The Kalash Tribe of Pakistan

[DrSatanDracula]

Snakeeyes:

It's still slightly tenuous though, because there's no direct links from the language (dated to the 6-8th century AD but suggesting that the two dialects may have evolved from a proto-Tocharian in the mid 1st millennium) to the mummies (dated as early as 1600 BC but varying in the physical types). The frescoes where Tocharian was found do show "European" looking features, but again what does that mean? Not all Europeans are blond haired and blue eyed, and Hittites, Cimmerians and Scythians were described as being brown and black haired despite being part of really early Iranian migrations. Lapps, Finns, Hungarians and Basques are different ethnic groups but they share similar features with us.

You are, of course, quite correct to point out that light hair and eyes is not found in all European populations. I myself know this well, having dark hair and amber eyes (I look Black Irish). But it is also notable that European populations, and areas where Indo-European languages are spoken, are generally the only areas where these features are afound, excluding the aforementioned pockets of non-IE people in Europe who have some of those features. That is to say, the majority of people who have those sort of features are Indo-European in nature. Very few other ethnic groups have blonde or red hair, green or blue eyes, excluding Europeanized Jews.

The likely explanation is that a REALLY long time ago, when he first homo-sapiens came into Europe (by way of Russia/Siberia according to the newest findings), they spread out and settled different areas, mixing with other groups such as those coming out of Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Egypt (I'm talking still way before those groups became empires and civilizations), or hiding out in far away places like the British Isles and Taiga of Northern Europe (probably hunting Reindeer). Some of them likely stayed behind and hung out in Russia for a while maybe, or the fringes of Scandinavia, and then spread out in waves again later on. In between all this there's a ton of shit that goes down, like mini Ice Ages, the flooding of the Black Sea, the receding of shorelines and loss of certain land-bridges, drying up of rivers and lakes, etc. We don't know which group became Indo-Europeans, we don't know if that was even a homogeneous group to begin with. Since we figure they were pastoral nomads, our best source of comparison anthropologically speaking are Mongols, Cossacks and Scythians; which are all mixed bag populations genetically speaking.

I agree that there was likely successive waves. This is seen historically in the spread of Celtic and Germanic peoples into Europe starting in the bronze age and ending during the Hunnic invasion. That being said, the R1A1 and R1b and I populations of Europe seem to indicate a great deal of deep down ancestral connection. One can distinguish the Turkic influences, for instance, from the Slavic influences in areas where those two are around commonly. This is not to say that either population retains strict ethnic segregation, but it is worth noting that there is some compelling reason to suggest a deep ancestral connection.

I also think that the Ukraine has had many compelling reasons to suggest the PIE homeland based on linguistic, anthropological/archaeological, and genetic resources. Of course, it wasn't just one wave of people, but it seems this was the area of radiation of the population.

We can assume maybe that Indo-Europeans were "white looking" but "white" is more varied than some people think. When Doric Greeks came down into the Med and mixed with Myceneans, they were much larger, even though they were still what we consider "Greeks". Caesar talks about blond haired slaves from Briton in Roman markets, but when when the Vikings came around to England years later they were much bigger and "blonder" than us. We don't know how homogeneous Aryans were when they came into India, we don't know anything about where Dorians and Sea peoples came from before they hit Greece, we don't know whats behind Celtic stories from Ireland about the Fir Bog and the Milesians and the Tuatha De Danaan. It's still very confusing, and for all we know, Indo-European could have been the language of any ethnic group got picked up and moved around by another. There's likelihoods, but not definitive answers. Yet.

Oh, that is very true. Very true. The racial sub-divisions of Indo-European peoples (Germanic, Celtic, Greco-Roman, Persian, Indian, Hittitie, Slavic, et cetera) all produce genetic and cultural differences which are significant. We also find, as you noted, plenty of dark haired people mixed in with (not even the majority) of lighter people. "White people" are the most heterogenous in apperance of all the races and this would seem to be from strong strains of sub-divisions in the overall racial and ethnic picture.

And yes, then we have stories, myths, and actual history discussing the physical characteristics of people. Irish folklore placed the Black Irish as Milesians owing to their similarity to the physical archetype claimed of those people. We have the dark haired Romans discussing fair haired Britons who were not nearly as fair haired as the Germans. Et cetera, et cetera. You are correct to point out all of this.

[supa_dupa_]

They look like gypsies

btw the aryan invasion theory has been proven to be false so shut the fuck up

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by supa_dupa_

They look like gypsies

btw the aryan invasion theory has been proven to be false so shut the fuck up

Actually, there's about a 50/50 split in academia over whether Aryans came in gradually in waves or quickly as conquerors. There's no "proof" either way so I suggest you take your own ignorant advice. I fucking DARE you to argue with me on this one.

[adren@line]

Aryan Invasion Theory is crap and has been replaced by the Aryan Migration Theory. There is no 50/50 split in regards to AIT. Its now either AMT or the OOI theory (out-of-India) meaning the Aryans originated in India and traveled north to Iran.

Originally Posted by SnakeEyes

Sorry, you seem like a nice guy but thats the dumbest shit Ive ever heard. I've studied Hittite, it's clearly archaic as fuck and the dating on the tablets from Bogazkoy are considered solid. Also, only crazy Indian nationalists try to put the PIE homeland in India. Also, Vedic is the oldest attested Indo-Iranian, but Hittite is older and even Mycenaean is about as archaic as Vedic. Some Avestan might be even older. Solid, well though out arguments have put the PIE Homeland in any number of places; the south Steppe of the Black Sea, the Ukraine, South-West Siberia, The Caucasus, and even somewhere around Lithuania. Nobody knows for sure.

I stated its something "I read". Its not something I believe. As far as the PIE homeland being in India, its not just Indian nationalists. There are some white professors who believe in it too.

[Ruprecht]

Well this thread has gone barreling off on a tangent.

Interesting stuff though.
Gives me some good reading topics.

Any specific book recommendations?

[adren@line]

Oh btw snakeyes, im not trying to argue with you. But I am 100% certain that AIT stands for a very specific theory that was invented by European racialists.

Either way, have you read "The Shape of Ancient Thought" ?

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by adren@line

Aryan Invasion Theory is crap and has been replaced by the Aryan Migration Theory. There is no 50/50 split in regards to AIT. Its now either AMT or the OOI theory (out-of-India) meaning the Aryans originated in India and traveled north to Iran.

Nobody with any respect in the world of philology, archeology or Indian studies would ever back the "Out of India" theory. That's one hundred percent garbage IMHO. I worked under Mark Hale in Sanskrit and Avestan studies, who worked under Jochem Schindler and Cal Watkins and the rest at Harvard:s IE studies and Classics programs, and I can assure you that this isn't true, in fact it runs counter to everything we believe about Indo-Europeans. It's a peice of Indian Nationalist trite and has no place in rational discussion.

The problem people have with the invasion theory is a lack of sources talking about invasions in the literature (the problem being that they are vague, not that they are completely missing), and the lack of archeological sites showing burned or destroyed towns. There's a very small gap between the end of the Indus Valley civilization ending and the Aryans arriving, but some people see both phenomena as being contemporary with one another. We don't know why the IVC ended or how; some towns appear to have been abandoned and there's some evidence of the culture splitting off into smaller groups.

But it's still widely accepted that admixing of the Aryan populations and whoever else was there (whether they be descendants of the IVC or not) occured, and the linguistic evidence of this mixing has been well established. The genetic evidence can be analyized both ways, as you can see by the comments in the wiki page:

Indo-Aryan migration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some people cringe at the idea of an invasion theory because it backs the racist policies of the Raj, but having your feelings hurt is no reason to turn your back on logic. We know that the Dumezilian three way class partitions are strangely divided four ways in India, and the general idea in the study of Indian Religion is that the 4th class is that of the original native population. That bodes well for a racial hierarchy in the sociological breakdown in my mind. There's strong evidence that the Aryan migrations were gradual, but that doesn't mean they were neccessarily peaceful. Even after the Vedic orthodoxy was established other groups of Aryans came in and lived outside the fringes, eventually setting up competitive empires (especially in the North east) and speaking different dialects of Sanskrit. It was clearly part of their social behavior to be conquerors (as well as cattle theives and raiders, as were most Indo-Europeans, like the Vikings, Celts and even to some extent the Greeks), so there's no definitive reason to assume that for this one period they were especially friendly and benign.

*edited for rudeness

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by adren@line

Oh btw snakeyes, im not trying to argue with you. But I am 100% certain that AIT stands for a very specific theory that was invented by European racialists.

Either way, have you read "The Shape of Ancient Thought" ?

I own The Shape of Ancient Thought, yeah. McEvilley is a really smart guy but don't confuse the preamble at the beginning about Indian nationalism as some sort of proof of Aryan migration vs invasion- his point has more to do with how the issue was treated and responded to than the actual argument itself. He's arguing for disemination of philosophical ideas and religion between Greece and India via Persia, but he doesn't go too far in talking about the Aryan arrivals. He's smart enough to be diplomatic.

Actually I really like his work, and individual theories he has, especially the Pasupatas being linked to ancient Cynic custom through Scythian and Greek travellers, are fucking genius. I think eventually people will catch on to what he was talking about and realize he's on to something. That book definitely kick-started my own interests in comparativism; before I read it I hadn't looked any further away from India than Iran. It's cool that you've read it, not too many people have. Sorry to have blown my top but the out of India theory angers the hell out of me; I had a prof who chaired the Indian Religion committee at my University who was put there by the local Indian communtiy and who pushed this shit despite the overwhelming evidence against it, and she was like a brick wall for me when I was first exploring these issues. I found refuge in the linguistics department where people's stupid politics don't play as big a role in determining accepted science.

[adren@line]

What is your opinion on the Indian influence into Greek philosophy? Do you think it was as significant as McEvilley hints at it being?

What are your personal beliefs? Are you a monist? non-dualist?

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by adren@line

What is your opinion on the Indian influence into Greek philosophy? Do you think it was as significant as McEvilley hints at it being?

Dunno for sure. It's definitely a lot of conjecture, right? It sort of depends on the whole Miletus scenario (Miletus being a Satrapy of the Persian Empire at the same time that it was putting out uber-influential pre-socratics) and whether or not Greeks were learning Persian, and then whether or not that enabled them to have sit down chats with Indians at the Persian court. Plausible, for sure, and I have no doubt Indians and Persians could have been talking to each other, but then there's kind of this divide between the Vedic orthodoxy and the Zoroastrian reforms that doesn't sound especially friendly (anti-Soma cult in Zoroastrianism, the Asura/Ahura split). Like I said before, I personally go out on a limb and put myself behind the Pasupati/Cynic hypothesis (Pasupatis were the first Siva worshipers to depict Siva as an anthropotheistic deity) , basically because I feel the Scythian influence is there and even recorded on the Greek side, and I think the Scythian cultural highway is the most poorly understood but important facet of diffusion in that period there is, I just think those dudes were spreading sculpture, mythology everywhere and messing with everyone's shit. I generally just get a huge kick on Indo-Europeans who never stopped being crazy nomads and bullied or harassed the ones who settled down.

But aside from this kind of rare and isolated thing, I'm not sure. A really hard part of comparative IE studies is figuring out what everyone started out with and what got shared or innovated. I'm mostly interested in what things are original to IE culture and religion but that requires sifting through a lot of this diffusion. Sometimes it seems themes and ideas in mythology and religion hit some areas more than once, why you get things like Odin taking on the "Sky Father" role later on even as the actual IE cognate, Tyr, is still in the pantheon. Some dude way back in the day wrote a big volume on Zeus that had a section where he chronicled Zeus' lightning bolt and showed how it ended up being the emblem of a bunch more later deities, like Poseidon's trident, Apollo's lance and some other god's branch. I don't know if he was right but I think shit just like that happens all the time.

What are your personal beliefs? Are you a monist? non-dualist?

No comment. But if I could choose I'd be some hemp smoking Scythian raiding and pillaging neighboring towns on my awesome horse with my super-rad axe and bows, giving up sacrifices to my war gods and getting shit faced at giant Steppe barbecues with blood all over my shirt stinking of sheepskins and mead. Whatever "-ist" or "-ism" that is, that's what I'd want. Civilization is for queers.