tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post1763660734641640192..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Indo-European homeland and migrations: half a century of studies and discussions (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 2013)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56077261268826737842013-07-19T12:14:05.297+03:002013-07-19T12:14:05.297+03:00@AdygheChabadi
''I think you are greatly c...@AdygheChabadi<br />''I think you are greatly confused, my new friend''<br />First thanks for the friendship;-).<br />secondly,Thanks again for clearing me but i do not say Indra has non-IE origins as word but surely those comparisons you kindly cited some of them may be just similar in sounding or can be a token of an early influence of the Arya culture in west Asia and Near East as SC Asia had ancient relations with those areas.<br />''Also Nirjhar007, you should take this into account also…''<br />No, i'm not buying that as i have linked a more practical explanation from a practical academic scholar is available,just go in his blog....<br />Good Day.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-293909676162615392013-07-17T22:04:12.338+03:002013-07-17T22:04:12.338+03:00Onur,
I did not say anything about the ethnic ide...Onur,<br /><br /><i>I did not say anything about the ethnic identity/language of Maikop. Also, I did not say anything about the Anatolian branch of the IE language family other than merely stating that it is quite distinct from the Indo-Iranian branch and probably more western in origin and much more ancient in West Asia than the latter.</i><br /><br />Again, I agree. I characterized Maikop as a (rather late) <b>hole </b> in the simplistic, but nevertheless attractive and generally easily apparent radial expansion model of IE from the wider Pontic region - due to the fact that Maikop is rather late in this context and does not have a clear, early Eastern IE branch associated with it. It is therefor difficult to associate an (or an important, recognized ) IE language with it.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36866728802452054072013-07-17T21:17:53.990+03:002013-07-17T21:17:53.990+03:00Hello, Nirjhar007!
I think you are greatly confus...Hello, Nirjhar007!<br /><br />I think you are greatly confused, my new friend. <i>“Indra”</i> is unrelated to the words for <i>“sea, wide expanse”</i>. The two words may originate from two very different language sources. To add to what I said before about Indra (in my haste to be through with that response to Va_Highlander)…I forgot to mention the word may indeed be Elamite also which has implications for the origin of Indo-Iranian if it is true.<br /><br />Here is a quote from M. Witzel about Indra, Nirjhar007, you make of it what you like.<br /><br />“*indra “name of the “king" of the present generation of gods", <b>Vedic:</b> "Indra", <b>Mitanni:</b> Indara, <b>Avestan:</b> Indara, <i>“a demon”</i>, *g(h)andharw/b(h)a, <b>Vedic:</b> Gandharva <i>"name of a semi-divine spirit of lust and procreation”</i>, <b>Avestan:</b> gaṇdarǝβa <i>“a demon, monster”</i>. -- Blazek 2002: 232-3 compares Indra with the <b>Old Elamite</b> names Int(a)ri, Inda(p) from d/ta <i>“to put, lie”</i>. J. Colarusso (pers. comm.) thinks that “Indra/ lndara, <b>Hittite:</b> Inara (Inra, Inar), all point to this name having been an epithet. Note <b>Circassian:</b> /yǝna-ø-ra/ <i>”big-be-gerund”</i>, <b>Abkhaz:</b> /a-yn-ar/ <i>“the-big-(be-) gerund”</i> (the name of the god of the forge), all meaning <i>“the big, great one”</i>.<br /><br />Also this must be the break Va_Highlander (jerk) was speaking of…<i>”Later, apparently after the abandonment of the BMAC and successor settlements around 1650/1500 BCE and the spread of pastoralism all over Iran (Anthony, in Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002: 76).”</i> ~Michael Witzel - Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Exchange in Prehistoric Western Central Asia<br /><br />Another source says this abandonment happened in 1700 BCE. They say this break lasted 500 years. So I was correct…there was no break in the build up to the high phase of the BMAC/ Oxus Civilization. The break happened when all the settlements and urban centers had been abandoned. But whatever…that break had nothing to do with the evolution of earlier cultures into what is now known as the Oxus Civilization/ BMAC just as I thought and said. (Crossroads and Cultures, Volume I: To 1450: A History of the World's Peoples by Bonnie G. Smith, Marc Van De Mieroop, Richard von Glahn, Kris Lane [2012])<br /><br />Also Nirjhar007, you should take this into account also…<i>”The question of the location and spread of early Iranian is not discussed here. It is likely (see above) that this form of lIr. developed further north in the steppes and spread both westwards (Scythians) and eastwards (Saka) as well as southwards (E. Iranian), and still later, also south-westwards (W. Iranian: Median, Persian). This took place only after an early southward move of the (pre-)OIAs from the northern steppes, as suggested by Burrow in 1973; d. Lubotsky 2001: 308 sq. and Chlenova (1984) who "shows a correspondence between Iranian place names and the distribution of the Timber Grave, Andronovo, and related cultural groups. Place names of Indo-Aryan character are scattered or absent in that area.” (Makkay in Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002: 79).</i> ~M. Witzel - Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Exchange in Prehistoric Western Central Asia<br /><br />That quote contains some of what I said to Kurti.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21622653699876617622013-07-17T16:32:18.526+03:002013-07-17T16:32:18.526+03:00Nathan Paul:
"IVC spread around 100s of mile...Nathan Paul:<br /><br /><i>"IVC spread around 100s of miles. Just across the border within 50 miles is BMAC."</i><br /><br />I'm sorry? 50 miles across what border and at what time?<br /><br /><i>"Not sure what is the need to define a separate theory instead of including and expanding current theory."</i><br /><br />If there was a single current theory, one which was plausible, universally accepted, and fit all the data we have, while making as few assumptions beyond the data as possible, then there would be no need. Unfortunately, there is no such theory. What we have are multiple competing theories and narratives, each with its own merits, weaknesses, and deeply entrenched partisans, all at least to some extent mutually exclusive of one another.Va_Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671547664669092756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77702460395869870292013-07-16T10:43:01.527+03:002013-07-16T10:43:01.527+03:00@Va-Highlander and AdygheChabadi-
First Va-Highlan...@Va-Highlander and AdygheChabadi-<br />First Va-Highlander, about the link on archaeology you gave me i have finished my query with the help of a scholar, here are the conclusions-<br />1.The book is very good but not very recent also.<br />2.The common date is 7000b.c.<br />3.If neolithic is proven earlier for IVC then it can be a different origin hinter,harappan civilization has very ancient roots in India.<br />AdygheChabadi-<br />As i said and showed SC Asia had deep connections with Near East and other areas so borrowing some words if fact then is not surprising at all! as they do not show any migrations but influence!<br />''Indra (the god) may be Northwest Caucasian in origin. The word for "sea, wide expanse", Sanskrit: jrayas, Old Persian: drayah, Avestan: zraiiah may derive from Northeast Caucasian. This has implications for the origin of Indo-Iranian.''<br />That is utter nonsense my friend i'm sorry, the most possible connection to the word indra is Indriya which means Senses in Sanskrit and texts like Upanishads associates the word Indra with Lightning and Rain not with the Sea anywhere.<br />I have given the explanation of ''Munda, Dravidian influence'' to Va-Highlander.<br />Now to both i have something to say-<br />It is by no mean ''neither here nor there'' but what is the most cleanest conclusion, a conclusion of similar value on the very related subject is been provided right here-<br />http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/02/indo-iranians-new-perspectives.html<br />The author comes from the highest possible authority at least in the case of field knowledge! so it will be a true ''waste of time'' if someone does not see and read what the author is providing with the rare opportunity to discuss with having ample freedom with the author himself.<br />Good day.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56552430400608064372013-07-16T08:39:46.981+03:002013-07-16T08:39:46.981+03:00Late to the party.
All the weekend warriors pushi...Late to the party.<br /><br />All the weekend warriors pushing their Agendas. <br /><br />IVC spread around 100s of miles. Just across the border within 50 miles is BMAC. Not sure what is the need to define a separate theory instead of including and expanding current theory. I am sure there will be a model in future that can put together genetics and linguistics covering Asia and Europe. For me all the linguistic and genetic Lucy models from South Asia or Armenia is Lunatic.<br /><br /><br /><br />Nathan Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18392998104066477963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71979206254981853222013-07-15T23:03:50.629+03:002013-07-15T23:03:50.629+03:00@Va-Highlander:
Done...I feel the same about you ...@Va-Highlander:<br /><br />Done...I feel the same about you as you stated. No need for this to continue...wasted time. I have other things to do, I am busy. <br /><br />AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64353512816225330712013-07-15T11:03:10.292+03:002013-07-15T11:03:10.292+03:00@Va_Highlander
''That is irrelevant. Indo-...@Va_Highlander<br />''That is irrelevant. Indo-Aryan is found on the periphery of the area of greatest Indo-Iranian diversity. The Indo-Aryan languages have prominent features that are not found in any other Indo-European family. Therefore, from a linguistic standpoint, there is a very robust argument that Indo-Iranian originated elsewhere and expanded into the Indian subcontinent, and not out of it.''<br />First have you read the Kazanas article?.<br />Well, location is not the issue, issue is the archaicness of a language from a language family which seems to be quite local concerning the evidences and about the ''prominent features'' in Indo-aryan if you are talking about 'Munda and Dravidian influences' unfortunately for munda we don't know its ancient form do we? and Dravidian well there is no proven influence trust me.<br />And as scholars like witzel says most 'non-IE influences' in Vedic are from Munda. <br />The problem however is that we know only modern Munda, and Munda languages have many Aryan loans, some so-called ''Dravidian loans'' also do have clear IE parallels for example- daṇḍa 'staff', is regarded as a Dravidian loan, but it can be easily compared with Greek 'dendron' 'tree', and the cerebralization with the disappeared 'r'. Anyway, of course there is no need to derive IE languages from Vedic Sanskrit, obviously the language spoken in regions of India where Mundas (lower Ganges) and Dravidians (Deccan) lived is not the language which was brought to Europe.<br />Though there seems to be presence of south asian tribal lexicon in western Europe and are of specifically non sanskritic type.<br />''Not necessarily, no, and an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''<br />Lets just be honest there are been no evidences so far.<br />''There is none needed. Language, human phenotype, and material culture, can be orthogonal and quite often are orthogonal. Continuity of population and even culture do not necessarily imply linguistic continuity.''<br />add Discontinuity also;-).<br />''As for textual evidence, if some sort of written history of the region existed in that era, it has not survived. Treating any religious text as written history is profoundly problematic in multiple ways. It certainly has no place in any sound scientific investigation and analysis.''<br />Well Deciphering IVC script can be decisive and as Kazanas have shown in the Article i linked there are some factual linguistic data in the<br />religious texts like in Rikveda which do not need assumptions.<br />''The supreme deity of the BMAC was a water goddess and she was still worshiped in Bactria when the Achaemenids arrived. There is no reason to doubt that this cult was indigenous. It is extremely difficult to imagine such a religion being Vedic in any way.''<br />B.B. Lals article have debunked the real possibility to connect Indo-Iranian with BMAC atleast in cultural manner and i didn't talk about BMAC did i? Avesta clearly shows indo-aryan influence as you know.<br />''In any case, the "Out of India" model has been thoroughly debunked by better minds than my own and I suspect it is pointless to rehearse those arguments here.''<br />Here is a ''better mind''-<br />http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/02/indo-iranians-new-perspectives.html<br />You can talk and ask as much you wish if you want to.<br />Good day.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10507926858306082042013-07-14T18:01:47.813+03:002013-07-14T18:01:47.813+03:00AdygheChabadi:
I am sure Nikonorov's broad de...AdygheChabadi:<br /><br />I am sure Nikonorov's broad definition is fine for his purposes but obviously unsuitable for the purposes of this discussion.<br /><br /><i>"So in fact, Mr. Hemphill’s samples very likely included the areas Mr. Lambert-Karlovsky said were possibly the heartland of the BMAC."</i><br /><br />You have no material evidence supporting that claim and continue to steadfastly ignore the fact that Hemphill's study is irrelevant to the matter at hand. You obviously do not know enough about the BMAC and the history and geography of southern Central Asia to even understand what Lamberg-Karlovsky is suggesting.<br /><br /><i>"I have yet to come a across any mention of a break in the material culture of the BMAC."</i><br /><br />Yes, you have. I quoted Lamberg-Karlovsky's peer-reviewed paper some days ago, the same expert that you mistakenly assumed would support your claim. But what is the Stephen Phillips Professor of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard, a man who has published multiple papers on the Bactrian Margiana complex, compared to <i>Discover Magazine?</i><br /><br /><i>"This is interesting as Shahr-i Sokhta is considered a major “Jiroft Culture” city..."</i><br /><br />Again with the passive voice! Who considers Shahr-e Sukteh to be a "Jiroft" city? You and Wikipedia, and the latter without citation. What peer-reviewed paper defines the "Jiroft Culture" in an archaeological context? There is no such paper and Muscarella does a fine job of dismantling Madjidzadeh's specious and self-serving claims. Why on earth would you quote MacIntosh when she clearly contradicts you in plain English?<br /><br />And now I see you're appealing to the BBC. Jeezus Gawd...<br /><br />With all due respect, it is a waste of my time to sort through these mountains of repetitious word salad. No scholar of any standing denies the existence of the Helmand Culture and there is no defensible argument that Helmand was merely a part of the IVC. What you read in Wikipedia is clearly a misunderstanding, misreading, or even deliberate misrepresentation, of what MacIntosh wrote and you fell for it. You only bear witness to your own ignorance when you stubbornly flail about like this.<br /><br />The fact that Indo-Aryan is obviously intrusive is neither here nor there. Genetics may or may not tell us something about the origins of Indo-Iranian. The fact remains that there is no compelling reason whatsoever for a steppe people, their culture or their language, to expand into an arid region in a time of increasing aridity and there is no compelling evidence suggesting that they did.<br /><br />Now, if your personality demands that you and <i>Discover Magazine</i> have the last word, then have at it. I shall not waste more time stopping you.Va_Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671547664669092756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91598337247053231632013-07-14T16:50:38.840+03:002013-07-14T16:50:38.840+03:00Broken link again...I will learn to do these flawl...Broken link again...I will learn to do these flawlessly some day.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.books.google.com/books?id=tjpLWL4dRPwC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Mundigak+%2B+Indus+Valley+Civilization&source=bl&ots=iZ6ARg_JXp&sig=u7L-KRdnwxgE9yqUH6Jf5mA5Bpg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QG_iUdKJAoLD4AO4uIC4Cw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=Mundigak%20%2B%20Indus%20Valley%20Civilization&f=false" rel="nofollow">Mundigak and IVC connected - The Origins of Globalization by Karl Moore, David Lewis</a> <br /><br />Also two interesting addendums...Indra (the god) may be Northwest Caucasian in origin. The word for "sea, wide expanse", Sanskrit: jrayas, Old Persian: drayah, Avestan: zraiiah may derive from Northeast Caucasian. This has implications for the origin of Indo-Iranian.<br /><br />And the words Lubotsky tentatively associates with the BMAC/ Oxus Civilization. He states, <i> "It is tempting to suggest that the word *gadā- 'club, mace' refers to the characteristic mace-heads of stone and bronze abundantly found in the towns of the so-called “Bactria-Margian Archaeological Complex”. Also *u̯ āćī- 'axe, pointed knife' may be identified with shaft-hole axes and axe-adzes of this culture.</i><br /><br />From Lubotsky: *u̯ āćī- 'axe, pointed knife'; Sanskrit: vā́sī- f. 'axe, adze, chisel'; Late Avestan: (Yasna 42.4) vāsī- `pointed knife(?)', Ossetian: wæs (better was?)6 'axe, wood chopper'<br /><br />Footnotes: 6 As Johnny Cheung points out to me, this word is undocumented in Ossetic. Both Abaev and Miller & Frejman s.v. <br />wæs refer to Miller 1903: 10, but there this word is spelled as vas, i.e. was.<br /><br />Proto-Dravidian : *vas-<br />Meaning: sharp<br />Proto-South Dravidian: *vas-i<br />Proto-Telugu: *vas-i<br />Proto-Gondi-Kui: *vac-<br />Derivative meanings: point, edge, pointed stake, to be pointed, sharpened; point, sharpen, that which is pointed > sharp > or keen, etc... (G. Starostin)<br /><br />M. Witzel has *wāćī "axe, pointed knife" ("seems cognate with Circassian /wǝšΎǝ/ "small axe for splitting rails," J. Colarusso, pers. comm.) The y-like letter should be superscripted.<br /><br />From Lubotsky, *gadā- 'club, mace', Sanskrit: (Sū+) gadā-; Late Avestan: gaδā-, MiP gad.<br /><br />Proto-Telugu : *gaḍ-<br />Meaning : pole, staff, rod, stick, stalk, mast<br />Telugu : gaḍa<br />Number in DED : 1370 (G. Starostin)<br /><br />Make of those what you will.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20253517540135498002013-07-13T16:52:28.892+03:002013-07-13T16:52:28.892+03:00Nirjhar007:
"No that is not fruitful as for ...Nirjhar007:<br /><br /><i>"No that is not fruitful as for the evidences Indo-aryan is more archaic than other branches of the ''indo-iranian''..."</i><br /><br />That is irrelevant. Indo-Aryan is found on the periphery of the area of greatest Indo-Iranian diversity. The Indo-Aryan languages have prominent features that are not found in any other Indo-European family. Therefore, from a linguistic standpoint, there is a very robust argument that Indo-Iranian originated elsewhere and expanded into the Indian subcontinent, and not out of it.<br /><br /><i>"...and it should have recorded memories of Bactria-Sogdianas flora and fauna if its seed was there..."</i><br /><br />Not necessarily, no, and an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.<br /><br /><i>"...and of course there is no record suggesting the supposed movement."</i><br /><br />There is none needed. Language, human phenotype, and material culture, can be orthogonal and quite often are orthogonal. Continuity of population and even culture do not necessarily imply linguistic continuity.<br /><br />As for textual evidence, if some sort of written history of the region existed in that era, it has not survived. Treating <em>any</em> religious text as written history is profoundly problematic in multiple ways. It certainly has no place in any sound scientific investigation and analysis.<br /><br /><i>"I say the pre-Avestans were the people like the Nuristanis or Dardics whom had a vedic similar religion but their doctrine was not preserved or nourished like the latter and eventually was reformed by Zarathustra."</i><br /><br />The supreme deity of the BMAC was a water goddess and she was still worshiped in Bactria when the Achaemenids arrived. There is no reason to doubt that this cult was indigenous. It is extremely difficult to imagine such a religion being Vedic in any way.<br /><br />In any case, the "Out of India" model has been thoroughly debunked by better minds than my own and I suspect it is pointless to rehearse those arguments here.Va_Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671547664669092756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-50853334838939211392013-07-12T22:05:57.126+03:002013-07-12T22:05:57.126+03:00(Last part) Again thank you for your tolerance Die...(Last part) Again thank you for your tolerance Dienekes<br /><br />I will re-iterate my theory of Indo-Iranians from the north. Again, the North European component, of Dienekes’ ‘Globe 13’ Admixture analysis, is immense in populations north of the Caspian, namely Balto-Slavic and western Uralic peoples. All across the Indo-Iranian derived populations in Dienekes’ ‘Globe 13’ analysis, you have moderate frequencies of this component which is to be expected for small groups of migrants mixing with the local populations. Again, even those populations that have historically been known to have contact with these populations bear traces of it, like the Burmanese and Cambodians. In fact, the Cambodians have a higher frequency than the Burmanese. Cambodia is known to have had historical ties to India for a long period. The North European component is the best representative for Indo-Iranians if they come from the north as I believe they do. The genes and linguistics evidence this strongly. Further linguistic evidence from the Aryan languages shows a substantial substrate beneath Hindi flora and fauna, Colin Masica’s “Language X”, not to mention the goodly Dravidian influence on the Aryan languages, plus Munda (Austroasiatic). This all very strongly points to Aryan being intrusive. Even gene studies have shown this. The first peoples were likely the Tribals related to the Andaman Islanders, then came the Munda and Munda related peoples, then the Dravidian, then the Aryans if not the Tibeto-Burman peoples before them. We also have to contend with the remnant languages evidenced across the Subcontinent, Kusunda (Nepal), Nihali (Central India), and the Vedda (not Vedic) substrate in Sri Lanka. There are other substrates in the other languages of the Subcontinent. There are even substrates (“Pre-Dravidian”) to be sussed out in Dravidian. Which shows it is also intrusive to the area where it now abides. There is a substrate similar to Nihali found in the area of Bhili, Ahirani, Dangi, and Katkari (where Gujarat, Madya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan border each other) which is seen in the vocabulary and grammar of those Aryan languages. Which could be related to the peoples who inhabited the region before the Dravidians entered. A Dravidian substrate is very much evidenced in Marathi and Gujarati.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70988788222335570312013-07-12T22:03:57.345+03:002013-07-12T22:03:57.345+03:00(part 4)
As for Shaffer and Thapar…that link is t...(part 4)<br /><br />As for Shaffer and Thapar…that link is to a book that is 21 years out of date. Much has been learned in the meantime since that book was published in 1992.<br /><br />@Nirjhar007 and Va_Highlander<br /><br />I will address the both of you on this one.<br /><br />Va_Highlander, we don’t disagree, technically, about the Iranians and the BMAC/ Oxus Civilization. What we disagree about is the direction from which they arrived at that point. I say from north of the Caspian…I think you believe they arrived from south of the Caucasus. I disagree with the ‘south of the Caucasus’ theory on genetic and linguistic grounds. The intensive contact between PIE and Uralic cannot be ignored. Neither can intensive contact between Proto-Indo-Iranian and Uralic be ignored. It is rather strange that Aryan would have Uralic loans if it was in India. The only way such loans could be shared across Indo-Iranian is if they encountered Uralic before the languages split (Iranian and Aryan) and also inherited some from PIE. Uralic speakers were not known south of the north shore of the Caspian, they were only known north of the Caspian as toponyms and hydronyms would attest. The substrate Lubotsky and Witzel discuss in their papers contain numerous Uralic words (see below).<br /><br />I will change my position concerning my earlier statement about the language in the Indo-Iranian substratum being possibly related to Burushaski. Upon examination of the words I have found (based on what Burushaski language material I could get my hands on) maybe one or two words are possibly Burushaki. Many are rather possibly Dravidian in origin, some outright Dravidian (highly interesting). There are a number of possible Northeast Caucasian and Northwest Caucasian words. And, of course, many Uralic words. Even a couple of possible Elamite words such as <b>Elamite:</b> hiša <i>“praise, glory”</i> and the inherited Indo-Iranian substratum word: * i̯aćas > Skt. yáśas- n. <i>`fame'</i>; OAv. Yasō.xiiən (the x has an acute accent above it) <i>`to attain fame'</i>, LAv. yasō.bərəta- <i>`brought with dignity'</i> (Lubotsky). There may be some other language families represented, but I have not done a thorough examination, so I cannot be sure. It seems that this language substratum of Indo-Iranian is not of one language and that the language of the BMAC/ Oxus Civilization may or may not be represented (Dravidian? or Elamite?). There is one word *sikatā-/ ćikatā- <i>‘sand, gravel’</i> which could be related to a number of lemmata across a swath of different language families in Asia.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-89424057489174035802013-07-12T22:00:26.024+03:002013-07-12T22:00:26.024+03:00(Part 3)
As far as Elam and Shahr-i-Sokhta are co...(Part 3)<br /><br />As far as Elam and Shahr-i-Sokhta are concerned…Ms. McIntosh says, <i>”HELMAND CULTURE: The third-millennium culture on the Helmand and Argandab Rivers and the large Hamun-i Helmand lake in Seistan. The culture depended on irrigation agriculture and trade. Its main settlement was the city of Shahr-i Sokhta.”</i> This is interesting as Shahr-i Sokhta is considered a major “Jiroft Culture” city along with its type site Konar Sandal as well Tepe Bampur, Espiedej, Shahdad, Tal-i-Iblis and Tepe Yahya. All of which have been associated with Proto-Elamites. According to Yousuf Majidzadeh, the archaeologist who excavated Konar Sandal, in an article from Iran’s PressTV.ir, <i>"The inscription, discovered in a palace, was carved on a brick whose lower left corner has only remained,”…“The two remaining lines are enough to recognize the Elamite script,”…”The only ancient inscriptions known to experts before the Jiroft discovery were cuneiform and hieroglyph,”…”The new-found inscription is formed by geometric shapes and no linguist around the world has been able to decipher it yet.”</i> The article further states, <i>“Archeologists believe the discovered inscription is the most ancient script found so far and that the Elamite written language originated in Jiroft, where the writing system developed first and was then spread across the country.”</i> Since Majidzadeh made his statements, something great has happened. Dr. Jacob Dahl is on verge of possibly solving the riddle of Proto-Elamite. The article from the BBC states, <i>”Dr. Dahl's secret weapon is being able to see this writing more clearly than ever before. In a room high up in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, above the Egyptian mummies and fragments of early civilisations, a big black dome is clicking away and flashing out light. This device, part sci-fi, part-DIY, is providing the most detailed and high quality images ever taken of these elusive symbols cut into clay tablets. This is Indiana Jones with software. This way of capturing images, developed by academics in Oxford and Southampton, is being used to help decode a writing system called proto-Elamite, used between around 3200BC and 2900BC in a region now in the south west of modern Iran. And the Oxford team think that they could be on the brink of understanding this last great remaining cache of undeciphered texts from the ancient world.”</i> Of course, proto-Elamite may have first developed in the east if Majidzadeh is correct. Proto-Elamites are also associated with Tepe Hissar in northeast Iran. At least their materials are found there. This all seems to agree with the Brill article about the Elamite Language if not the people themselves. Just so you know, I have read Ms. McIntosh’s work…as is said…to assume is to make an ASS of U and ME. While on the topic of Ms. McIntosh and your implicit love for her work, she also says, <i>”Mehrgarh. Around the same time, there was also a community practicing agriculture, as well as hunting and gathering, at Mehrgarh on the arid Kachi plain in Pakistan, a triangular extension of lowland alluvium west of the Indus plains. Excavations there uncovered a settlement going back to about 7000 BCE.”</i> Interesting date he uses…I wonder where I have seen that before, hmmm. Also your favorite scholar, Mr. Lambert-Karlovsky (and Philip Kohl) had an article about TepeYahya in which he states Tepe Yahya is part of Proto-Elamite culture. <i>”…involve problems distinctive from those of southern Iran and appear to belong to different cultural zones largely unrelated to the Early Bronze Age proto-Elamite culture of southern Iran.”</i> From the article, The Early Bronze Age of Iran as Seen from Tepe Yahya.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47868315650844137212013-07-12T21:51:57.538+03:002013-07-12T21:51:57.538+03:00(part 2)
About condescension and the comicalness ...(part 2)<br /><br />About condescension and the comicalness of it….Hahaha, that is such a case of the hippo calling the tea kettle fat, hahaha, aren’t you quaint. We are definitely amused. I completely had the same sentiment about you. <br /><br />About Kuz’mina…I quoted Kuz’mina only as a reference to the BMAC/ Oxus Civilization having had contacts with Indo-Iranians from the north. If she (Kuz’mina) believes that all of the Andronovo/ Sintashta-Arkhaim Cultural Horizon was Indo-Iranian that is another topic for another day. So the failure was in your ability to distinguish between the reference to the topic at hand and her theory about the Indo-Iranians being the whole of Andronovo/ Sintashsta-Arkhaim. <br /><br />As for Mundigak...many papers I have read and most books classify Mundigak as part of the IVC’s pre-Harappan phase or transitional phase. For instance a book called, The Origins of Globalization, by Karl Moore, David Charles Lewis published in 2009, states: <a href="www.books.google.com/books?id=DGTtnRW4ZhYC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Helmand+Civilization+%2B+Harappa&source=bl&ots=j1fzlyTi0M&sig=mDz8m0gXt3_2v7GiWb4cWj-Nzjo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SILeUdSXLJiy4APvhoGYCg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Helmand%20Civilization%20%2B%20Harappa&f=false" rel="nofollow">The IVC is connected with Mundigak and the Helmand culture</a>. Also Aurangzeb Khan* and Carsten Lemmen in their paper Bricks and Urbanism in the Indus Valley rise and Decline published in 2012 state, <i>“The Indus Valley cultural tradition dates back to 7000 BC and the foothills and valleys of Baluchistan. At the site of Mehrgarh, early food production was dated to 6500 BC (Jarrige et al., 1995).”</i> Also within that paper Mundigak is shown in a diagram as part of the early phase of the IVC. Again, you amuse me, your assumptions about my reading habits, again, one should not assume because we know what that does, don’t we? I read many sources and even suggest scholarly sources to the editors at Wikipedia (mostly about topics that interest me) as I am active there also.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12564056761745873652013-07-12T21:36:13.663+03:002013-07-12T21:36:13.663+03:00I apologize in advance Dienekes…this will be a lon...I apologize in advance Dienekes…this will be a long one.<br /><br />@Va_Highlander<br /><br />About Northern Bactria, Valerii P Nikonorov states, <i>”In other words, according to modern geographical definition, the former Bactrian territory consists of two areas, namely that lying in Northern Afghanistan, which may be conditionally denominated "Southern Bactria" and that to the north of the Amu Darya, or "Northern Bactria", which embodies southern regions of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan as well as a south-eastern extremity of Turkmenistan.”</i> North Bactria, with its oases (most now dried up), is the BMAC/ Oxus Civilization geographic area proper. The BMAC/ Oxus Civilization was within the North Bactrian Oasis. Again, from Mr. Hemphill’s paper…<i>”…the results provide no support for models that Oxus Civilization inhabitants of the North Bactrian Oasis…”</i>. So once more you stand corrected.<br /><br /><br />As for the craniometry...Hemphill states, <i>“Eleven craniometric variables from 12 Aeneolithic and Bronze Age samples, encompassing 657 adults from Central Asia, Iran, and the Indus Valley, are compared to test which if any of these hypotheses are supported by the pattern of phenetic affinities possessed by the Oxus civilization inhabitants of the north Bactrian oasis.”</i> Central Asia encompasses Afghanistan too. He also says Iran without specification which could include samples from several areas including southern and eastern Iran. The IVC is representative of the southeast. So in fact, Mr. Hemphill’s samples very likely included the areas Mr. Lambert-Karlovsky said were possibly the heartland of the BMAC. Until you can prove otherwise, you cannot refute the validity of my suggestion. <br /><br /><br />About the roots and origins of the BMAC/ Oxus Civilization…I have yet to come a across any mention of a break in the material culture of the BMAC. In fact, in the article from Discover Magazine, it says, <i>”That's a few thousand years after these grains were domesticated in the Near East but much earlier than most researchers had thought likely, supporting Pumpelly's view that Central Asian culture developed much sooner than commonly believed. <b>By 3000 B.C., the people of the Kopet-Dag had organized into walled towns. They used carts drawn by domesticated animals, and their pottery resembles the kind later found in Gonur.”</b></i> Nothing about that statement says anything about a break in the material culture…it instead suggests there was a consistency. None of the articles I have in my database mention anything about a break across the material culture of the whole BMAC/ Oxus Civilization. That is why I have not mentioned it. <br /><br />(Continued)AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11821290109748534702013-07-12T07:30:27.957+03:002013-07-12T07:30:27.957+03:00@ Va_Highlander
''The area of greatest div...@ Va_Highlander<br />''The area of greatest diversity for the Indo-Iranian family of languages extends from Bactria and Sogdiana south to northern India. Linguistically, it is difficult to imagine PIE originating in South Asia and positing that Indo-Iranian originated there would imply two linguistic movements, one into the subcontinent and then another out again. Since languages tend to spread from lowlands to the highlands, the most parsimonious solution is therefore an origin in Bactria or Sogdiana.''<br />1. Diversity-<br />No that is not fruitful as for the evidences Indo-aryan is more archaic than other branches of the ''indo-iranian'' and it should have recorded memories of Bactria-Sogdianas flora and fauna if its seed was there and of course there is no record suggesting the supposed movement.<br />There are some linguistic points also which hints that it was the Pre-iranian aryans moved away from the ''common indo-iranian area'' as kazanas have shown here-<br />http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/RAI_Aug_2012.pdf<br />I say the pre-Avestans were the people like the Nuristanis or Dardics whom had a vedic similar religion but their doctrine was not preserved or nourished like the latter and eventually was reformed by Zarathustra.<br />2.Tendency of Language spread-<br />Well the out of South Central Asia movement could have been caused by environmental catastrophe which was evident around the time of 2000b.c. with the probability population expansion also which is independent of the tendency?.<br />''they seem to be claiming a continuity of material culture from that early date through the Hakra phase. If true, then Bhirrana may represent the origin of the Early Harappan culture.<br /><br />In any case, we shall have to wait for the report in order to interpret those claims.''<br />I agree.<br />good day.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-59298176272596164602013-07-11T22:32:49.458+03:002013-07-11T22:32:49.458+03:00Nirjhar007:
"Why do you think indo-iranian o...Nirjhar007:<br /><br /><i>"Why do you think indo-iranian originated in Bactria or Sogdiana?."</i><br /><br />The area of greatest diversity for the Indo-Iranian family of languages extends from Bactria and Sogdiana south to northern India. Linguistically, it is difficult to imagine PIE originating in South Asia and positing that Indo-Iranian originated there would imply two linguistic movements, one into the subcontinent and then another out again. Since languages tend to spread from lowlands to the highlands, the most parsimonious solution is therefore an origin in Bactria or Sogdiana.<br /><br /><i>"It is possible that SSC had a root of its own as latest researches also finds origins of SSC to be very old--though my query is not complete yet."</i><br /><br />I should not be at all surprised to find Neolithic or Pre-Pottery-Neolithic sites in what would become the heartland of the Indus Valley Civilization. Just how old those sites might be is difficult to say. The radiocarbon dating of Mehrgarh is deeply problematic and the 7000 BCE date reported for the earliest strata is only a guess.<br /><br />As for Bhirrana, the subject of that article to which you linked, those dates have yet to be confirmed and a full report on the site has not been published. Looking around on-line, what they seem to be claiming is that the earliest dates range from 7380-6201 BCE. Assuming those are calibrated and from the earliest strata, that yields an average of 6790 BCE, which is old but not that old and may help justify an early date for Mehrgarh. More significant, perhaps, they seem to be claiming a continuity of material culture from that early date through the Hakra phase. If true, then Bhirrana may represent the origin of the Early Harappan culture.<br /><br />In any case, we shall have to wait for the report in order to interpret those claims.Va_Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671547664669092756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68911748627121777382013-07-11T10:33:44.839+03:002013-07-11T10:33:44.839+03:00@Va_Highlander
''The most parsimonious, a...@Va_Highlander <br />''The most parsimonious, and I dare say most reasonable, scenario is that Indo-Iranian originated in Bactria or Sogdiana and expanded west''<br />Why do you think indo-iranian originated in Bactria or Sogdiana?.<br />''The authors find Mehrgarh to be part of what they call, "the Baluchistan Tradition", which they differentiate from, "the Indus Tradition", and bowing to their expertise I merely follow their lead.''<br />It is possible that SSC had a root of its own as latest researches also finds origins of SSC to be very old-<br />http://indiawires.com/13837/news/national/indus-valley-civilization-as-old-as-7380-bc-asi/<br />though my query is not complete yet.<br />good day.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56326133858699137822013-07-10T19:36:18.748+03:002013-07-10T19:36:18.748+03:00Dienekes, I apologize for back-to-back posts and t...Dienekes, I apologize for back-to-back posts and trust you will indulge me.<br /><br />AdygheChabadi:<br /><br /><i>"He does not mention anything about Mr. Sarianidi’s methods. In fact, only two sentence fragments (quotes actually). Those were in praise of Mr. Sarianidi’s work."</i><br /><br />I stand corrected but, being familiar with Lamberg-Karlovski's writing, I know that he does indeed find Sarianidi's methodology suspect, as do I. The writer of that piece was either ignorant of this fact or concealing it.<br /><br /><i>"Mr. Lambert-Karlovsky is speaking of peripheral Elam and peripheral IVC…Mundigak (Southeast Afghanistan) is considered part of the IVC."</i><br /><br />As so often seems to be the case, what a world of difference you conceal behind that passive voice! You are conflating cultures out of convenience, not necessity. Mundigak seems to have some relation to the Baluchistan tradition but is by no means "part of the IVC".<br /><br />The Helmand civilization is its own thing and Mundigak is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Had you actually looked at McIntosh's book, instead of just swallowing whole whatever you happened to read at Wikipedia, you would know this.<br /><br /><i>"Shahr-e Sūkhté is part of the Jiroft Culture (southeast Iran – Sistan and Baluchistan) which is peripheral Elam and is widely considered part of Elamite civilization, though not quite universally accepted (as of yet)."</i><br /><br />No, it is not accepted as part of the Elamite sphere and for good reason. The material culture of the Burnt City is strongly related to that of Mundigak and a third of the painted pottery from the lowest levels of Shahr-e Sokhta can in fact be classed with the ceramic assemblage of southern Turkmenistan. Again, had you bothered to read McIntosh, you would know that it too was part of the Helmand civilization.<br /><br /><i>"As for the IVC, I fail to see the logic behind denying what has been proven…a great source of links are at Wikipedia’s Mehrgarh article and Indus Valley Civilization article."</i><br /><br />Ironically, following one of Wiki's references we discover Shaffer and Thapar's, "<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=GXzycd3dT9kC&lpg=PA247&dq=%22With%20such%20environmental%20variations%2C%20it%20is%20not%20surprising%20that%20the%20two%20areas%20saw%20the%20development%20of%20similar%20yet%20distinctive%20cultural%20traditions.%22&pg=PA247#v=onepage&q=%22With%20such%20environmental%20variations,%20it%20is%20not%20surprising%20that%20the%20two%20areas%20saw%20the%20development%20of%20similar%20yet%20distinctive%20cultural%20traditions.%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">Pre-Indus and Early Indus Cultures of Pakistan and India</a>". The authors find Mehrgarh to be part of what they call, "the Baluchistan Tradition", which they differentiate from, "the Indus Tradition", and bowing to their expertise I merely follow their lead.<br /><br />What is interesting, and possibly telling, is that Shahr-e Sokhta and Mehrgarh were abandoned, and Mundigak dwindled away, all around the same time, roughly coincident with the appearance of the BMAC in southern Turkmenistan.Va_Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671547664669092756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30673268754009589592013-07-10T17:58:43.549+03:002013-07-10T17:58:43.549+03:00AdygheChabadi:
"I adduced Hemphill’s conclus...AdygheChabadi:<br /><br /><i>"I adduced Hemphill’s conclusion because he indeed is talking about the BMAC/ Oxus Civilization. That is specifically mentioned in his paper and in the extract and abstract I posted."</i><br /><br />The quotes you provided explicitly stated, "North Bactrian oasis", only a part of the area on which BMAC remains are found. If you are claiming that he included samples from other regions, you have not provided evidence to support that claim.<br /><br /><i>"The craniometry of the skulls indicate that these people did not originate from where Mr. Lambert-Karlovsky states."</i><br /><br />No, it does not. Nothing you provided indicates that any of Hemphill's samples came from the heartland Lamberg-Karlovsky suggests.<br /><br /><i>"You are correct that culture and as I mentioned, language, have nothing to do with phenotypes (sometimes), but to a degree the latter should be considered, while keeping the former in mind.Because, sometimes, phenotype does match language and culture…note the Chinese."</i><br /><br />In this case, phenotype may be safely ignored, and with advantage, since no one is claiming population replacement or anything of the sort. As I say, the reasoning behind Hemphill's study is woefully simplistic. What is at issue, here, is the apparent discontinuity of material culture on all known BMAC sites. The fact that you either cannot or will not address that issue is rather striking.<br /><br /><i>"The ancient Oxus culture may have arisen..."</i><br /><br />Or may not have done.<br /><br /><i>"Many Soviet and Western archaeologists suspect..."</i><br /><br />And some archaeologists do not, including the very prominent archaeologist that you mistakenly thought would support your claim, Dr C C Lamberg-Karlovski of Harvard University. You cannot reasonably expect me to take such vaguely-worded pablum seriously.<br /><br /><i>"Hiebert and Pumpelli are archaeologists that were at that time excavating the Anau site."</i><br /><br />Yes, I know. I have read Hiebert. I am familiar with the Anau site and all the others mentioned. I have read V I Sarianidi, too, and Lamberg-Karlovski, and V M Masson. The Bactrian-Margiana culture, specifically, and the oasis culture of southern Central Asia, more generally, have been of special interest to me for some years.<br /><br />I understand the temptation to assume that anyone disagreeing with you does so out of ignorance but it can make you seem a bit condescending, in this case rather comically so.<br /><br /><i>"Also, I never said they spoke a single language in the Andronovo Culture."</i><br /><br />Then I fail to see why you would cite Kuz'mina, since that is precisely what she claims and why other Kurganistas champion her work.<br /><br />The most parsimonious, and I dare say most reasonable, scenario is that Indo-Iranian originated in Bactria or Sogdiana and expanded west, rather like Turkic and Mongolian are known to have done in subsequent ages. Witzel objects, of course, but his grasp of the ancient history of this region is so demonstrably weak that it is impossible to take his speculations seriously.Va_Highlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671547664669092756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32034479421096054852013-07-10T10:22:13.899+03:002013-07-10T10:22:13.899+03:00@AdygheChabadi
''I do not believe the Ary...@AdygheChabadi <br />''I do not believe the Aryans are indigenous, at least, the language is not. The people are still generally the same genetically regardless of Indo-Iranian migration, genetic contributions are expected. To me…the Dravidians are represented by the West Asian component, at least, they contributed some of it to the Indian population. The Dravidians are intrusiecve to India as well, in my opinion. The South Asian component is of the pre-Aryan and pre-Dravidian Tribals as it is close to the dominant component of the Andaman Islanders.''<br />It does not matter what you believe,it matters what actual evidences do you have! sorry but please give me the reasons why you ''think'' that there was an ''Indo-Iranian migration'' i would love to see them.<br />As for the components there is no way you can relate them to any population movements,specially when we are talking about hypothetical migrations!! which have no real totems.<br />Yes ANI component seems new to the ASI for sure but as latest researches indicates the Major Mixture between ANI and ASI started from the time(~4000YBP) when Sindhu civilization started to fade and the people of the civilization moved eastward!, so it is practically thinkable that the civilization was ANI dominant.<br />We just need the confirmation from the aDNA.<br />good day.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60471114771763719912013-07-10T02:23:28.117+03:002013-07-10T02:23:28.117+03:00Part 2 didn't post so 2nd try...
So, in fact,...Part 2 didn't post so 2nd try...<br /><br />So, in fact, the article actually agrees with my whole statement! I am not sure what article you read, but it was not this one, obviously. In that whole article only one part of a paragragh is dedicated to Mr. Lambert-Karlovsky’s comments. He does not mention anything about Mr. Sarianidi’s methods. In fact, only two sentence fragments (quotes actually). Those were in praise of Mr. Sarianidi’s work. The aritcle author talks about his personality as being considered abrasive by some.<br /><br />It is just like I observed, authors linked these cultures to the origins of the Oxus Civilization/ BMAC. So in fact it is older than just its high phase. Even the Wikipedia article states that the roots of the BMAC are older than its later high phase.<br /><br />As for the supposed heartland…Mr. Lambert-Karlovsky is speaking of peripheral Elam and peripheral IVC…Mundigak (Southeast Afghanistan) is considered part of the IVC. Shahr-e Sūkhté is part of the Jiroft Culture (southeast Iran – Sistan and Baluchistan) which is peripheral Elam and is widely considered part of Elamite civilization, though not quite universally accepted (as of yet). Michael Witzel among others consider the Jiroft Culture to be the polity of Marhashi, Marhasi, Parhasi, Barhasi; in earlier sources Waraḫše. From Brill Online Dictionaries (a very good source), <i> Elamite, which is now extinct, was located primarily in southwestern Iran in the vicinity of the Zagros Mountains as well as the adjacent plains of Khuzistan and to the south along the coast of the Persian Gulf. <b>There is good reason to believe that Elamite once occupied all or nearly all of the Iranian plateau.</b></i><br /><br />As for the IVC, I fail to see the logic behind denying what has been proven…a great source of links are at Wikipedia’s Mehrgarh article and Indus Valley Civilization article. The IVC clearly had at its foundation in cultures that preceded it and those cultures were, as I said the matrix of the IVC. That matrix includes Mehrgarh. Scientists believe a lot of things for which there is no conclusive proof. That is a standard part of science…belief and faith. I have heard many, many scientists use the words <i>“belief”</i> and <i>“believe”</i>. So your point is, at least, moot, if not outright falsifiable. I made my statement based on my database of papers on the issue. The evidences clearly point to a relationship between Mehrgarh and the IVC. So based on those evidences…I strongly BELIEVE they are closely related.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67706428826311468152013-07-09T14:05:57.816+03:002013-07-09T14:05:57.816+03:00(part 3)
Also, I never said they spoke a single l...(part 3)<br /><br />Also, I never said they spoke a single language in the Andronovo Culture. I clearly said there were very likely Uralic peoples throughout those territories. Uralic toponyms and hydronyms are known in that area, at least the northern part of the Andronovo cultural horizon. Some people would argue that Yeniseian peoples where in that area, but this is based upon a common Uralic hydronym, and its variants, that was borrowed into Yeniseian at the “proto” stage and, thus, reconstructable for proto-Yeniseian (but, again, it is not a Yeniseian word). The Yeniseians are intrusive to that region based upon linguistic considerations. I said, <i>“linguists associate those cultures with Indo-Iranians because of the mutual linguistic and commercial exchange between the Indo-Iranians and the Uralic speakers. Those cultures seem to fit the right time and place for many linguists. The Uralic speakers were known to be in the area of those cultures also. They use “linguistic archaeology”…that is to say they dig through the different strata of languages to find out where they have been or came from and who they had contact with.''</i> There was not only linguistic and commercial exchange, but also some genetic exchange between the Uralic speakers and Indo-Iranians. In my opinion, the North European component seems to be more representative of Indo Europeans in the East than anything else in Dienekes ‘Globe 13’ Admixture analysis. Notice the much higher amount in Greece that in Anatolia, but that maybe because of Slavic movements into Greek territory over quite some time. Balto-Slavic and Western Uralic speakers seem to carry immense amounts of that component. That component is found at moderate frequency throughout all populations who speak an Indo-Iranian derived language and even those non-IE populations that had contact with populations north of the Caspian. If the Indo-Iranians came from north of the Caspian it seems that this is the component that would be a clear sign of that. These moderate frequencies of the North European component is just what one would expect from small bands of people migrating into new territory. There was never any massive migrations of people, just small groups. There were small bands of lndo-Iranians that diffused throughout the local populations and their language(s) likewise. So the Indo-Iranian migrations did not necessarily change the overall genetic composition of the local populations, but did contribute. A similar scenario is with Arabs, the Arabic language, and the spread of Islam (which was by conquest rather than peaceful diffusion). I do not believe the Aryans are indigenous, at least, the language is not. The people are still generally the same genetically regardless of Indo-Iranian migration, genetic contributions are expected. To me…the Dravidians are represented by the West Asian component, at least, they contributed some of it to the Indian population. The Dravidians are intrusiecve to India as well, in my opinion. The South Asian component is of the pre-Aryan and pre-Dravidian Tribals as it is close to the dominant component of the Andaman Islanders.<br /><br /><br />@Kurti <br /><br />You might should reconsider that. It is much more likely that they were non-IE given the linguistic situation of that area, but we may never know for sure.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7329211956740578822013-07-09T13:58:12.284+03:002013-07-09T13:58:12.284+03:00Hi, Va_Highlander!
I adduced Hemphill’s conclusio...Hi, Va_Highlander!<br /><br />I adduced Hemphill’s conclusion because he indeed is talking about the BMAC/ Oxus Civilization. That is specifically mentioned in his paper and in the extract and abstract I posted. The craniometry of the skulls indicate that these people did not originate from where Mr. Lambert-Karlovsky states. You are correct that culture and as I mentioned, language, have nothing to do with phenotypes (sometimes), but to a degree the latter should be considered, while keeping the former in mind. Because, sometimes, phenotype does match language and culture…note the Chinese.<br /><br />You said, the article is in contrast to what I stated, but it isn’t.<br /><br /><i><b>”The ancient Oxus culture may have arisen at sites like Anau, a settlement at the base of the Kopet-Dag mountains, which dates back to 6500 B.C. Later settlements like Gonur, roughly 4,000 years old, may have been founded by people from the Kopet-Dag cultures”</b></i>. Later in the article, <i>”Why the Oxus culture vanished may never be known. But researchers think they have pinned down the origin of these mysterious people. The answers are turning up in traces of mound settlements bordering the rugged Kopet-Dag mountains to the south, which rise up to form the vast Iranian plateau. The most prominent settlement there lies a grueling 225-mile drive from Gonur. At this site, called Anau, three ancient mounds poke up from the plains…Years later, Soviet archaeologists working along the mountain foothills confirmed that as early as 6500 B.C., small bands of people were living in the Kopet-Dag, raising wheat and barley and grazing their sheep and goats on the mountains' foothills and slopes. That's a few thousand years after these grains were domesticated in the Near East but much earlier than most researchers had thought likely, supporting Pumpelly's view that Central Asian culture developed much sooner than commonly believed. By 3000 B.C., the people of the Kopet-Dag had organized into walled towns. They used carts drawn by domesticated animals, and their pottery resembles the kind later found in Gonur. <b>Many Soviet and Western archaeologists suspect that the Oxus civilization—at least in Margiana, the region in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan—evolved from this Kopet-Dag culture</b>…Hiebert likens the Oxus civilization to Polynesia—a scattered but common culture held together by camels rather than canoes.</i> ~Andrew Lawler, Discover Magazine - Central Asia's Lost Civilization, November 2006 issue, emphasis mine.<br /><br />Hiebert and Pumpelli are archaeologists that were at that time excavating the Anau site. Pumpelli is the great-granddaughter of the Pumpelly mentioned in the article.<br /><br />(continued)AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.com