Greek as well as Germanic. So your "fascination" with the white Latin roman farmers? haha - that's from Non-Indo-European origins!! Edited July 4, 2017 by voidisyinyang Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, voidisyinyang said: So that's your Aryan Empire? (quotes meaning a collection of nations?). haha. So are one real weird guy ... NO it is not MY Aryan Empire ; they are the ' Aryan nations' of the Vendidad. 18 hours ago, voidisyinyang said: It's not very old is it? Maybe 700 BCE. Maybe . But if you care to look into some other research ... if you could calm down a bit and stop your unbalanced ranting and listen to ... actually, nah, I dont think you can ... its getting progressively worse ! 18 hours ago, voidisyinyang said: So the Oracle Bones you cite are from around 700 BCe. So ..... Did you think an oracle bone that seems related to a Cyrus The Great cylinder edict in cuneiform should predate Cyrus the Great ? 18 hours ago, voidisyinyang said: The Tarim Basim mummies go back much older. The Tocharian language in China is one of the oldest Indo-European languages - the 2nd oldest. Strabo in Geographia 11.8.2 states: "But the best known of the nomads (Saka) are those who took away Bactriana from the Greeks, I mean the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari (Tarim basin, Khotan), and Sacarauli (see Sarikoli, the language spoken in Tashkurgan below), who originally came from the country on the other side of the Iaxartes (Jaxartes or Syr Darya) River that adjoins that of the Sacae and the Sogdiani and was occupied by the Sacae." Once again we hear mention of a nomadic people or Saka who came from a region east of the Jaxartes River, the Syr Darya. Saka-rauli appears to mean a Saka people called Rauli. http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/saka/saka4.htm 18 hours ago, voidisyinyang said: So the Chariot-Horse Indo-European culture is looking more like this. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-29705.html Edwin Bryant - The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture (Oxford Uni. press / 2003) http://penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/52-3/mallory.pdf So your map refers to the "Iranian" language group - not the 'Indo-Aryan" language group. Of course ... its from the Vendidad ... a much later source. The reason I and ( and not others ) put 'nations' in ' ... ' is because it is a term some use but I dont really see the validity of it .... it just might be ; those people that the writers of the Vendidas knew about, traded with etc . Edited July 4, 2017 by Nungali 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted July 4, 2017 12 hours ago, Marblehead said: Maybe I could just call myself a Neanderthal? WHAAT !!!!!! neanderthals were nazis what are ya a nazi ! ARRRRRGGGHHHHH! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted July 4, 2017 7 hours ago, voidisyinyang said: You seem fixated on using the term "Aryan" and then claim that it is not because the Nazis used it. haha. Hilarious. You first state "linguistic" evidence - but the Wiki link I showed you already points out that only the Indian and Iranian cultures identified their people as a whole as Aryans - while the other linguistic links use Aryan to refer to an elite caste of people. The Nazi use of the term Aryan also referred to an elite caste of people. Therefore Aryan only applies to a particular region of people at a particular time and any other use of it is aligned with the Nazi use of the term - that is why academics don't use the term Aryan. http://new-indology.blogspot.gr/2017/01/the-term-aryan-and-its-semitic-cognates.html So even linguistically - the term Aryan has nothing to do with certain "phenotypes." You want to connect the word Aryan to phenotype and then even connect that to European "phenotypes" - again this is just Neo-Nazi rhetoric. That's Aryan to you? Hilarious - that is the standard Nazi definition of Aryan. O.K. so the use of the word Aryan is very limited and has a particular cultural origin. Now you want to talk about Northern European phenotypes? haha. Basically the genetics are primarily from the farmers - who again got white skin from wheat malnutrition - lack of vitamin D in the diet. This farming culture started around 11,000 BCE. So what happened is that it created ecological disaster - since the forest was cut down so people could water proof their houses from the ash. Hilarious since no forest, then no rain anyway. So then from this ecological disaster of early wheat monoculture - two things happened - you had white skin farmers escape as refugee immigrants into Europe - where the people were dark skin Africans as hunter-gatherers. That was around 9,000 BCE. Also you had pastoralism develop as an escape method to the wheat monocultural farming. So then the pastoralist Yamnaya culture is Indo-European - but NOT Aryan - and the Yamnaya culture then spread into Europe around when.... http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/thousands-horsemen-may-have-swept-bronze-age-europe-transforming-local-population So this is much later - Europe already had white skin people primarily from the farmers. Northern European blue eyes - like in Sweden - is also from dark skin albino eye-Africans. But the primary source of white skin in Europe is from the early wheat farmers - lack of vitamin D in the diet. So as I have pointed out - the white skin of Europe primarily came from the farmers of the near east-West Asia: http://sciencevibe.com/2017/05/25/most-modern-europeans-white-skin-did-not-evolve-in-europe-at-all/ And so Northern Europeans have more blue eyes from the African albinos. Blue eyes is an albino gene. https://www.livescience.com/42838-european-hunter-gatherer-genome-sequenced.html So now the term Aryan is not valid to describe European phenotypes. haha. Time to lose the Nazi terminology. http://new-indology.blogspot.gr/ Kongming read this: THEREFORE WRONG: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/science/agriculture-linked-to-dna-changes-in-ancient-europe.html?mcubz=1 Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmer, Pontus Skoglund, Helena Malmström, Ayça Omrak, Maanasa Raghavan, Cristina Valdiosera, Torsten Günther, Per Hall, Kristiina Tambets, Jüri Parik, Karl-Göran Sjögren, Jan Apel, Eske Willerslev, Jan Storå, Anders Götherström, and Mattias Jakobsson, Science, DOI:10.1126/science.1253448 http://www.unz.com/gnxp/plows-of-the-gods/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=plows-of-the-gods Sorry ? Pardon ? I didnt quiet catch that . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted July 4, 2017 7 hours ago, Kongming said: I can't be arsed to debate your shotgun argumentation ramblings voidisyinyang and so I won't. WE need a 200 point type face ... that'll show him ! In another thread I put up some info about SOME possible causes of ill mental health and boy he went on a rant, accuse me of all this stuff I never said ... wrote more of his own BS and then ranted at ME about it ... laughed mocked and went off as if he had won some sort of victory . Thanks for YOUR posts .... I am open to any reasonable and rational opinion that can be expressed by anyone showing some balance . 7 hours ago, Kongming said: I will say in conclusion that due to a wish to disprove the National Socialists many have tried to argue that the Proto-Indo-Europeans and Indo-Europeans as they spread across Eurasia weren't of a Northern European racial type, but its most certainly the case. That the Nazis used the term Aryan is, again, irrelevant because it was in use in the sense in which they used it prior to the Nazis, after the Nazis, and by people who held no political sentiments similar to the Nazis. The way these older scholars used the term "Aryan" is equivalent to how we now use the term "Indo-European" and "Proto-Indo-European", but now the emphasis is entirely linguistic rather than carrying an ethnic element which again stems entirely from the stigma associated with the Nazis. To sum up: --Celts, Germanics, Slavs, Balts--the current day Northern European peoples--possess the features I am discussing. It also so happens that the most commonly proposed Indo-European urheimat, the Steppes of Ukraine/Russia and or around the Caucasus, are homes to modern populations that display these features in large part. --Of all the various phenotypes associated with Indo-Europeans today, the only one which has a historical presence in all groups to varying degrees is the Nordic one discussed whereas other types (Mediterranean, Near Eastern, Indian, etc.) are not found in other groups. Therefore it is the only pan-Indo-European type. --We have the Tocharian/Indo-European mummies of the Tarimm basin preserved which shows the most Easterly Aryan group looked similar to modern day Europeans. There are also isolated population groups in the Near East/Central Asia who possess these features in decent number today, such as the Pamiris, ZHI site tags that area a possible 'nation number 1 - Homeland . http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/location.htm 7 hours ago, Kongming said: Kalash, various Pashtuns, Nuristani, etc. I linguistic study offers info that the language of the Mitanni ('Turkey' ) was based on Nuristani ( 'Afghani' ) . I think I out a post up about that somewhere here ? 7 hours ago, Kongming said: Further to the West, various Kurds also possess these features in fair number. Punch these tribes into Google Images along with "light hair" or "light eyes" and see the evidence for yourself. --In India R1 genetics are highest in the North and among the upper two castes, which also happens to be the part of the population that have higher incidences of fair skin, light eyes,. etc. Compare Nakul Mehta to your average Indian today to take one example. --One of the major pan-Indo-European gods, the Thunderer Thor/Indra/Taranis, etc., is almost always described as a red bearded masculine man. Almost always historically people modeled the gods in their own image. --Always fascinating to note these ancient Etruscan tomb paintings which shows the ethnic difference between the native, Mediterranean, non-Indo-European Etruscan dancer and the Latin/Indo-European dancer: and the proto - Greek connections http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/olympicflame/index.htm 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted July 4, 2017 54 minutes ago, Nungali said: Strabo in Geographia 11.8.2 states: "But the best known of the nomads (Saka) are those who took away Bactriana from the Greeks, I mean the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari (Tarim basin, Khotan), Really is that in the original quote or did you add that blatant error? Which error? the one you put in bold print. haha. Oh gee - I googled it and YES - it's in the original quote! That means your "source" that you keep quoting doesn't know much does he? haha. Hilarious. The Tochari referred to by Strabo are NOT the Tochari of the Tarim Basim but rather the Tochari who moved to Bactria. You didn't know about the difference between those two? Let me explain: o.k. google tocharians and you get a hit for Bactria. Does that give you a hint? Quote These people were called "Tocharian" by late-19th century scholars who identified them with the Tókharoi described by ancient Greek sources as inhabiting Bactria. Oh and in case you didn't read that right - let me use my perfectly legal option of enlarging it for emphasis. Quote These people were called "Tocharian" by late-19th century scholars who identified them with the Tókharoi described by ancient Greek sources as inhabiting Bactria. Dude - try using some different sources that are not so uneducated - the internet is a big place. Or should I say, "Dudette?" hahaha. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
