|
Post by IranianLion on Jul 31, 2005 11:05:43 GMT -5
Umm, no. Proto-Indo-Europeans did not call themselves Arya. If that was the case, Slavs, Tocharians, Hittites - and assorted other Indo-Europeans - would have called themselves Arya. Which they quite patently didn't. The Arya identity, and it is an ethnolinguistic identity not a genetic marker, was proclaimed by Indo-Iranians. As such, it must logically have developed after the split of the various Indo-European branches in the Indo-Iranian branch and only in that branch. Personally I am sceptical of the "Slavic R1b is the Arya genetic marker" in any case. There is no trace of R1b in the Shiraz area where the Persians settled. Nor is there in western Iran where the Medes settled. So if there was an Arya elite - naturally, Slavs - subjugating the primitive indigenous people where is the genetic trace of this elite in the seats of their power? Were they all wiped out? That's impossible. Further, Medes and Persians moved down into the Iranian plateau from the north-west, this we get from Mesopotamian sources and their own accounts. In that direction there is no R1b either. So one has to accept that the Persians and Medes, with the Mesopotamians conspiring with them, lied by saying that they came from the west when they actually came from the east. And the reason they lied would be? Beats me. Actually, the only reason the Arya identity is coveted is the achievements of the Persian and Roman Empires and ancient Greece. These achievements were made by Persians, Italians and Greeks, whatever their genetic markers. What this "Slavs are Arya" school wants us to believe is that Slavs lived in a backward, primitive (let's face it, it was in comparison) environment but when they started moving off to the four corners of the Earth they created some of the greatest empires the world has ever known, and made some of the most brilliant discoveries and inventions known to civilisation. Sounds like bullshit to me... I don't want to be offensive but what the hell did the Slavs ever achieve in the ancient world? So here's a simple test of who is Arya: If you are Iranian or Indian then you may justifiably call yourself Arya. If you are not, then you may not. The Slavic marker in question is R1a1, not R1b. Get your facts straight. And the Iranians don't carry much R1a1, because most don't come from Indo-European stock. Early studies of ancient Indo-Iranians are already telling us that their bones are more similar to Poles and Russians than modern Iranians. And we'll see more studies like that in the future. Well you're quite right about it being R1a1. Apart from that, what are you on about? There is no such thing as Indo-European "stock". Indo-European is merely a language family; unless you're using it as a code word for genetic Arya, which is poppycock pure and simple. What are these studies about ancient Iranian bones? Do you mean skull shape? Care to provide some information? Sounds a bit silly to me. Doesn't physical anthropolgy tell us that there hasn't been much change for thousands of years in tems of skull shape? Face facts, Arya is an ethnolinguistic identity - not a genetic one - held by Iranians and Indians. Slavs are not Arya.
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Jul 31, 2005 12:05:11 GMT -5
There is no such thing as Indo-European "stock". Indo-European is merely a language family; You sound very knowledgeable, but dont you think that, logically, there should be a genetical (---racial) basis for the IE concept since its quite impossible to imagine two different peoples (---races) speaking the same proto-IE language.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jul 31, 2005 12:16:08 GMT -5
which lands were actually conquered by the proto-indo europeans/aryans?
iran, the hindus valley...?
the Spaniards speak an indoeuropean language and I doubt any aryan has ever seen Spain. They speak it because of roman conquest, not indo european expansion.
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Jul 31, 2005 12:19:28 GMT -5
At least we do share actual ancestry with Africans, I guess thats an immence honour for all Blacks of the world!
|
|
ganesh
New Member
Ganesh
Posts: 10
|
Post by ganesh on Jul 31, 2005 12:34:14 GMT -5
Fear of a Black planet? Be careful that you don't date yourself with Old School rap references. It takes a nation of millions to hold me back while I fight the power on Dodona. Please don't smite me for changing the subject and hijacking the thread. ;-) Too late buddy. I just smited you ;D
|
|
ganesh
New Member
Ganesh
Posts: 10
|
Post by ganesh on Jul 31, 2005 12:39:55 GMT -5
|
|
ganesh
New Member
Ganesh
Posts: 10
|
Post by ganesh on Jul 31, 2005 12:46:42 GMT -5
Add dark skin races together:
Africa (minus Northern Africa) - 2billion South-central Asia - 3 billion Elsewhere (S.E. Asia + Caribbean + Latin America ) - 1/2 billion
Total darkskins: 5.5 billion Total lightskins: 5.5 billion
Seems pretty fair. Alot better than 1950 ;D
|
|
|
Post by IranianLion on Jul 31, 2005 13:32:47 GMT -5
There is no such thing as Indo-European "stock". Indo-European is merely a language family; You sound very knowledgeable, but dont you think that, logically, there should be a genetical (---racial) basis for the IE concept since its quite impossible to imagine two different peoples (---races) speaking the same proto-IE language. Well, there seems to be some confusing conflation of the terms Arya, Indo-European and proto-Indo-European. The proto-Indo-Europeans may have shared the same genetic marker. It would make as much sense though if the proto-Indo-Europeans consisted themselves of people of several different genetic markers that had formed a single culture. We will never know. We don't even know who these proto-Indo-Europeans were, yet. We should not expect everyone who speaks an Indo-European language to share the same genetic marker though. This makes Polak's reference to Indo-European "stock" wrong; maybe he would have a case if he had said proto-Indo-European "stock". Arya is a subset of Indo-European as Arya speak languages from the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. But, more than that, it has evolved, in Iran in particular, into an ethnolinguistic identity encompassing a shared culture and history as well as language. Yet it has nothing to do with race or a single genetic marker as such. My main challenge still stands: if a Slavic Arya elite conquered Iran - and it is indisputable that this elite must have settled in western and southern Iran - how come there is no genetic sign of it whatsoever? Besides, it was a culture that makes the Arya identity so coveted by those with inferiority complexes about their history - not blood. With all that so-called Slavic Arya blood what did the Turkmen and Uzbeks achieve - apart from milking goats, of course - while Iranians - without that so-called Slavic Arya blood - made such great contributions?
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Jul 31, 2005 18:10:08 GMT -5
You sound very knowledgeable, but dont you think that, logically, there should be a genetical (---racial) basis for the IE concept since its quite impossible to imagine two different peoples (---races) speaking the same proto-IE language. Well, there seems to be some confusing conflation of the terms Arya, Indo-European and proto-Indo-European. The proto-Indo-Europeans may have shared the same genetic marker. It would make as much sense though if the proto-Indo-Europeans consisted themselves of people of several different genetic markers that had formed a single culture. We will never know. We don't even know who these proto-Indo-Europeans were, yet. We should not expect everyone who speaks an Indo-European language to share the same genetic marker though. This makes Polak's reference to Indo-European "stock" wrong; maybe he would have a case if he had said proto-Indo-European "stock". Arya is a subset of Indo-European as Arya speak languages from the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. But, more than that, it has evolved, in Iran in particular, into an ethnolinguistic identity encompassing a shared culture and history as well as language. Yet it has nothing to do with race or a single genetic marker as such. My main challenge still stands: if a Slavic Arya elite conquered Iran - and it is indisputable that this elite must have settled in western and southern Iran - how come there is no genetic sign of it whatsoever? Besides, it was a culture that makes the Arya identity so coveted by those with inferiority complexes about their history - not blood. With all that so-called Slavic Arya blood what did the Turkmen and Uzbeks achieve - apart from milking goats, of course - while Iranians - without that so-called Slavic Arya blood - made such great contributions? Most Iranians are descendants of populations to the south west of Iran...not the proto-Indo-Europeans to the north. There were several great civlizations in that region with little, or no, Indo-European blood. So what? Let's not get carried away here...human history is not that long, and it's not like Iran achieved anything greater than Poland or Russia in the scheme of things. Iran was a backwater when Poland had it's golden age...and vice verser, so what? And it's Russia that controls most of Eurasia today, not Iran...again so what? What has that got to do with being of proto-Indo-European stock? Genes spread out, civilizations flourish in one place, while people milk goats in another. Anglo-American culture now dominates the world...but I wouldn't say that the English speakers in the Shetlands were exactly world beaters. They're just fishermen. Like I said, the mysteries of who's related to whom will all be solved in a short time. Preliminary results tell us that the Indo-Iranians of the steppes did not have much in common with today's Iranians. That's because today's Iranians only share their culture, and have few, if any, blood ties. Don't confuse genetics with languages and cultures.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jul 31, 2005 19:20:33 GMT -5
R1a1 is not a Slavic marker; it actually predates both the formation of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and the Proto-Slavs by many thousands of years.
|
|
|
Post by IranianLion on Jul 31, 2005 19:33:55 GMT -5
R1a1 is not a Slavic marker; it actually predates both the formation of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and the Proto-Slavs by many thousands of years. Exactly my point, maestro. You cannot say proto-Indo-Europeans had X genetic marker. You have no way of showing that. In fact, I believe it is more logical to think that proto-Indo-Europeans were a single people (or perhaps more how are we to know?) consisting of several different genetic markers. Why should we expect genetic homogeneity?
|
|
|
Post by IranianLion on Jul 31, 2005 19:43:54 GMT -5
Well, there seems to be some confusing conflation of the terms Arya, Indo-European and proto-Indo-European. The proto-Indo-Europeans may have shared the same genetic marker. It would make as much sense though if the proto-Indo-Europeans consisted themselves of people of several different genetic markers that had formed a single culture. We will never know. We don't even know who these proto-Indo-Europeans were, yet. We should not expect everyone who speaks an Indo-European language to share the same genetic marker though. This makes Polak's reference to Indo-European "stock" wrong; maybe he would have a case if he had said proto-Indo-European "stock". Arya is a subset of Indo-European as Arya speak languages from the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. But, more than that, it has evolved, in Iran in particular, into an ethnolinguistic identity encompassing a shared culture and history as well as language. Yet it has nothing to do with race or a single genetic marker as such. My main challenge still stands: if a Slavic Arya elite conquered Iran - and it is indisputable that this elite must have settled in western and southern Iran - how come there is no genetic sign of it whatsoever? Besides, it was a culture that makes the Arya identity so coveted by those with inferiority complexes about their history - not blood. With all that so-called Slavic Arya blood what did the Turkmen and Uzbeks achieve - apart from milking goats, of course - while Iranians - without that so-called Slavic Arya blood - made such great contributions? Most Iranians are descendants of populations to the south west of Iran...not the proto-Indo-Europeans to the north. There were several great civlizations in that region with little, or no, Indo-European blood. So what? Let's not get carried away here...human history is not that long, and it's not like Iran achieved anything greater than Poland or Russia in the scheme of things. Iran was a backwater when Poland had it's golden age...and vice verser, so what? And it's Russia that controls most of Eurasia today, not Iran...again so what? What has that got to do with being of proto-Indo-European stock? Genes spread out, civilizations flourish in one place, while people milk goats in another. Anglo-American culture now dominates the world...but I wouldn't say that the English speakers in the Shetlands were exactly world beaters. They're just fishermen. Like I said, the mysteries of who's related to whom will all be solved in a short time. Preliminary results tell us that the Indo-Iranians of the steppes did not have much in common with today's Iranians. That's because today's Iranians only share their culture, and have few, if any, blood ties. Don't confuse genetics with languages and cultures. Listen, you are entitled to your views. Let's just live and let live. For me culture is more important than genetics. And I think you're dressing opinions and theories as facts. But you're entitled to your opinions. To be honest, I really admire the Poles (not the Russians). Poles are very nice in my experience (singularly uncommon for eastern Europeans). They have an illustrious and sadly tragic history. They are very brave; who can forget Vienna or Monte Cassino or Arnhem? In fact, if I wasn't Iranian I think I would like to be Polish. So I'm sorry if I was a little harsh. I've just had a very lucratic job offer so I can't be bothered to bicker like this. Good luck to you. NB I will just say that during Poland's Golden Age, Iran was not a backwater. Indeed, Iran achieved a renaissance under the Safavi dynasty at around the same time as Poland did under the Jagellonians. At its greatest extent, Jagellonian Poland was no larger than Iran is today while under the Safavis Iran was much larger.
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Jul 31, 2005 22:24:54 GMT -5
R1a1 is not a Slavic marker; it actually predates both the formation of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and the Proto-Slavs by many thousands of years. Except that it had its major expansions with the proto-Indo-Europeans and then the Slavs. So yeah, it is a Slavic marker in that sense...and some lineages are more Slavic than others. You don't seem to understand Dienekes that a marker does not have to be exclusive to a population, or even originate in that population, to be its marker.
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Jul 31, 2005 22:28:05 GMT -5
Most Iranians are descendants of populations to the south west of Iran...not the proto-Indo-Europeans to the north. There were several great civlizations in that region with little, or no, Indo-European blood. So what? Let's not get carried away here...human history is not that long, and it's not like Iran achieved anything greater than Poland or Russia in the scheme of things. Iran was a backwater when Poland had it's golden age...and vice verser, so what? And it's Russia that controls most of Eurasia today, not Iran...again so what? What has that got to do with being of proto-Indo-European stock? Genes spread out, civilizations flourish in one place, while people milk goats in another. Anglo-American culture now dominates the world...but I wouldn't say that the English speakers in the Shetlands were exactly world beaters. They're just fishermen. Like I said, the mysteries of who's related to whom will all be solved in a short time. Preliminary results tell us that the Indo-Iranians of the steppes did not have much in common with today's Iranians. That's because today's Iranians only share their culture, and have few, if any, blood ties. Don't confuse genetics with languages and cultures. Listen, you are entitled to your views. Let's just live and let live. For me culture is more important than genetics. And I think you're dressing opinions and theories as facts. But you're entitled to your opinions. To be honest, I really admire the Poles (not the Russians). Poles are very nice in my experience (singularly uncommon for eastern Europeans). They have an illustrious and sadly tragic history. They are very brave; who can forget Vienna or Monte Cassino or Arnhem? In fact, if I wasn't Iranian I think I would like to be Polish. So I'm sorry if I was a little harsh. I've just had a very lucratic job offer so I can't be bothered to bicker like this. Good luck to you. NB I will just say that during Poland's Golden Age, Iran was not a backwater. Indeed, Iran achieved a renaissance under the Safavi dynasty at around the same time as Poland did under the Jagellonians. At its greatest extent, Jagellonian Poland was no larger than Iran is today while under the Safavis Iran was much larger. Well I thought that Iran was overrun by the Mongols when Poland had its golden age...but I could be wrong. In any case, my point was that because people are descendants of once great (or rather powerful) nations doesn't mean they always have to be great. We both could easily be milking goats right now whether of Indo-European stock or not. Which reminds me, good luck with your job offer.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 1, 2005 1:26:12 GMT -5
Except that it had its major expansions with the proto-Indo-Europeans and then the Slavs. R1a1 originated in Upper Paleolithic times and represents multiple migratory events, from Upper Paleolithic until recent times. Subclades of R1a1 specific to these specific events have not been identified so far. It is Slavic in the sense that it is found at high frequency in modern Slavs. Using the same type of "logic", J2 is a Turkish marker, because Turks have the highest frequency of J2 today. R1a1 is not a Slavic marker. For example, its presence in South India is not attributed to any fictional "Slavs" who never settled in that region. In the future, subclades of R1a1 may be associated with Slavic speakers; however, that has not occurred so far. R1a1 in itself is hence not a Slavic marker.
|
|