Originally posted by Maju
So far, the only serious thing we can say about the spread of Indo-Iranians is that they are direct descendants of the culture of Andronovo, which spread from the Ural river to East Turkestan, and which is closely related to the Wooden Chambers' culture of southern Russia (proto-Scythians?). Apparently they migrated southwards, pressured possibly by Turks (?) and climate, mostly in the las half of the second milenium BC. Though some groups could have migrated before as early as the 3rd milennium.
(Ref.: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/prehistory/aryan_movem ent.htm)
|
The link doesnt work. Neither did a search on SAIS. Is the linked article removed...?!
Originally posted by capcartoonist
If the Indo-European Language originated in the Baltic area, then the people who lived in Iran prior to that time were not Aryans. The Indo-Euro languages and cultures are a thin
layer laid down on top of the previous languages and cultures in Europe and the Middle East.
Well over 90% of the genetic 'population' of Europe dates back to Paleolithic times. The people didn't change physically, but new languages and cultural traits were added. The same probably happened to Iran. People may have migrated out and then returned with new, Aryan, languages and cultural traits.
Something similar happened in Greece. The Dorian invasion circa 1200 BC may simply have been the descendants of previous inhabitants returning after the ending of the droughts that forced their ancestors to leave generations earlier. |
1. The first "aryan" or "caucasian" populations started to develop in the north - beginning with a bery small group of people that had survived ice-time in a so-called "refugia" - isolated from all the tropical populations for eons. Consequently they had developed these pale faces, the tall stature and the fire-and-tool-culture that made it possible to survive the arctic winter. But not before 10.000 years ago were this TINY population able to move out of their refugia and their genetic "bttleneck" - to reproduce in growing numbers and spread.
That spreading started as soon as the climate improved and the enormous areas of northern Eurasia became inhabitable. The limits of this new, habitatual continents are (principally) marked by the the Pyrenes-Alps-Balkan, the Caucasian and the Himalayan mountains. Here we still find a distinct border between the sub-arctic and the sub-tropic climate and nature, which the caucasian principally in the north. Thus it is fair to call these northern palefaces "arctic" or caucasian.
2. Consequently 90% of the northern people (Europeans and Russians alike) are characerized by their Paleolitic origin. We still dont know he exact place of this origin - but geneticans all agree that they came out of a "paleolitic refugia" - before they stated to spread. The location of is refugia is not known, but Spain or Ucraine are the hottest candidates - at the moment...
3. According to "The Palolithic Contination Theory" (PCT) the Indo-European language originated from this small group of refugees.
4. After the ice left and they were able to move around and smaller groups of them seem to have reached the tropical cultures of the Mediterranean, the Middle east and India. Thus we may find their imprints in the various cultures south of the climate border.
Their genetic and linguistical traces can be found in all these areas - but only as
"thin layer" - the result of a mix with a far older substratum that (still) characterizes Indians from Arabs, Greek and Romans. Your obseration about their impact in Greece is most probably rigth.
5. The effect have been that all theese old (native) populations have been influenced by the same "Aryans" - leading to a higher degree of similarity in the DNA, the culture and the languages than they had before. Thus we may anticipate that these Aryans had a uniting effect on all the major populations of the paleoitic world - opening a channel of increased communication and cultral inter-change btween the larger populations of the old world.
6. The final effect can be seen in the modern world, where all the major populatons are able to communicate within the same range of sounds, words and semantics. 10.000 years after their scarce start we might even appreciate the effort that with time led to A world-wide understanding of the same cultural concepts - as we today may define "civilization" as "a thing" - all around the globe.
Ultimately - by combining the old tropical and the old arctical sound-systems (languages) - we have finally begotten A common language, that can be fluently spoken and comparably understood by as good as ALL the peoples of the planet.
7. Though - Dr. Derakhsjani is rigth about a major point; These Aryans did not "migrate" in large numbers into any area. The theory of their "succesful campains" are nothing but projection from modern scientists, who - inclined by or own, unrestful time - seem to associate evry cultural change by "warfare", "campaigns" and "conquest". With the evolution-theory at hand they have added Darwins concept of reptile-biology into human sociology and antropology - creating the misconception that civilisation could developed due to warfare. Only weapons, weapon-technoilogy and the politics of rude exloitation did.
Long after most of these Aryans were done...
The "Aryans" were not many enough to start large migrations into anywere, but the open lands given to them by the climate change. They rather made their influence by diplomatic and cultural radiation - as they could bring new (unknown), exiting and useful gifts to their neighburs. Thus we see a direct connection between the kings and nobilities of the old cultures and the Aryan corps de diplomatique, tat in many cases was married into the higher ranks of the original constitutions (= head families, nobility, chieftains...).
8. The start of the Caucasians - which is a newer word for Aryans - was their spread by reproduction and branching - all over the EMPTY areas of the northern hemisphere. MEANWHILE they also established and developed close contacts with their southern neigbours. Thus you may see their cultural impact - along with "a thin layer" of DNA (in various degrees) still deductible in both India and Asia, as well as Africa and America. This impact is naturally much higher in the northern parts of these areas - which explain the close connections between N-Europe and Persia/India, the Levant and the Med, compared to their impact in the FE Asia, Oceania and America. Though, their new, "high-tech" culture - of ship-building, sailing, river-trade, agriculture, metalurgy and masonry - came to reach even these areas already durng neolithicum...
Edited by Boreasi - 23-Oct-2008 at 07:17