Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Kashmir and central Asia

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Venkytalks View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
  Quote Venkytalks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Kashmir and central Asia
    Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 07:59
From another forum - Regarding whether the Mughals were Turkik or Mongol:

Confusing topic this.

Uzbeks have always had Mongol blood probably from pre history in terms of both language, culture and genes. Uzbekistan from prehistory has been inhabited by people who come from the confluence of the European and Mongol races in the steppes and at different times had people of different ethnicity and language – but derived from the admixture of these two gene pools – the percentage probably varies from person to person. 

But in time, you can say that the proportion of Mongol genes kept on increasing. 

Being on a trade route – silk route no less – meant continuous churn in the gene pool.

The Yeuzhei (of 200 BC) – I am using approximate dates throughout - and Tocharians (of 500 AD) both living originally in Xingiang were Indo European speaking, but given their close proximity to the Mongol and Chinese, were probably genetic admixtures – and would have carried their Mongol blood with them when they were displaced. 

Even the original Indo Aryans probably had some Mongol blood in them – and invasions by the Mongol tribes would have definitely played a part in their migration in one way or another, although not recorded in history.

In well recorded times, in around 850 AD, the Turkik speaking people migrated throughout central Asia from the Tarim basin, basically Xingiang and Kyrgizthan region. At that time these people were probably half Indo European and half Mongoloid in their gene pool, being descended from the Tocharians and the Uighur Khaghanate (both a couple of centuries earlier). They probably emigrated after they were defeated (like the Yeuzhei previously) in 850 AD. 

The distinction between Turkik and Mongol is not possible based on genes – because the gene pools were liquid and mixed freely, derived from the same two groups at different times.

And the Turkik speakers from 850 to 950 AD populated Central Asia from Turkey to Afgnanistan, on both sides of the Caspian sea. But the proportion of local people still residing in an area would determine the local gene pool (remembering that the Steppes were always thinly populated while the places they went to had agriculture and heavy populations).

So in Turkey, despite being Turkik speaking, gene pool would be mostly European and Greek and only minimally Mongol. In Khazaksthan it would be mostly European but slightly more Mongol. And yet Turks are mostly dark haired while Khazakhs are mostly blonde. So despite the gene pool being in the same broad category, no comparison makes sense in looks, dress or culture.

In Afghanistan and Azerbaijan it would be mostly European and Irano-Parthian in gene pool but in language and culture, they would be very very different. No comparison again makes sense. 

So pre-Mongol 13th century invasion, Turkik people are already half Mongols. 

Based on language and culture, Turkik is different from Mongol. And the Uzbeks remained Turkik even after the Mongol invasion of the 13th century washed over them. Only the proportion of Mongol DNA in the gene pool increased. The Mongols absorbed the local culture of the core group of Turkik people i.e. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan – they are basically Turkik people of similar admixture of gene pools. And after Mongol invasions of 13th century were over, the area remained Turkik in nature, gene pool, culture and language.

Coming to Mughals of India, the Kings were of Uzbek origin and largely remained so because mostly married to Afghans or Uzbek women.

But in the populations of the army, the biggest chunk would be of South Asian origin in gene pool and language. There would be many Afghan cavalry commanders and fighters and artillery commanders – maybe 5% would be of Afghan origin.

Afghan (Pushto speakers) are themselves a genetic admixture. Iranic, Turkik and South Asian in one third proportion approximately – with individual variations.

The population of Mughal empire numbering maybe 100 million people (depending on whether you take census before or after a famine !!!) were 99% South Asian. 

Mughals were Uzbeks. Mughal empire was very much Indian.
Venky
Back to Top
Venkytalks View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
  Quote Venkytalks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 01:40
Originally posted by balochii

who is talking about kashmiries? like I said before kashmiries are a mix of dardics and south asians, they look mixed. also your are posting pics from Uzbekistan/Kazkhasthan, who was ever talking about that? Kashmiries are closer to south/central asia region, not proper central asia. South central asia means = pashtuns, dardics, afghans, kalash etc.. those people

Also again who is saying pashtuns look white? I have said pashtuns for the most part look west asian, however people up in north pakistan like northern pashtuns, kalash, dardic and once you cross the border in to the Wakhan area between pakistan/tajikistan (Pamiries), there are a good numbers of people with European features, not fully european, but with european features. Indians totally lack those features

Just go search Pamiri people, nuristani people, kalash people on the net, a good number of them, even if it 20% have those features, especially the kids. Pashtuns up north living close to these areas tend to exhibit these features in higher numbers, compared to lets say pashtuns living in Kabul or Peshawar

also my original point is that none of these look Indian,  Indians totally have indic features native to south asia found no where else

The thread is about Kashmir and central asia

And Central Asia means Uzbekistan, Khazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan.

Iran, Iraq the levant and Turkey is West Asia.

India and Pakistan including Kashmir is South Asia.

Afghanistan is the border between West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.


Edited by Venkytalks - 16-Feb-2013 at 01:41
Venky
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 00:57


look at the pamiri girl at 7:00, she can easily fit in eastern europe somewhere, there is clearly some european features in the area, espeically the mountains of tajikistan and north pakistan. In General almost all the people in the area have very fairskin and look nothing like indians, they resemble west asians the most, followed by eastern european




Edited by balochii - 16-Feb-2013 at 01:02
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 00:46
who is talking about kashmiries? like I said before kashmiries are a mix of dardics and south asians, they look mixed. also your are posting pics from Uzbekistan/Kazkhasthan, who was ever talking about that? Kashmiries are closer to south/central asia region, not proper central asia. South central asia means = pashtuns, dardics, afghans, kalash etc.. those people

Also again who is saying pashtuns look white? I have said pashtuns for the most part look west asian, however people up in north pakistan like northern pashtuns, kalash, dardic and once you cross the border in to the Wakhan area between pakistan/tajikistan (Pamiries), there are a good numbers of people with European features, not fully european, but with european features. Indians totally lack those features

Just go search Pamiri people, nuristani people, kalash people on the net, a good number of them, even if it 20% have those features, especially the kids. Pashtuns up north living close to these areas tend to exhibit these features in higher numbers, compared to lets say pashtuns living in Kabul or Peshawar

also my original point is that none of these look Indian,  Indians totally have indic features native to south asia found no where else


Edited by balochii - 16-Feb-2013 at 01:00
Back to Top
Venkytalks View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
  Quote Venkytalks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2013 at 23:20












The above pictures turned up on a randon google search of Khazakhstan people. 

Now these are people who would truly be called intermediate between Europeans and Asians - There are some who would pass for Germanic, some who would pass for Iranians, some who would pass for Mongols.

Very very few who who would ever be called South Asians. These people if found on the streets of Delhi would be considered foreigners.

Now I have been to Kashmir valley and Kashmiris dont look like these.

I have also been to Kabul and Afghans dont look like these. 

I also meet Afghans who come to Delhi on a regular basis and they dont look like these.

Yes, definitely some of these people (and Uzbeks) must have come down to Afghanistan and the Swat valley and might be responsible for the occasional blonde hair and blue or green eyes seen in Afghans. Probable sources are from the Jushan invasion from Uzbekistan or mercenaries from Greek invasion - or more likely a combination of both.

If you look at Iranians, few or almost none have these kind of features. Iranians came from Turkmenistan and Afghans are also from the same area. Probably, Afghans are much closer to Iranians than Khazaks (who are the descendents of the Andronovo people of antiquity).

Khazakhstan despite its massive size is very thinly populated and has some 15 million people or so  - much much less than Afghanistan.

Kashmiris are nothing like these people. They are much closer to north Indians and Punjabis. You will never find this kind of stand out appearance in Kashmir at all - and that is abundantly visible in the street protest photos which I had posted earlier, where some 1000s of people are visible.

Now below are Uzbekistan people







And so on and so forth - the Uzbeks look intermediate between the Khazaks and the Afghans and Iranians. They also seem to have a lot more Mongol blood in them than Khazaks.

Uzbeks are much more populous than Khazaks with some 30 million of them. With Samarkhand and Bukhara straddling the silk route, they are obviously on the crossroads and are a total melting pot of multiple ethnicities.

If you do the same googling with Kyrgizthan, they look almost completely Mongol as do the Uigurs.

Kashmiris again look nothing like the Uzbeks. 

Kashmiris are SLIGHTLY CLOSER to Khazaks than North Indians. But Kashmiris are really far from being close to Khazaks at all.

They are very very close to being South Asians - in fact they ARE south Asians


Edited by Venkytalks - 15-Feb-2013 at 23:36
Venky
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2013 at 14:34
^ who cares about google search? I know how indians look and I know how afghans look, I meet them almost on a daily basis

I never said they look white or european, but most afghans have a west asian/middle eastern type look, which most indians lack. there is a certain percentage of south/centrals asians who can pass as white or eastern european, espeically among the kids who show coloured eyes and hair on a very high percentage. I have never seen a indian with those features, even among punjabis
Back to Top
Venkytalks View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
  Quote Venkytalks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2013 at 14:27
Originally posted by balochii

you are posting the most Caucasoid indians you could find, that's not how most indians look even punjabis. Afghans and indians are very different looking from each other, there is no comparison, even if some afghans are dark they usually look the arab type dark, not indian. I have seen enough afghans and indians in my life to know the difference is huge, not the 19/20 difference you are talking about. Punjabis are also no way similar to afghans/pashtuns, while there are individual punjabis who can pass as pashtuns, they are no way in majority as you are portraying. Most punjabis are very indian looking, on average punjabis are just more robust version of other north indians, they dont look like pashtuns, kalash,Balochis etc.... In pakistan (punjab) pashtuns almost always stand out in the crowd, most pashtuns are known as goras in cities like Lahore, Rawalpindi etc... so you really dont know what are you talking about. I myself have lived in punjab.

As for kashmiries they are a mix of dardic people up north and punjabis, you would find both types of looks in them. however an average street punjabi is very different from kashmiries aswell

Do the google search yourself I posted everything from the first page on images and gave you the key words.

For Afghan picture search the famous female geographic photo came up multiple times. Now that is the real picking out peculiar isolated photo.

Frankly none looked caucasoid. The American soldiers looked caucasoid. 

To some extent there is a difference between the man on the street and people from richer background. in general richer people like those you find in malls will look more punjabi than the poor people on the streets. In Kashmir also this is true. The majority on the streets and the richer minority look different and gets reflected in the srinagar protest photos I posted.

There is a theory that blondes arose by sexual selection some 10 or 20000 years ago. Within india richer men would prefer to marry women with lighter complexion and over even a few generations this can skew peoples looks. In older times you can change higher caste for richer men and this is a possible reason for differences in looks even when the gene pool is same. So your skin colour genes would segregate differently from mitochondrial and y chr haplogroups. 

A lot of skin colour is also epigenetics. So norwegians and icelanders tan more than germans although only 1000 years separate them.

Anyone living in tropics will tan heavier in each passing generation. So mesopotamian arabs and egyptians are much darker than more northern populations and more recent arrivals of iranic origin in arabia. Southern iraqis look very different from northern syrians.


Edited by Venkytalks - 15-Feb-2013 at 14:40
Venky
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2013 at 11:54
you are posting the most Caucasoid indians you could find, that's not how most indians look even punjabis. Afghans and indians are very different looking from each other, there is no comparison, even if some afghans are dark they usually look the arab type dark, not indian. I have seen enough afghans and indians in my life to know the difference is huge, not the 19/20 difference you are talking about. Punjabis are also no way similar to afghans/pashtuns, while there are individual punjabis who can pass as pashtuns, they are no way in majority as you are portraying. Most punjabis are very indian looking, on average punjabis are just more robust version of other north indians, they dont look like pashtuns, kalash,Balochis etc.... In pakistan (punjab) pashtuns almost always stand out in the crowd, most pashtuns are known as goras in cities like Lahore, Rawalpindi etc... so you really dont know what are you talking about. I myself have lived in punjab.

As for kashmiries they are a mix of dardic people up north and punjabis, you would find both types of looks in them. however an average street punjabi is very different from kashmiries aswell


Edited by balochii - 15-Feb-2013 at 11:56
Back to Top
Venkytalks View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
  Quote Venkytalks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2013 at 07:44
BTW I just returned from a holiday in Goa which was full of europeans. Because of the discussion here I tried to place their origin and then asked them where they were from.

I made quite a few mistakes between British and Russian people - especially the old fat people. Russians are difinitely European - and any Russian blood in Iranians and South Asians is now diluted to non-significance as far as looks go - Russians are Europeans and Iranians and Arabs are definitely not European. They dont look at all similar.

Now let us look at the PAthans you pointed out 

(sorry, the cricketers pictures keep getting deleted for some reason)


Afrigi

Younis
Umar Gul

Junaid Khan

Now coming to the non PAthans

Kamran Akmal

Shoib Malik

Indian Cricket team



North West Indians, Pakistanis, Afghans Kashmiris - to me they look similar - 19/20 ka farak. 

Now for some Kashmiris


I think you are hypersensitive to small differences - it is very much there in India also.

Pakistan army


Kashmiris





There is very little actual difference - the Afghans and Kashmiris as local "goras" are a stereotype which about 5-10% of people of Afghanistan or Kashmir might be able to meet. 

If that.


Edited by Venkytalks - 14-Feb-2013 at 08:13
Venky
Back to Top
Venkytalks View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
  Quote Venkytalks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2013 at 07:36

Above are Afghan Army and people

Below are Indian Army and people


Now this is Americal Army guys


All thown up by first page of search google images of Afghan, Indian and American .

Tell me - do the Afghans look like Indians or like Americans?

Now for some tamil brahmins (I googled Tamil Brahmin wedding photos)




About a million colourful photos come - you can see for yourself.

I am not saying there is no difference between Punjabi, Afgan, North and South Brahmins - there is.

But the difference is hardly 19/20 ka farak.
Now look at some Iranians (not at all having any local Indian genes at all - I dont say Dravidian because Dravidian is a language group



None of the Afghans, Iranians or Arabs ever stand out as foreign in Delhi - because some (but not all) Indians can look like them and so they are not perceived as alien.

Of course, Indians are extremely colour conscious and "look" conscious. But most of it is conscious over 19/20 ka farak only.

All of these people stand out in Germany as totally foreign - and difficult to place. Germans look so tiotally different, they are truly a different race.

None stand out in Delhi as foreign. If they did not open their mouth and betray their foreigh language - or did not wear clothes which were different - like a Burnos or peculiar outlandish clothes - they would not be seen as foreign in Delhi.
Venky
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 15:02
edit


Edited by balochii - 02-Feb-2013 at 15:02
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 13:39
Ofcourse Chitralis/Dardic look even more different, they are more similar to Pamiri populations than to south asians:



^ in this video the darker guy is a punjabi who uploaded the video, look at the difference between him and chitralis


Edited by balochii - 02-Feb-2013 at 15:03
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 13:34
and look at this video of pakistani pashtuns, by no mean they are white, but their skin tone and looks are completly different from Indian, they are closer to middle easterners in looks, simply because they have west asian genes and less south asian component




Edited by balochii - 02-Feb-2013 at 13:35
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 13:19
Originally posted by Venkytalks

Originally posted by balochii

also your unnees bees theory is bogus. Indians  generally may show very little difference, but once you get to north west part of south asia, people over there completely change in looks from Indians, doesn't matter what their skin colour is, a Pashtun, Baloch, Dardics, Kalash and even most Kashmiries will almost never look Indian

I have two Kashmiris working under me (both Muslim) and one Kashmiri who is a colleague - a Hindu who came to the plains long ago. They dont look much different from the Punjabis. If I didnt know their origin and saw them on the streets of Delhi (where I live) - I would never be able to guess their origin based on looks.

I see people from Afghanistan every other day in my work. Most of them are Pushtuns and seem quite poor. They dress different and speak different - and it is mostly their speech which sets them apart. And many are bearded. Many look thinner and taller and have a starved kind of look - unlike the well fed and shorter Punjabis. But based on their features they could be from Punjab or even the Himachal. 

I have lived in Western countries and it is virtually impossible to guess the person's origin, unless they are very very typical. Kashmiris look like Punjabis who look like Lebanese who look like Arabs who look like Algerians who look like Turkish.

I have travelled in the Gulf also - and most people in Arabic countries also look pretty similar. 

Of course, percentage of people who would fit into a description would be really low the farther you get from central asia, from where most of the people of the north west are derived. So you cannot go by the averages at all - what is 20% might be 2% in another geographic location. 

In another post on steppe nomads, on a discussion on caste system, I had posted as below:

"Actually apprearance of people in India depends on geographical location. 

Dark skin is better suited for India protecting against skin cancer. So those people who have evolved longer within India will keep getting darker.

More recent arrivals from Central Asia tend to have lighter skin tone and these are more concentrated in Punjab and nearby northern areas regardless of caste.

As you get further away from Punjab, people from the so called "higher" castes would tend to look more like the Punjabi people. This trend will get weaker as you get further and further away from Punjab, until you reach Tamil Nadu where most people from almost all castes would look similar and have darker skin and coarser features.

So a person from a supposedly lower caste in Punjab would have more central asian features and skin than a person from a supposedly higher caste from Tamil Nadu, where apart from Brahmins (some of whom are more recent arrivals from 1200 to 1800 AD, being displaced from looted temples of North India by muslim invasion) everyone would look the same. 

Punjab was invased in succession by Aryans (1200BC), Persians (500BC), Greeks (300BC), Shakas (200BC), Parthians (150BC), Kushans (100BC), Huns (500AD), Afghans (1200 AD), Mongols (briefly and not in strength 1250-1300 AD), Tamerlane (1400 AD), Afghans (Mughals) 1500 AD and Persians (Nadir Shah) 1750 AD. 

(Just approximate dates)"

BTW, someone had posted a photo of Turks during a demonstration in Brussels - very interesting to see how different each of them looked - but all were from Turkey. You should have a look at the photo -  it is in the Steppe Nomad section.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31423

How many of these would you guess to be from India? I thought about 7-8 looked like they could be from India but none looks like the "average" Indian. But I see people looking like this every day in Delhi. Yet all are Turkish - thats the farthese you can get from India and still be in Asia.

I dont have much more to say.

Except, if you watch cricket, a look at the Indian and Pakistan teams - and then the Australian/English and West Indies teams - would be quite informative.


Punjabis are not mainstream Indians, like I said they are transitional people between proper Indians from (india) and south central asian people like Pashtuns etc... so you will find every type of look in punjabis ranging from a pashtun look to a Tamil look. As for the rest of Indians, they are completely different from south central asian people, you must be blind in thinking they look the same, and I am not just talking about skin colour, a pashtun has totally different features from Ganga plain indian. Indians again are a heavy Dravidian race, if you knew any thing about genetics you will see that almost all Indians from Delhi and south/east wards are heavily related to Ancestral south indians, who are native dark (Veddoid) race of India, they had nothing to do with central asian folks

Even in cricket teams you will see that the Pathan guys easily stand out from the punjabi guys, look at Afridi, Younis Khan, Umar Gul, Junaid Khan and compare them to average punjabis like Kamran Akmal, Shoaib Malik etc... In pakistan we know how much average punjabies and average pashtuns look a part. In Pakistan punjab, Pashtuns are usually considered a (gora) white race and Indians are considerd a Dark dravdian race

Also regarding high caste, it's all Bs propoganda spread by hindu natiolists, I have never seen a Ganga UP Brahmin or a tamil brahmin who looks like even a punjabi, let alone Pashtun. Most Brahmins from those areas look exactly same as the other castes

look at this video of tamil brahmins, do they look different from other Tamils lol, do they look punjabi?

Looks at all these brahmins from UP , do they look Pashtuns?




^ again it's all Bs spread by indian nationalistic who claim they are the real Aryan race


Edited by balochii - 02-Feb-2013 at 13:41
Back to Top
Venkytalks View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
  Quote Venkytalks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 04:38
Originally posted by Kuyk Koshur

Your figures are totally wrongs. Hindus form 35-40% of the entire State of Jammu, Ladakh & Kashmir. Jammu is predominantly Hindu, Ladakh is a mix of Buddhists and Shia Muslim, whilst Kashmir is predominantly Muslim. These regions are distinct and were artificially put together as one state by the British/Dogra empire rulers from Jammu. If we talk about the Kashmir part only, before the modern freedom struggle began in 1989, Hindus were only about 5% of Kashmir - now they are only 2% because 3% of them decided to move to Jammu or rest of India. The 2% pandits left in Kashmir have no problems whatsoever. The religious hatred is all made up by media and it is in the interest of Indian Army to do so as they need a good reason to be in Kashmir. Muslim Kashmiris still say why don't the 3% who left come back now that the freedom struggle has died down? I'll tell you why, most of them are doing extremely well in India with opportunities they would never have in good old Kasheer!

Lots of Muslim Kashmiri traders are also in India and doing well - you cannot visit a handicrafts center in any part of India without running into a Kashmir handicrafts shop.

Lots of young educated Kashmiris who are Muslim are now working in Indian companies in well paid jobs and are buying flats in Gurgaon. Same holds true for people from every other state in India as well.

Many educated Kashmiris who are Muslims also prefer to continue their education, do PhD and get teaching jobs all over India - lots of them seem to prefer this option for some reason. 
Venky
Back to Top
Venkytalks View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
  Quote Venkytalks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 04:04
Originally posted by balochii

also your unnees bees theory is bogus. Indians  generally may show very little difference, but once you get to north west part of south asia, people over there completely change in looks from Indians, doesn't matter what their skin colour is, a Pashtun, Baloch, Dardics, Kalash and even most Kashmiries will almost never look Indian

I have two Kashmiris working under me (both Muslim) and one Kashmiri who is a colleague - a Hindu who came to the plains long ago. They dont look much different from the Punjabis. If I didnt know their origin and saw them on the streets of Delhi (where I live) - I would never be able to guess their origin based on looks.

I see people from Afghanistan every other day in my work. Most of them are Pushtuns and seem quite poor. They dress different and speak different - and it is mostly their speech which sets them apart. And many are bearded. Many look thinner and taller and have a starved kind of look - unlike the well fed and shorter Punjabis. But based on their features they could be from Punjab or even the Himachal. 

I have lived in Western countries and it is virtually impossible to guess the person's origin, unless they are very very typical. Kashmiris look like Punjabis who look like Lebanese who look like Arabs who look like Algerians who look like Turkish.

I have travelled in the Gulf also - and most people in Arabic countries also look pretty similar. 

Of course, percentage of people who would fit into a description would be really low the farther you get from central asia, from where most of the people of the north west are derived. So you cannot go by the averages at all - what is 20% might be 2% in another geographic location. 

In another post on steppe nomads, on a discussion on caste system, I had posted as below:

"Actually apprearance of people in India depends on geographical location. 

Dark skin is better suited for India protecting against skin cancer. So those people who have evolved longer within India will keep getting darker.

More recent arrivals from Central Asia tend to have lighter skin tone and these are more concentrated in Punjab and nearby northern areas regardless of caste.

As you get further away from Punjab, people from the so called "higher" castes would tend to look more like the Punjabi people. This trend will get weaker as you get further and further away from Punjab, until you reach Tamil Nadu where most people from almost all castes would look similar and have darker skin and coarser features.

So a person from a supposedly lower caste in Punjab would have more central asian features and skin than a person from a supposedly higher caste from Tamil Nadu, where apart from Brahmins (some of whom are more recent arrivals from 1200 to 1800 AD, being displaced from looted temples of North India by muslim invasion) everyone would look the same. 

Punjab was invased in succession by Aryans (1200BC), Persians (500BC), Greeks (300BC), Shakas (200BC), Parthians (150BC), Kushans (100BC), Huns (500AD), Afghans (1200 AD), Mongols (briefly and not in strength 1250-1300 AD), Tamerlane (1400 AD), Afghans (Mughals) 1500 AD and Persians (Nadir Shah) 1750 AD. 

(Just approximate dates)"

BTW, someone had posted a photo of Turks during a demonstration in Brussels - very interesting to see how different each of them looked - but all were from Turkey. You should have a look at the photo -  it is in the Steppe Nomad section.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31423

How many of these would you guess to be from India? I thought about 7-8 looked like they could be from India but none looks like the "average" Indian. But I see people looking like this every day in Delhi. Yet all are Turkish - thats the farthese you can get from India and still be in Asia.

I dont have much more to say.

Except, if you watch cricket, a look at the Indian and Pakistan teams - and then the Australian/English and West Indies teams - would be quite informative.


Edited by Venkytalks - 02-Feb-2013 at 04:34
Venky
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Feb-2013 at 13:34
also your unnees bees theory is bogus. Indians  generally may show very little difference, but once you get to north west part of south asia, people over there completely change in looks from Indians, doesn't matter what their skin colour is, a Pashtun, Baloch, Dardics, Kalash and even most Kashmiries will almost never look Indian
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Feb-2013 at 09:50
^ no, kashmiries are significantly fairer than most punjabis, in Pakistan most people know this, only northern punjabi groups living in extreme northern punjab or azad kashmir mayhave some resemblance to them, but that is because they probably mixed with them

The Ganga plains indians have nothing to do with kashmiries, even in the past they were totally seperate, just because kashmiries were hindus, doesn't mean they were related to ganga plains indians

and your comment on pathans is ridicules, even the darkest pathan will never look indian, they totally have a different phenotype. groups like baloch, pathans, kalash, dardic, and even many kashmiries have nothing to do with indians, Indians totally look different (Dravidian) on average

Just look at average pashtuns on google images, even the darkest ones would never resemble indians. Also most of the pashtun skintone is Med/middle eastern, not indian
https://www.google.ca/search?q=pashtun&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=LtM&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=4AsMUdzyKoHS2AXr7YGYCg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA&biw=1440&bih=728


Pakistani punjabis though can be considered a transitional people between south/central asian groups I mentioned and the Indians, Punjabis in general can range from a Kashmiri type look to a Tamil type look. Most indians however  are closer to looks to south indians than they are too south/central asian folks. This is a fact

and btw, so called Tamil Brahmins, most of them look generic south indian, in fact most UP brahmins are generic too. I dont know why people say Brahmins are fairer, most of them look exactly the same as surrounding population. In fact some low caste Rajahastani groups I have seen are probably more fairskinned than Tamil or Up Brahmins


Edited by balochii - 01-Feb-2013 at 13:54
Back to Top
Venkytalks View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2013
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 82
  Quote Venkytalks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Feb-2013 at 07:35
Originally posted by balochii

^ well the original article is about the muslims of kashmir, they are defiantly mixed with central asian and afghans, their culture is very similar to them rather than ganga indian culture, which I believe even hindu kashmiries never practiced. Kashmiries also look complelty different from most indian groups

The muslims of Kashmir are all forced converts from Hinduism in the 15th century AD as I had written earlier. There was very little influx of Afghans or other centralasians in large numbers - in fact Kashmir was converted by a single individual who married the Hindu queen to become King, as I had written earlier. After that it was never invaded until the Mughals invaded it. There was no influx of population.

Before 15th century they were all very much practicing Hindus and in fact they were great Hindu scholars who decided how Hinduism should be practiced. They were culturally same as Hindus in Ganges plains - no difference. They had great temples and prayed to Shiva and the Shiva Linga. All of these were completely destroyed by Sultan Sikander in the 14th century and the stones were used to build mosques.

As for looks - they look a bit different, but not significantly different from Punjabis of India or Pakistan.

If people live for a while in UK and then look at Indians, Pakistanis or Kashmiris or Bangladeshis - all look the same - and very very different from the Whites and the Blacks and the East Asians. 

It is easy to place a south Asian as such - and very difficult to place the state or location within South Asia.


The difference in looks between these groups of South Asians is like "unnees bees" or 19-20.

The difference between Whites and South Asians is about 19 and 1200 - and same between blacks and South Asians.

And if you watch the cricket teams - who play in the hot sun all day - there is no difference at all !

In USA there is a lot of overlap between looks of Mexicans/Latins and South Asians though. One is hard placed to tell the difference until people open their mouth and their accent betrays them.

Much of the descriptions you are making about light skin in Kashmir - these are true for about 5-10 % of the KAshmiris - same as for Punjabis from both sides of the border. Lots of Kashmiris are quite brown just like in Punjab.

When they come to work in the plains, it is difficult to place them as Kashmiris at all - they could be from anywhere. 

Such light skinned individuals are seen all over India including from Tamil Brahmins (? from north migrations), Kerala Namboodiris (same), Kerala Nairs (? Arab blood), Goans (? Portugese), Konkanis (?Arabs), Andhra, Maharashtrians, Gujaratis, Bengalis - all very far away from the repeatedly invaded Punjab where whiter skin is more common.

Many poorer Kashmiris who work outside in the sun look quite close to Himachalis, Garhwalis and Nepalis  - with lighter skin tanned by the ultraviolet light of the higher altitudes. Kashmiris features are also similar to the other hill people. They tan very easily when exposed to the sun, just like other light skinned people from the subcontinent.

None of them look like Germans or Saxons or North Europeans at all  - or even Russians. Closest to Kashmiris in looks are probably Pathans - and even among them, only 10 odd percent are really light skinned. Rest look generic South Asian.



Edited by Venkytalks - 01-Feb-2013 at 08:00
Venky
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2013 at 09:35
^ well the original article is about the muslims of kashmir, they are defiantly mixed with central asian and afghans, their culture is very similar to them rather than ganga indian culture, which I believe even hindu kashmiries never practiced. Kashmiries also look complelty different from most indian groups
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.111 seconds.