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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Iran has very limited amount of R1a1

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
mojobadshah View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
  Quote mojobadshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Iran has very limited amount of R1a1
    Posted: 03-Oct-2013 at 00:00
What is the possibility that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were not just one haplogroup but a mix of haplogroups?  Like R1a1a, J2, and I?
Back to Top
PakistaniShield View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2008
Location: North America
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote PakistaniShield Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2013 at 03:06
Originally posted by mojobadshah

Originally posted by Nick1986

What exactly is an Aryan? I thought the concept was fabricated by German nationalists (and further embellished by the Nazis) to justify the conquest of Eastern Europe

The development of the designation "Aryan" is a history on its own.  It was first used as a national self-designation among the ancient Irano-Afghans.  Among the Hindus it was used in the spiritual sense.  Racial philosophers believed the Ariane or Irano-Afghans to have been peopled by the white race.   Modern philologers falsely hypothosized that all the Indo-Europeans had at one time self-designated themselves Aryan.  This is when the term as a national designation extended from the Irano-Afghans to all Indo-Europeans.       


I believe it was first used by the proto-indo-aryans as the term is claimed to have originated in sanskrit
Back to Top
mojobadshah View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
  Quote mojobadshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2013 at 23:17
Originally posted by PakistaniShield

Originally posted by mojobadshah

Originally posted by Nick1986

What exactly is an Aryan? I thought the concept was fabricated by German nationalists (and further embellished by the Nazis) to justify the conquest of Eastern Europe

The development of the designation "Aryan" is a history on its own.  It was first used as a national self-designation among the ancient Irano-Afghans.  Among the Hindus it was used in the spiritual sense.  Racial philosophers believed the Ariane or Irano-Afghans to have been peopled by the white race.   Modern philologers falsely hypothosized that all the Indo-Europeans had at one time self-designated themselves Aryan.  This is when the term as a national designation extended from the Irano-Afghans to all Indo-Europeans.       


I believe it was first used by the proto-indo-aryans as the term is claimed to have originated in sanskrit

Proto-Indo-Aryan is a hypothetical language.  Some Indologists have supported the fact that Airyana was the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Iranians.  Airyana is another national designation which only appears in Iranian as the homeland of the Aryans.  The Irano-Afghans stayed in Airyana while those who left evolved into the Indo-Aryans.  Moreover the meaning of the term "Aryan" among the Indics also changed from a national identifier to mean "noble individual."  To say that the term Aryan originated in Sanskrit is not really accurate.  Neither Irano-Afghans or Indics used the form Aryan verbatim.  The Irano-Afghans used Airya and Indics used Arya.  The Parthian form is actually closest in resemblance to the English Aryan, but this is just in resemblance.  The meaning is a bit different.  Finally in actuality the form Arian verbatim appeared in Philmond Hollond's 1601 translation of Pliny the Elder's natural history.  It appears in reference to an Irano-Afghan people or as a substitute for Ariana the land east of Persia. Later in 1844 James Cowles Prichard used the term Aryan to identify both the Irano-Afghans and the Indics under the mistaken belief that Aria (Herat) was equivalent to Skr. Arya/Aria.  

   
Back to Top
PakistaniShield View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2008
Location: North America
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote PakistaniShield Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2013 at 01:00
Originally posted by mojobadshah


Proto-Indo-Aryan is a hypothetical language.  Some Indologists have supported the fact that Airyana was the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Iranians.  Airyana is another national designation which only appears in Iranian as the homeland of the Aryans.  The Irano-Afghans stayed in Airyana while those who left evolved into the Indo-Aryans.  Moreover the meaning of the term "Aryan" among the Indics also changed from a national identifier to mean "noble individual."  To say that the term Aryan originated in Sanskrit is not really accurate.  Neither Irano-Afghans or Indics used the form Aryan verbatim.  The Irano-Afghans used Airya and Indics used Arya.  The Parthian form is actually closest in resemblance to the English Aryan, but this is just in resemblance.  The meaning is a bit different.  Finally in actuality the form Arian verbatim appeared in Philmond Hollond's 1601 translation of Pliny the Elder's natural history.  It appears in reference to an Irano-Afghan people or as a substitute for Ariana the land east of Persia. Later in 1844 James Cowles Prichard used the term Aryan to identify both the Irano-Afghans and the Indics under the mistaken belief that Aria (Herat) was equivalent to Skr. Arya/Aria.  


In that case most ancient languages are hypothetical since they are not spoken nowadays. Proto-Iranic is then a hypothetical language as well, based on the modern iranic languages spoken today.

The term Aryan is claimed to have appeared in the Vedas, a Sanskrit text, later used by the ancient Persian kings to express themselves of noble class, I don't believe the term was meant to apply to their people, but does nowadays as the term "Aryan" and "Iranic" are from the same source, with similar meanings.


Edited by PakistaniShield - 04-Oct-2013 at 01:01
Back to Top
mojobadshah View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
  Quote mojobadshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2013 at 10:43
Originally posted by PakistaniShield

Originally posted by mojobadshah


Proto-Indo-Aryan is a hypothetical language.  Some Indologists have supported the fact that Airyana was the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Iranians.  Airyana is another national designation which only appears in Iranian as the homeland of the Aryans.  The Irano-Afghans stayed in Airyana while those who left evolved into the Indo-Aryans.  Moreover the meaning of the term "Aryan" among the Indics also changed from a national identifier to mean "noble individual."  To say that the term Aryan originated in Sanskrit is not really accurate.  Neither Irano-Afghans or Indics used the form Aryan verbatim.  The Irano-Afghans used Airya and Indics used Arya.  The Parthian form is actually closest in resemblance to the English Aryan, but this is just in resemblance.  The meaning is a bit different.  Finally in actuality the form Arian verbatim appeared in Philmond Hollond's 1601 translation of Pliny the Elder's natural history.  It appears in reference to an Irano-Afghan people or as a substitute for Ariana the land east of Persia. Later in 1844 James Cowles Prichard used the term Aryan to identify both the Irano-Afghans and the Indics under the mistaken belief that Aria (Herat) was equivalent to Skr. Arya/Aria.  


In that case most ancient languages are hypothetical since they are not spoken nowadays. Proto-Iranic is then a hypothetical language as well, based on the modern iranic languages spoken today.

The term Aryan is claimed to have appeared in the Vedas, a Sanskrit text, later used by the ancient Persian kings to express themselves of noble class, I don't believe the term was meant to apply to their people, but does nowadays as the term "Aryan" and "Iranic" are from the same source, with similar meanings.

All proto-languages are hypothetical languages because they're reconstructions.  Due to the fact that both the Avestan and Vedic people used the term "Aryan" it is likely that it was used in proto-Indo-Iranian and therefore proto-Iranian and proto-Indic.  Your right that the term "Aryan" appears in the Vedas.  But even in the Rig Vedas the oldest portion of the Vedas it started to become used in the spiritual sense.  Only in the Irano-Afghan languages did it continue to be used as a national designation where it is still found in forms like Iran and Aryana.  The form "Aryan" also appears in the Gathas the oldest portion of the Avesta as Airyamna (Yasna 32.1; 33.4; 49.7).  

 

Back to Top
PakistaniShield View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2008
Location: North America
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote PakistaniShield Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2013 at 13:45
Originally posted by mojobadshah


All proto-languages are hypothetical languages because they're reconstructions.  Due to the fact that both the Avestan and Vedic people used the term "Aryan" it is likely that it was used in proto-Indo-Iranian and therefore proto-Iranian and proto-Indic.  Your right that the term "Aryan" appears in the Vedas.  But even in the Rig Vedas the oldest portion of the Vedas it started to become used in the spiritual sense.  Only in the Irano-Afghan languages did it continue to be used as a national designation where it is still found in forms like Iran and Aryana.  The form "Aryan" also appears in the Gathas the oldest portion of the Avesta as Airyamna (Yasna 32.1; 33.4; 49.7).  

 



Irano-Afghan is not a language grouping. Iranic includes languages spoken in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran.

Indo-Aryan languages still use the word Aryan in names and other forms. The Sanskrit origin was 'Aarya' and the Avestan cognate was "Irya. But Avestan is not the origin of Iranic languages. Avesthan is an eastern iranic tongue, in the same grouping as Pashto.

Sanskrit is the origin of all modern day Indo-Aryan languages.
Back to Top
mojobadshah View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
  Quote mojobadshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2013 at 15:01
Originally posted by PakistaniShield

Originally posted by mojobadshah


All proto-languages are hypothetical languages because they're reconstructions.  Due to the fact that both the Avestan and Vedic people used the term "Aryan" it is likely that it was used in proto-Indo-Iranian and therefore proto-Iranian and proto-Indic.  Your right that the term "Aryan" appears in the Vedas.  But even in the Rig Vedas the oldest portion of the Vedas it started to become used in the spiritual sense.  Only in the Irano-Afghan languages did it continue to be used as a national designation where it is still found in forms like Iran and Aryana.  The form "Aryan" also appears in the Gathas the oldest portion of the Avesta as Airyamna (Yasna 32.1; 33.4; 49.7).  

 



Irano-Afghan is not a language grouping. Iranic includes languages spoken in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran.

Indo-Aryan languages still use the word Aryan in names and other forms. The Sanskrit origin was 'Aarya' and the Avestan cognate was "Irya. But Avestan is not the origin of Iranic languages. Avesthan is an eastern iranic tongue, in the same grouping as Pashto.

Sanskrit is the origin of all modern day Indo-Aryan languages.

When I say Irano-Afghan I mean Iranic so that lay readers understand that we are not just talking about the Iranian nationals.  Have you ever had a conversation with a layman about the Iranian or Iranic language subfamily?  Those terms can get quite confusing? Speaking to an Afghan or Tajik they'll be like "but we're not Iranian" or using "Iranic" people will be like "ironic?"  I never said Avestan is the origin of Iranic languages.  I guess what your saying is that the Avestan cognate was pronounced "Irya."  It doesn't really matter the Irano-Afghans and Indics both used forms of "Aryan."  Old Persians used Ariya and Parthians used Aryan -an being a plural case marker.  The reason the Iranians don't usually use Aryan as a linguistic designation is because it would be redundant.  Iranian means Aryan so it would be like saying Aryan twice.  But there are instances of Irano-Aryan as a linguistic designation.  And just because the Indics use Indo-Aryan as a linguistic designation doesn't mean that the Indics called themselves "Aryan."  As you can see it would be just as clear to use Indic for the Indo-Aryan languages collectively.  It really isn't necessary to use Indo-Aryan.  This is the stupidity of philologers and Indian nationalists.  The Indics virtually never did use "Aryan" as a national designation.  It was used in a spiritual sense.  It was only the Irano-Afghans who gave themselves the national self-designation "Aryan" up until present day.  So if anyone should be most justly designated Aryan as a people or language-group it would be the Irano-Afghans.  The reason most people don't call them just Aryan is because it is confusable with the Aryan in the greater Indo-European sense.  But original Aryan is used from time to time.   
Back to Top
PakistaniShield View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2008
Location: North America
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote PakistaniShield Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2013 at 16:03
Indo-Aryan is the more correct and more widely used term. Indo-Aryan also distinguishes the  languages of Aryan origin from the languages of non-Aryan origin.

I stated Avesthan was not the Proto-Iranic language because Aryan is often wrongly thought of as originating with all the Iranic languages, when only one was found first using it.

But what is clear is that 'Aryan" nowadays is better used as a linguistic term as the people who first called themselves "aarya" or noble are heavily mixed, plus there's many people of non-'aryan' descent who speak Iranic and Indo-Aryan languages but are not of Indo-Iranic descent.


Back to Top
mojobadshah View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
  Quote mojobadshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2013 at 17:26
Originally posted by PakistaniShield

Indo-Aryan is the more correct and more widely used term. Indo-Aryan also distinguishes the  languages of Aryan origin from the languages of non-Aryan origin.

Saying that Indo-Aryan is more correct is subjective.  It may be more popularly recognized, but its actually quite misleading.  You could also say that Indic instead of Indo-Aryan distinguishes Aryan languages from non-Indic languages have have the same result.  And I'm a bit confused as to what your saying here.  The naming convention to my knowledge is thus: Proto-Indo-Iranian > Proto-Indo-Aryan > Indo-Aryan not Proto-Indo-Iranian > Proto-Indo-Aryan and non-Proto-Indo-Aryan. 

Originally posted by PakistaniShield


I stated Avesthan was not the Proto-Iranic language because Aryan is often wrongly thought of as originating with all the Iranic languages, when only one was found first using it.

I never said that Avestan was a proto-Iranic language.  But "Aryan" is believed to have originated in Proto-Indo-Iranian.  Of course Avestan is the only language first using "Aryan" because its the oldest attested Irano-Afghan language, but Old Persian and Parthian and even Osettic use forms of "Aryan" in the national sense and they developed from Proto-Iranian too.  

Originally posted by PakistaniShield


But what is clear is that 'Aryan" nowadays is better used as a linguistic term as the people who first called themselves "aarya" or noble are heavily mixed, plus there's many people of non-'aryan' descent who speak Iranic and Indo-Aryan languages but are not of Indo-Iranic descent.

And this is just totally idiotic.  The Irano-Afghans called themselves Aryans collectively.  Their homeland was called Airyana.  The Indics only used "Aryan" as an adjective.  Nationally they were called Purus or Barattas.   Its like one of the few cases where a people's language is not named after their national epyonym.  The English speak English the Irish speak Irish the Germans speak German, but the Indics speak "noble."  You know what I'm saying?  Your right that nationality and language are two different things.  But the language of the Irano-Afghans (Aryans) is called Iranian or Iranic because their homeland was Iran (Aryana).  

"Aryan" is restricted to the Indo-Iranians and most justly to the latter because Iran means Aryan.  But since WWII it has also come to mean white, a meaning that developed because the Indo-Europeans were thought to be peopled by whites.   

Anyway to expound upon my original answer to the original question.  The idea of the Aryans even as a superior race is not totally unfounded.  The Germans were probably not the root race.  They were not the Proto-Aryans or Proto-Indo-Europeans, but like the rest of the Aryans or Indo-Europeans their descendants.  And the Indo-Europeans otherwise known as Aryans, the proposed R1a1a or maybe J2 or I haplogroup just looking at the Irano-Aryans were very powerful, and underrated at the same time.  For example Zoroaster is said to be the most influential figure who ever lived because it is the root of the West's religious heritage and even Islam, but the average individual has never heard of Zoroaster.  This fact has intellectual potential.  Then there's the fact that the Persians established the world's first world empire Persia, the largest empire ever proportionately and to think that they did this by sheer man and horsepower before there were guns.  Of course this fact was overshadowed by Alexander.  But the Greek Empires and Roman Empires which were Indo-European and very powerful.  Lastly there's the language aspect.  Indo-European is the most widespread language superfamily in the world, English an IE. language being the lingua franca and Spanish the second.  There's nothing mythological or fabricated about this.  

Back to Top
mojobadshah View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
  Quote mojobadshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2013 at 17:29
Correction, if I'm not mistaken the R1a1a would be equated with the Proto-Indo-Europeans (the forebears of the Aryans right?) but would also be found among their descendants the Indo-Europeans.  
Back to Top
PakistaniShield View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2008
Location: North America
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote PakistaniShield Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2013 at 21:00
Originally posted by mojobadshah

Correction, if I'm not mistaken the R1a1a would be equated with the Proto-Indo-Europeans (the forebears of the Aryans right?) but would also be found among their descendants the Indo-Europeans.  


R1A1 is a subclade of haplogroup R which is generally associated with Indo-Europeans. The R1A1 subclade is usually associated with IE populations more towards Eastern Eurasia such as Balto-Slavics and Indo-Iranics, but mostly on Y-chromosomes (father to son). I cannot state on mtDNA

Other well known R subclades are R1B (Western Eurasian) and R2 (mostly North Indian)

Balochii states from his finding that Iran has a relatively low distribution of R1A1, a statement I once found on an Iranian forum as well, but it's been a long time since I looked at genetic maps of Iran so I'm not positive but quite sure that is the case.


Edited by PakistaniShield - 04-Oct-2013 at 21:31
Back to Top
PakistaniShield View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2008
Location: North America
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote PakistaniShield Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2013 at 21:29
Originally posted by mojobadshah


And this is just totally idiotic.  The Irano-Afghans called themselves Aryans collectively.  Their homeland was called Airyana.  The Indics only used "Aryan" as an adjective.  Nationally they were called Purus or Barattas.   Its like one of the few cases where a people's language is not named after their national epyonym.  The English speak English the Irish speak Irish the Germans speak German, but the Indics speak "noble."  You know what I'm saying?  Your right that nationality and language are two different things.  But the language of the Irano-Afghans (Aryans) is called Iranian or Iranic because their homeland was Iran (Aryana).  

"Aryan" is restricted to the Indo-Iranians and most justly to the latter because Iran means Aryan.  But since WWII it has also come to mean white, a meaning that developed because the Indo-Europeans were thought to be peopled by whites.   

Anyway to expound upon my original answer to the original question.  The idea of the Aryans even as a superior race is not totally unfounded.  The Germans were probably not the root race.  They were not the Proto-Aryans or Proto-Indo-Europeans, but like the rest of the Aryans or Indo-Europeans their descendants.  And the Indo-Europeans otherwise known as Aryans, the proposed R1a1a or maybe J2 or I haplogroup just looking at the Irano-Aryans were very powerful, and underrated at the same time.  For example Zoroaster is said to be the most influential figure who ever lived because it is the root of the West's religious heritage and even Islam, but the average individual has never heard of Zoroaster.  This fact has intellectual potential.  Then there's the fact that the Persians established the world's first world empire Persia, the largest empire ever proportionately and to think that they did this by sheer man and horsepower before there were guns.  Of course this fact was overshadowed by Alexander.  But the Greek Empires and Roman Empires which were Indo-European and very powerful.  Lastly there's the language aspect.  Indo-European is the most widespread language superfamily in the world, English an IE. language being the lingua franca and Spanish the second.  There's nothing mythological or fabricated about this.  


A lot of what you have written is questionable. Firstly the terminology of places, people, languages etc. do almost always have their origins in something physical.  Like Aryan being spoken by the Indo-Aryans as you just mentioned.

The same can be stated for Germans, French English, all these terms have origins in a physical idea if you research them going back far enough. For example Finns call their language "Suominen" in Finnish. The term Suominen comes from "Suomi" the Finnish word for Finland. According to a Finnish person I know, the term Suomi originates in reference to "swamp" because the area of Finland that was settled by the Finns was an area of swamps.

So if you take this term far back enough, Finns speak the language of the land of the swamps. Finns are the people of the land of the swamps. Today it might not hold that much meaning, but the term is there for a reason.

Same way the Indo-Aryans speak or rather spoke the language of the nobles if the term is traced back correctly. To correct your confusion, the evolution of Indo-Aryan languages goes by Proto-Indo-Iranic> Proto-Indo-Aryan>Sanskrit> modern Indo-Aryan languages.

Your statement that Persians established the first empire is questionable as there are many empires worldwide found throughout history. A world empire would be the British or French Empire.

Indo-European is a family of languages, super families are currently hypothetical families that consists of multiple language families such as Nostratic.

The first reference to Aryan is most likely Sanskrit. Persian kings might have them to refer to their self noblety, which originated in Sanskrit.

Also J2 is not associated with Indo-Europeans as far as I know. J2 is claimed to have originated in mesepotamia and associated with middle eastern and Mediterranean populations, mostly southern Europeans and North Africans.

Haplogroup J and R are very two different haplotypes.



Edited by PakistaniShield - 04-Oct-2013 at 21:39
Back to Top
mojobadshah View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
  Quote mojobadshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2013 at 21:57
Originally posted by PakistaniShield

Originally posted by mojobadshah


And this is just totally idiotic.  The Irano-Afghans called themselves Aryans collectively.  Their homeland was called Airyana.  The Indics only used "Aryan" as an adjective.  Nationally they were called Purus or Barattas.   Its like one of the few cases where a people's language is not named after their national epyonym.  The English speak English the Irish speak Irish the Germans speak German, but the Indics speak "noble."  You know what I'm saying?  Your right that nationality and language are two different things.  But the language of the Irano-Afghans (Aryans) is called Iranian or Iranic because their homeland was Iran (Aryana).  

"Aryan" is restricted to the Indo-Iranians and most justly to the latter because Iran means Aryan.  But since WWII it has also come to mean white, a meaning that developed because the Indo-Europeans were thought to be peopled by whites.   

Anyway to expound upon my original answer to the original question.  The idea of the Aryans even as a superior race is not totally unfounded.  The Germans were probably not the root race.  They were not the Proto-Aryans or Proto-Indo-Europeans, but like the rest of the Aryans or Indo-Europeans their descendants.  And the Indo-Europeans otherwise known as Aryans, the proposed R1a1a or maybe J2 or I haplogroup just looking at the Irano-Aryans were very powerful, and underrated at the same time.  For example Zoroaster is said to be the most influential figure who ever lived because it is the root of the West's religious heritage and even Islam, but the average individual has never heard of Zoroaster.  This fact has intellectual potential.  Then there's the fact that the Persians established the world's first world empire Persia, the largest empire ever proportionately and to think that they did this by sheer man and horsepower before there were guns.  Of course this fact was overshadowed by Alexander.  But the Greek Empires and Roman Empires which were Indo-European and very powerful.  Lastly there's the language aspect.  Indo-European is the most widespread language superfamily in the world, English an IE. language being the lingua franca and Spanish the second.  There's nothing mythological or fabricated about this.  


A lot of what you have written is questionable. Firstly the terminology of places, people, languages etc. do almost always have their origins in something physical.  Like Aryan being spoken by the Indo-Aryans as you just mentioned.

Originally posted by PakistaniShield

The same can be stated for Germans, French English, all these terms have origins in a physical idea if you research them going back far enough. For example Finns call their language "Suominen" in Finnish. The term Suominen comes from "Suomi" the Finnish word for Finland. According to a Finnish person I know, the term Suomi originates in reference to "swamp" because the area of Finland that was settled by the Finns was an area of swamps.

So if you take this term far back enough, Finns speak the language of the land of the swamps. Finns are the people of the land of the swamps. Today it might not hold that much meaning, but the term is there for a reason.

I'm not arguing against this.  Aryan probably could have meant something along the lines of "noble" originally, but the Irano-Afghans are the only ones that used Aryan as a noun.  When an Irano-Afghan said he was an Aryan he was saying that he was affiliated with others who called themselves Aryan.  When an Indian called himself Aryan he was merely saying he or they was or were a "noble" or "good" person or people.  He wasn't saying that the people themselves are called "noble."  

Originally posted by PakistaniShield


Same way the Indo-Aryans speak or rather spoke the language of the nobles if the term is traced back correctly. To correct your confusion, the evolution of Indo-Aryan languages goes by Proto-Indo-Iranic> Proto-Indo-Aryan>Sanskrit> modern Indo-Aryan languages.

That's the way I understood it.  You seemed to imply that at some point Indic languages split into Indo-Aryan and non-Indo-Aryan languages.  

Originally posted by PakistaniShield


Your statement that Persians established the first empire is questionable as there are many empires worldwide found throughout history. A world empire would be the British or French Empire. 

I said the Persian empire was the largest empire proportionately to the British Empire.  The British and French Empires were also Aryan empires, but there is a huge gap between ancient Persia and British imperialism.  On top of that, and maybe I'm wrong, but this is the way I see it.  The Persians didn't have guns and weren't conquering technologically inferior people.  They fought their enemies basically as equals.  The British had guns and colonized mainly people without guns.  When the went up against the Afghans, who did have guns for example, they lost out.    

Originally posted by PakistaniShield


Indo-European is a family of languages, super families are currently hypothetical families that consists of multiple language families such as Nostratic. 


No.  You should check this.  Indo-European is a family of languages but is sometimes referred to a superfamily because it is the umbrella under which several subfamilies fall into.  Nostratic is also a superfamily, but the common ancestor of Indo-European which in this case would be considered a subfamily.  

Originally posted by PakistaniShield


The first reference to Aryan is most likely Sanskrit. Persian kings might have them to refer to their self noblety, which originated in . 


This all depends on what you consider more ancient Sanskrit or Avestan.  There are scholars who have proposed that it was Zoroaster's reforms which caused the Indo-Iranian split which would make the Avesta more ancient than Sanskrit.  Even if Avestan and Sanskrit were equally ancient the form Aryan only appears as a national designation in Sanskrit.  Evidence for a national designation in Sanskrit is very weak.   

[QUOTE=PakistaniShield]
Also J2 is not associated with Indo-Europeans as far as I know. J2 is claimed to have originated in mesepotamia and associated with middle eastern and Mediterranean populations, mostly southern Europeans and North Africans.

Haplogroup J and R are very two different haplotypes. 

I understand that J and R are different haplotypes, but this doesn't rule out the possibility that the Proto-Indo-European speakers were of mixed haplotypes.  Language travels faster than people.  Or is there anything illogical about this?


Back to Top
Ollios View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22-Feb-2011
Location: Diyar-ı Rum
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1131
  Quote Ollios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2013 at 00:53
Originally posted by mojobadshah

I understand that J and R are different haplotypes, but this doesn't rule out the possibility that the Proto-Indo-European speakers were of mixed haplotypes.  Language travels faster than people.  Or is there anything illogical about this?

Yes and No 

even today some nations are really mixed as Greece, Turkey and Iran. On the other hand some of others not that much, so you can see clearly which haplogroup are they as British or Finns (most of these country are isolated or located on edge of continents) 

  
we can't say that Turks in Anatolia come from J2, just looking up map

because
in reality, yes the number of Turks who has J2 genetic material more than the other groups 25% but not majority of Turks have this material

However we know that clear majority of Atlantic Europe has R1b and Finns have N genetic material 

An other example ancient British people has R-L21. Isn't it clear? If I am in this group, I can say that I am grandgrand... child of Galatian CeltsLOL

but it is realy hard to talk about Ottomans or Byzantines



Edited by Ollios - 05-Oct-2013 at 00:57
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır
Back to Top
mojobadshah View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
  Quote mojobadshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2013 at 11:13
Originally posted by Ollios

Originally posted by mojobadshah

I understand that J and R are different haplotypes, but this doesn't rule out the possibility that the Proto-Indo-European speakers were of mixed haplotypes.  Language travels faster than people.  Or is there anything illogical about this?

Yes and No 

even today some nations are really mixed as Greece, Turkey and Iran. On the other hand some of others not that much, so you can see clearly which haplogroup are they as British or Finns (most of these country are isolated or located on edge of continents) 

  
we can't say that Turks in Anatolia come from J2, just looking up map

because
in reality, yes the number of Turks who has J2 genetic material more than the other groups 25% but not majority of Turks have this material

However we know that clear majority of Atlantic Europe has R1b and Finns have N genetic material 

An other example ancient British people has R-L21. Isn't it clear? If I am in this group, I can say that I am grandgrand... child of Galatian CeltsLOL

but it is realy hard to talk about Ottomans or Byzantines


Looking at the map it looks like Eastern Europe has the highest concentration of R1a1a.  And if the PIE people had R1a1a would that mean that they probably originated somewhere in Eastern Europe?  And if this is the case wouldn't that disprove the Anatolian PIE homeland hypothesis?  On the other hand, the reason I brought up the possible mixed origin of the PIE people is because of a paper I read by Michael Witzel.  If Witzel is right, the fact that Anatolia is a mixed population would make it a likely candidate for the PIE homeland wouldn't it?
Back to Top
Ollios View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22-Feb-2011
Location: Diyar-ı Rum
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1131
  Quote Ollios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2013 at 14:23
Originally posted by mojobadshah

Looking at the map it looks like Eastern Europe has the highest concentration of R1a1a.  And if the PIE people had R1a1a would that mean that they probably originated somewhere in Eastern Europe?  And if this is the case wouldn't that disprove the Anatolian PIE homeland hypothesis?  On the other hand, the reason I brought up the possible mixed origin of the PIE people is because of a paper I read by Michael Witzel.  If Witzel is right, the fact that Anatolia is a mixed population would make it a likely candidate for the PIE homeland wouldn't it?

Why are you just looking for R1a1a? There are also other IE haplogroup just as R1b or I1(Sweden) and I2(Bosnia)

There is nearly no haplogroup R in Europe before 5000BC just R1a in Ukraine-Russia and R1b is in Middle East, not in West Europe

If you take the Dinester Culture as the homeland of PIE also it is suitable for Kurgan theory. They had a little I2 



 


Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır
Back to Top
PakistaniShield View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2008
Location: North America
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote PakistaniShield Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2013 at 17:43
Originally posted by mojobadshah



Looking at the map it looks like Eastern Europe has the highest concentration of R1a1a.  And if the PIE people had R1a1a would that mean that they probably originated somewhere in Eastern Europe?  And if this is the case wouldn't that disprove the Anatolian PIE homeland hypothesis?  On the other hand, the reason I brought up the possible mixed origin of the PIE people is because of a paper I read by Michael Witzel.  If Witzel is right, the fact that Anatolia is a mixed population would make it a likely candidate for the PIE homeland wouldn't it?


As i explained Haplogroup R1A1 is a subclade of haplogroup R. It is haplogroup R that is associated with Indo-European peoples, while the subclades are associated with different indo-european sub-races.

As Ollios showed by the map R1A1 is associated with Eastern Indo-Europeans and Central ones. R1B is more for western Indo-Europeans, so to state or even suggest that R1A1 is Proto-Indo-European does not make sense.

Anatolia is also in Europe, amongst the earliest European and Christian civilizations, but because it's Muslim today, it's no longer considered Europe although geographically it is mostly Europe.

Anatolia has a mixed population in more recent centuries since the influx of Turko-Mongols, Persians, Arabs and other Semites.

Anatolia is widely accepted as one of the earliest Indo-European homelands, but not necessarily the earliest.  The best way to determine the genetics of proto-indo-europeans is to extract dna from the earliest IE settlements and examine the haplogroups.


Edited by PakistaniShield - 05-Oct-2013 at 18:03
Back to Top
Ollios View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22-Feb-2011
Location: Diyar-ı Rum
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1131
  Quote Ollios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2013 at 00:19
Originally posted by PakistaniShield

 
As i explained Haplogroup R1A1 is a subclade of haplogroup R. It is haplogroup R that is associated with Indo-European peoples, while the subclades are associated with different indo-european sub-races.

yeap, you are right

Nice map about the isssue. Even Arabs and Central Asian Turks have own subgroup R


Originally posted by PakistaniShield

 
Anatolia is also in Europe, amongst the earliest European and Christian civilizations, but because it's Muslim today, it's no longer considered Europe although geographically it is mostly Europe.

Anatolia has a mixed population in more recent centuries since the influx of Turko-Mongols, Persians, Arabs and other Semites. 

That just can be true for Turko-Mongols, not the others. Since neolitihic period, Anatolia has been home for haplogroups J1-J2  






Edited by Ollios - 06-Oct-2013 at 00:21
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır
Back to Top
PakistaniShield View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2008
Location: North America
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote PakistaniShield Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2013 at 18:31
Originally posted by Ollios


That just can be true for Turko-Mongols, not the others. Since neolitihic period, Anatolia has been home for haplogroups J1-J2  


J2 would be an obvious find in Anatolia as it's a common Mediterranean haplogroup and probably originated in Mesopotamia. 

J1 would probably be in the southern regions of Anatolia and is very strong there even till today.
Back to Top
mojobadshah View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
  Quote mojobadshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2014 at 21:06
Is tracing PIE people using only genetics will result in a very linear model of descent.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a lot of diversity within an ethnic group?  What ethnic group is pure?  The Pashtun's look like they have a very high percentage of R1a1a, but there are other Pashtun haplogroups like L and J.  There is no 1 haplogroup that designates the Parsis too.  So why would the PIE people have been composed of only 1 haplogroup.  

Is it possible that speakers from each one of these haplgroups R1a1a and J both contributed to the PIE language?

Lastly I have a genetics question.  If my Y-DNA is J does that mean that none of my ancestors have had haplogroup R1a1a?  Because my mom has Southern European DNA, but I don't.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

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 0.125 seconds.