Print Page | Close Window

are south east asians partially indian?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of Oceania, South-East Asia and Pacific
Forum Discription: Discuss the history of SE Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33350
Printed Date: 12-Aug-2020 at 06:23
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: are south east asians partially indian?
Posted By: balochii
Subject: are south east asians partially indian?
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2013 at 23:45
I heard genetically south east Asian groups like Burmese, Thai, Cambodians and even vietnamese are 10-20% related to Indians genetically. I guess this may explain their tanned skin

their facial features also have some (indian) looks to them


















Replies:
Posted By: pdtoler
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 10:34
By Indian, do you mean South Asian or Native American?


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 12:33
Balochii, if you read up on the various states of Southeast that existed prior to the Vietnamese march south, you will see that all had Indian merchants resident in them, and all claimed descent from various Indian founders. Even the Cham peoples, who could be found in southern Central Vietnam as late as the 1800s. 

While there may be some genetic Indian contributions to the modern inhabitants of SEA, it helps to remember that India is a culture shared by many 'races' within the sub-continent, and had a lasting influence on Burma, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand, all either descended from Indianized states, or conquerors of the same who adopted much from the Indianized states they conquered. Mon-Khmers and Malay also have dark skins.




-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 15:55
Originally posted by pdtoler

By Indian, do you mean South Asian or Native American?


south asian, since the area is pretty close to India anyways


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 19:41
Judging by the food, they were probably descended from both Chinese and Indian ancestors

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 20:25
^ and yeah their clothing is also very similar


Posted By: oxydracae
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2013 at 11:10
No doubt.. South East Asia was a part of Greater India..


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2013 at 20:46
Originally posted by oxydracae

No doubt.. South East Asia was a part of Greater India..

It depends on the region. The Pathans have light skin like Europeans, many low-caste Indians have black skin and curly hair, and there are Indians living near the Himalayas who look similar to Chinese


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 00:37
In re:  "Judging by the food, they were probably descended from both Chinese and Indian ancestors"

Probably why the French called it Indochina. The Chinese had long contacts in the area, but the majority of people of Chinese descent probably date back to the 17th Century when the Ming empire fell, and those merchant Chinese who followed in after.

See: Mac Cuu (google). A good survey can be found in:  Water Frontier, Commernce and the Chinese in the Lower Mekong Region, 1750 - 1880, published by the NUS Press, Nola Cooke and Li Tana, editors.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 05:09
Dark skin was probably an adaptation for the climate. Most of the people have lived there for millenia and have large later Chinese migrations (Thailand and Vietnam) and small bits of Indian migrations.

Kalinga i.e modern Orissa from at least 200 BC had a tradition of peaceful merchant activity into these areas and many settlements were made. (Bali yatra)

Tamil (Cholas) were a more predatory people who in the 10th century pirated the Kalinga vessels and also established military control of these areas of French Indo China and Jawa 

This effectively destroyed the peaceful trading activities of the Kalinga people. Tamil pirates continued their activities diminishing the Kalinga influence and after the decline of the Chola empire the entire system of peaceful trade diminished.

It was then taken over by the Arab and Portugese traders. Which is why these places have large Muslim communities now (Indonesia has the largest number of muslims in the world)




-------------
Venky


Posted By: Hukumari
Date Posted: 29-May-2013 at 21:47
Originally posted by pdtoler

By Indian, do you mean South Asian or Native American?


What does it matter? There are Indian Amerindians....and a lot especially among Inca, Quechua and Lupaca of Aymara.
Please have a look at Tompullo 2. They even have Indian Y DNA L like in Egyin Gol cemetery.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/13/30
Read it well and profoundly, but it will take many months!





Posted By: SuryaVajra
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2013 at 14:11
A recent study has shown a major Genetic input to the aboriginal population of Australia from India around 2000 BC---around the time the Indus Saraswathy Civilization collapsed and Vedic people (Mittani and Hitties) started appearing in the middle east.

That means Indian ships reached Australia back then. Which is not surprising as India was propably the only country then with that kind of a naval capability. Remember, they had the worlds first naval dock built of 1 million bricks and maintained colonies in Dilmun , Magan etc 

The relevance of this to the present discussion is that the study also showed that the Dingo was introduced into Australia along with tools and agriculture technology by these immigrants.

Now, it is known however that the Dingo is more closely related to South East asian wild Dog populations than to the Indian wild dog which is not possible had these migrants not been to SE Asia.And if they reached down under, they must also have reached SE Asia easily

Also Brahmi inscriptions have been found in Indonesia as early as 300 BC. So the cultural conntacts are very old.

So its not surprising that there may be a small genetic input in Isolated pockets, but not prominent enough to figure in  many papers I ran through


Lothal Naval dock 2800--1900 BC

http://folks.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Lothal-worlds-oldest-scientifically-designed-harbor-c.-2450-BCE.jpg


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2013 at 10:53

Anecdotally, I have noticed that some Cambodians have distinctly Indian features (not necessarily australoid) and do not resemble other east asians.

Originally posted by SuryaVajra

A recent study has shown a major Genetic input to the aboriginal population of Australia from India around 2000 BC---around the time the Indus Saraswathy Civilization collapsed and Vedic people (Mittani and Hitties) started appearing in the middle east. 

The relevance of this to the present discussion is that the study also showed that the Dingo was introduced into Australia along with tools and agriculture technology by these immigrants.
What agriculture are you referring to?  My impression is that the indigenous australians were solely hunter gatherers and that while some groups may have made use of incidental agriculture (cutting or burning certain areas to encourage a particular wild plant that was edible), none of the aboriginal Australians were agricultural in the true sense of the word. 
Originally posted by SuryaVajra

A recent study has shown a major Genetic input to the aboriginal population of Australia from India around 2000 BC---around the time the Indus Saraswathy Civilization collapsed and Vedic people (Mittani and Hitties) started appearing in the middle east. 

The relevance of this to the present discussion is that the study also showed that the Dingo was introduced into Australia along with tools
What tools are you referring to?  My impression is that the entire tool kit of the aboriginal australians (atlatls, throwing sticks - later made into more sophisticated boomerangs, fishing lures, and other stone tools) was brought to the area by the first australians.
 
I dont think the Australians had any substantial contact (there was sporadic contact between New Guineans and some aboriginal Australians in the far north) with other peoples following their settlement of Australia until the European contact.    


Posted By: SuryaVajra
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2013 at 13:40

I have highlighted certain notable points for your ease.

Dingo

The first colonists would thus have needed boats to cross some narrow seas in order to settle this land. But since their ancestors would have required similar craft to cross Bab el Mandeb, no technological improvement would have been required for them to do so.

Dr Pugach, however, also discovered something else. There is a pattern of SNPs in aboriginal Australians that is not found in people from New Guinea or the Philippines. But it is found in some Indians—particularly from the southern part of the subcontinent. That discovery both meshes with the Y-chromosome data and enriches it, because the pattern of the SNP data meant that she and her colleagues could calculate when the Indian genes (and thus the Indians who carried them) arrived in Australia.

The answer is 141 generations ago. Allowing 30 years a generation, that yields a date of 2217BC. Obviously, this is not a precise date. But it is probably good to within a century or two. And that is interesting for two reasons. One is that the 23rd century BC is slap-bang in the middle of the period when Indian civilisation was emerging. The other is that it coincides with a shift in both the culture of Australia and the composition of the continent’s wildlife.

The bronze-age Indus valley civilisation, which reached its peak of development between 2600BC and 1900BC, is less well-known to outsiders than its contemporaries in China and the Middle East, partly because no one has managed to translate its written records. But it was no less successful, and it led—just as those two other areas did—to an urban culture that resonates today.

One technology it managed to develop was seaworthy ships, rather than mere boats, and Indus valley states used them to trade with their Middle Eastern neighbours. Such ships could have provided the means to get to Australia, either deliberately or by accident, for by then the sea had risen close to its modern level.



The shift in Australian life came in three ways that can be seen today. One was that tools changed. It was not a case of metalworking being introduced, so an organised expedition of settlers from one of the Indus valley states can probably be ruled out. Rather, aboriginal culture, which had hitherto depended on the large and relatively crude stone tools of the palaeolithic, suddenly started using the smaller and finer ones of the neolithic. Whether the new arrivals did not know how to work metal, or merely lacked the equipment or sources of ore to do so, remains to be established.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/15/article-2262843-16F5BDED000005DC-853_634x651.jpg

The second shift was gastronomic. Sadly, the archaeological record has yet to reveal tandoori ovens or fossilised chapatis in Australia. But it does show changes at this time in the ways that cycad nuts—an important crop that Australians had long cultivated by the “fire-stick” method of burning vegetation that competes with the trees that bear them—were processed. Such nuts contain toxins. After about 2000BC several methods for removing these toxins, such as leaching them out with water and fermenting them away, spread through Australia. To this day, cycad nuts are familiar food in Kerala, in southern India. There, they are detoxified by being dried in the sun or by the fireside.

The third thing that arrived in Australia at this time was the dingo. The origin of these wild dogs, which are believed to have outcompeted and exterminated the native thylacine (also known as the Tasmanian tiger, because it lingered into modern times on that dingo-free island), has always been obscure, though their resemblance to certain breeds found in India is well known. Dr Pugach’s discovery suggests they may have come directly, on board ship. However, the existence of similar dogs in New Guinea and parts of South-East Asia complicates that explanation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21016700

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21569688-genetic-evidence-suggests-four-millennia-ago-group-adventurous-indians


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2013 at 17:39

If metal objects or forges were to be found in Australia, I could accept the theory.  I, however, cant imagine that extensive contacts occurred with out either transmitting metallurgy to the indigenous peoples, or the Indian colonists establishing metal producing capabilites in Australia.

Also, lets look at what other technologies the Indians would have had, yet for some reason did not transmit to the indigenous Australians:
-Agriculture
-Bows
-Pottery
-early forms of writing
 
Then factor in that Indian languages were not transmitted either (usually the more technologicaly advanced culture imposes their language to varying degrees on the colonized area.
 
As for Dingos, I can see them originating in India, and then being brought / traded to Malaysia, Indonesia and then New Guinea. They were then introduced to Australia by New Guineans. 


Posted By: Hukumari
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2013 at 18:27
Re:
Also, lets look at what other technologies the Indians would have had, yet for some reason did not transmit to the indigenous Australians:
-Agriculture
-Bows
-Pottery
-early forms of writing

Nothing about DNA?


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2013 at 22:30
Being descended from a people who came from what today is India over four thousand years ago does not guarantee that they had any Indian culture. Do not the Andaman islanders inhabit 'India'.

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2013 at 11:27
Originally posted by lirelou

Being descended from a people who came from what today is India over four thousand years ago does not guarantee that they had any Indian culture. Do not the Andaman islanders inhabit 'India'.
There is a key difference:
 
- Surya contends that an advanced Indus valley culture that would have possessed pottery, metallury, agriculture etc. made contact with Australia, yet they did not trasmit any of those things to the Australians.
 
- He does not appear to be contending:  A group of hunter gathers from what is today India made contact with other hunter gathers in what is today Australia.  Pottery, agriculture etc were not transmitted.
Originally posted by SuryaVajra

The answer is 141 generations ago. Allowing 30 years a generation, that yields a date of 2217BC. Obviously, this is not a precise date. But it is probably good to within a century or two.
These numbers seem off.   30 years / generation is the modern ratio in industrialized societies.  This ratio has only existed for at most, 100 years.
 
For most of human history, the ratio was probably say  20 years / generation or even 15 years / generation (it was very common to marry young and girls, post puberty, were considered ready for marriage and children).
 
Thus, if the DNA was transmitted by Indians and transmitted 141 generations ago, the transmission could well have occurred much later.
Originally posted by Hukumari


Nothing about DNA?
Perhaps the presence of the DNA has another explanation, or it has been misinterpreted as to when it was transmitted?


Posted By: SuryaVajra
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2013 at 15:57
Originally posted by Cryptic

If metal objects or forges were to be found in Australia, I could accept the theory.  I, however, cant imagine that extensive contacts occurred with out either transmitting metallurgy to the indigenous peoples, or the Indian colonists establishing metal producing capabilites in Australia.




While the discovery of such forges would have been a strong archaeological evidence, the absence of the same evidence does not disprove the stated.

What are the chances that a group of migrants( notably small in comparison to the native population) who end up down under , could discover copper deposits ?( Vedic India entered Iron age around 1800 BC, much before most of the world)

Just think about it ! They probably landed in Western Australia---mostly desert or Grassland region.
They had not come prepared for causing a revolution in Australia. They may very well have had little metal implements in their ships. To expect them to find Australia's metal deposits is fastidious.

Originally posted by Cryptic

Then factor in that Indian languages were not transmitted either (usually the more technologicaly advanced culture imposes their language to varying degrees on the colonized area.


Is it that easy to spread languages? The spread of languages or major linguistic indications as you describe it can happen only as a consequence of prolonged and potent military conquest or intense religious diffusion.

The Roma Gypsies did not help in spreading Indian languages(though their speech remains commendably Romani Indo Aryan despite extraneous linguistic permeation to varying degrees). Compare the migrants to Australia with the Roma and not with conquerors. The Gypsies introduced Gun powder, Indian scientific/classical music, the Guitar and perhaps even perhaps wagon warfare(predecessor of tank warfare) under the Czech Jan Zikka ( as part of the Hussite war).

The Hittite and Mittani Vedic Aryans were more advanced than their middle eastern subjects in many respects. But despite this their language was wiped out of use ( The Assyrians between 1200 BCE and 900 BCE forcibly attacked the use of Hurrian leading to its extinction).

Mind you, they forcibly thrust themselves in their thousands into the middle East and yet their language survived only so far as their power survived.

How then can you expect a weak bunch of immigrants to introduce a new language on an entire indigenous population ?


Originally posted by Cryptic

Also, lets look at what other technologies the Indians would have had, yet for some reason did not transmit to the indigenous Australians:
-Agriculture
-Bows
-Pottery
-early forms of writing



If you assume they should necessarily have started off from India with a view to colonize other lands and would have packed their bags with Indian seeds and plant specimens-- yes you have a point. But what if they had no seeds left at their arrival. What if they were half starved ? However the sudden change in food processing as comparable to Indian techniques is a related development as I have already quoted.

Bows? You mean bows and arrows? What in the world for would you carry bows in a boat? I dont think Indians practiced bow fishing.

Pottery. Sorry, I have nothing pertinent to add as regards Pottery. Point ceded.

Early forms of writing.  Ah my favorite. While no evidence of Vedic Saraswathy script ( commonly called as Indus script ) have been identified in Australia, there is undeniable evidence that Vedic people did reach Easter Islands.

http://www.newsnfo.co.uk/images%202/indus%20valley%20and%20Easter_island_script%20similarities%20123.jpg


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EGPkF8wHmh8/TYYTY5FqVCI/AAAAAAAABYY/iHeQgSUl9Ww/s1600/Pretty%2BLadies%2Band%2BIndus%2BScript.bmp


It doesn't end there.

The ancient seafarers may have even reached North America.
The similarities between the Vedic( mostly south Indian and Sri Lankan) and Mayan civilizations,-- astronomy,architecture, pantheon,linguistics mythology, artistic motifs and symbolism --are too bog to be dismissed as coincidences. I am particularly impressed that the Mayan calendar began with a date around 3112 B.C.,v ery close to the Hindu traditional beginning of the Kali age viz.,3102 B.C

I cannot elaborate on all the points . However I wish to share a most intriguing artistic motif in Mayan history



We all know there are no elephants in the Americas. Isn't it surprising in Mayan country, such as this one in Copan. It may be a reminder of the elephants in India.

Eminent scholar-writers like
Mackenzie, Hewitt, Tod, Pococke and
Mrs. Nuttal have collected plenty of data to show
that ancient American civilizations
were influenced by Old World civilizations. We have
to remember that the
post-Columbus history of America for 300 years was
the story of ruthless destruction
and fanatics like Bishop Diego da Landa burnt a huge
bonfire of valuable documents
and nothing but the three codices of 'Chilam Balam'
could survive the holocaust.


More serious efforts to connect the ancient American civilizations with
those of ancient India have to be made.
The Trans-Pacific contacts of the people of south-east Asia with the
people of ancient America have been
established beyond doubt. It is also a well-proven fact of history that
Indians of ancient times were great
sea-farers. In pre-Mahabharata era(3102  BCE)as well as in the subsequent period,
the kings of southern India possessed
large fleets used for trade with the Arabian and European countries
where Indian merchandise was much in
demand. India's links with south-east Asia and other far-off islands of
the Pacific Ocean are an established fact
of history. The conquest of Malaya by Rajendra Chola, the story of
Buddhagupta the Great Sailor
(Mahanavik), the religious expeditions of Indians to preach the gospel
of Buddhism in the distant lands of
Cambodia, Annam, Bali, Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Japan, Korea, Mongolia
and China are proofs of the impact
of Indian culture.



You may read the complete complete comparisons in these sites

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/hinduism-forum/183815-world-vedic-vedic-culture-maya-civilization-mexico.html

http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.in/2011/05/more-connections-between-ancient-india.html


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2013 at 23:18
Why can't it be a Tapir, an animal the Mayans certainly were familiar with. Likewise, are we to presume that all the underworld characters depicted in Mayan art actually existed?

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: SuryaVajra
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2013 at 23:55
Maybe

But trying to explain everything by ignoring the inconvenient is not criticism.

Thats skepticism. 


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2013 at 11:09
Originally posted by SuryaVajra

 
Bows? You mean bows and arrows? What in the world for would you carry bows in a boat? I dont think Indians practiced bow fishing. 
 
For use when they landed (after getting out of the boat, they might need to hunt or fight somebody).  Most explorers carried weapons, especially weapons they were familiar with.
 
Originally posted by Cryptic

Also, lets look at what other technologies the Indians would have had, yet for some reason did not transmit to the indigenous Australians:
-Agriculture
Also, I think no agriculture / transmission of plants needs to be examined further.  Ancient seafarers usually provisioned their ships on the assumption that they might need to stay in their destination for a period of time and would need things to eat.  For explorers of any culture, that usually meant familiar things to eat.  
 
For example, polynesian voyagers brought Taro plants and pigs. Europeans brought plant seeds.   To my knowledge, no transmissions of agriculture, plants and animals occured with Australia.
 
I truly think that any ancient seafarers in that part of the world would have brought pigs as a source of food.  They are low maintenance, tasty, reproduce easily and smaller ones are easy to transport.  Once in Australia, some would have escaped and gone feral.
 
Originally posted by SuryaVajra

Is it that easy to spread languages? The spread of languages or major linguistic indications as you describe it can happen only as a consequence of prolonged and potent military conquest or intense religious diffusion.
I can accept that in general, especially with migrants. 
 
But if the migrants have the advanced culture (and the indians would of) I think some transmission of words or even languages can be expected.  If they had enough contact to transmit DNA, why not a language, especially to the creole population?
 
Originally posted by SuryaVajra

While the discovery of such forges would have been a strong archaeological evidence, the absence of the same evidence does not disprove the stated.

What are the chances that a group of migrants( notably small in comparison to the native
They had not come prepared for causing a revolution in Australia. They may very well have had little metal implements in their ships. To expect them to find Australia's metal deposits is fastidious.
Ok, I can accept that.
 
 


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2013 at 15:27
We all know there are no elephants in the Americas. Isn't it surprising in Mayan country, such as this one in Copan. It may be a reminder of the elephants in India.

Phooey!  There are no Elephants here now.  However there were Elephants here, at one time.  Mastodons.  About 20 miles from where I live there were Mastodon bones found and carbon dated at approx. 5,500 years in age.  That would have put them alive at about 3500 bce.  There is no reason to believe that they were not around for an early South American culture such as the Olmec or others to have seen them.
I have several carvings that suggest the cultures here had seen both the Mastodon and an extinct form of Bison. 
 
Also, there is considerable evidence of contact with Africa.  There are several examples of elephants in Olmec art and in their "toys".  So the contact with India becomes as speculative as anything else.
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: SuryaVajra
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2013 at 00:28
Red, you are referring to the extinct species of Mastodon Americanum

The meso American motif clearly shows no resemblance to this species, if you look closely.


If you can show me evidence that another species of Elephant having more semblance to the Elephas Maximus ....Then my claim falls on its nose.


http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/99/94699-034-B64D78EC.jpg



Please note the prominently oblique Parietal, the noticeably small ears and the typical tusks.

The motif clearly stands with the Indian or African species especially with respect to the forehead.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2013 at 09:54
The motif is a stylization, an interpretation.  You are in complete denial of any thing that runs contrary to your delusional ramblings.
 
You are a Hindu Nationalist, an apologist trying to make up for the fact that India has been a stagnant backwater for the last 500 years. Your trying to create grandeur where there isn't any.  I have wasted enough time with this silliness. 
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: SuryaVajra
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2013 at 11:08
It does not end with just a motif and a common origin of the calender Red.....There is a lot more to it you wouldn't imagine

I will make that clear some other time.

Maybe then you will regret these stinging barbs.

Clown


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2013 at 15:25
Surya, I have 2 degrees .  My graduate work was done on Historical Ceramics, with an accent on Meso America and Neolithic cultures.  I am probably more familiar with Mayan decorative works than you could ever dream of.
Anything you could come with would have to compete with what I already know as fact. 
 
It's very sad, your no different than the other ultras that come here.  Your not able to be proud of the established proved achievements of the Indian People, no that's not enough, you have to claim nearly every advance made by man, regardless of reality. 
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2013 at 23:19
Red Clay, how could anyone who had done graduate work related to Meso America confuse the Olmec for an "early South American culture"?

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2013 at 11:20
Originally posted by lirelou

Red Clay, how could anyone who had done graduate work related to Meso America confuse the Olmec for an "early South American culture"?
 
 

Archaeologists divide Mesoamerican civilizational development into three major time periods: the PreClassic or Formative period extending from 1500 B.C. - A.D. 300, the Classic period extending from A.D. 300-950, and the PostClassic period extending from A.D. 950-1521.

There is considerable evidence for earlier dating, some from the Jana Island complex[ funerary] and other places.
 
I'm not confusing anything, the Olmec predate the Maya and the Aztec, so what would you call it?
 
And consider this, when I was doing graduate work, [early 70's]  the general opinion was that the Olmec was a "mother Civilization" there are some who still hold this view.
 
So why the personal attack?  Or are you playing Geography games? 
You have added nothing to the discussion, your trolling.
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Hukumari
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2013 at 13:06
Originally posted by lirelou

Why can't it be a Tapir, an animal the Mayans certainly were familiar with. Likewise, are we to presume that all the underworld characters depicted in Mayan art actually existed?

Pleae stop that nonsense if you do NOT have any genetic proof (Y-DNA, autosoma STR or autosomal SNP). I have been working with this probleb for 8 years in Central Americal
 
 
Edited for offensive content.  Red Clay. 
 
Hukumari, I actually agree with what I deleted, but it still would be offensive to others.
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2013 at 14:56
I am one of those folks who retained every textbook I needed for nearly every course, undergrad to grad.
I was just rattling around my library, looking for an Art History text I had from Freshman year, 1967.  It gives a date of 10,000 + for the origination of the Olmec culture.
 
Was it correct? In the mind of the author it was, at the time.  Was he wrong? Or was he victimized by revisionist thinking? 
 
Surya, Pre Columbian Arch. can be as problematic as Indian.  It's not something you just bop into and out of.
 
However, stylistic analysis of some pre Columbian ceramics shows a definite Asian influence at an early time.  And as Japanese and Chinese influences are present, I couldn't seriously rule out Indian Influences, even though there isn't immediate evidence of it.
 
Both Coasts were much more active than the isolationists would have us believe.
 
                                                  
 
 
 
 
  


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2013 at 11:40
According to current American theories about the orignins of the Amerind, they were orignally Mongols who either (a) migrated across the Bering Land Bridge, or (b) migrated in boats following the coastlines of the time.  Either way, given the intermix of Mongol/Asian groups, it comes as no surprise to find some genetic compatibility.

It's the classic question of which came first - the chicken or the egg?  Currently, the belief seems to be that the Asian/Mongol races arose in the East first and came to the American subcontinent secondarily, but all of that could easily change as newer data becomes available.

However, I will put forth one observation that will be difficult to contest:  Asian women are far more beautiful that any Amerind female, past or present.  Big smile

(No offense to any Amerinds among us)


-------------
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2013 at 12:57
Well...I might or might not agree about yer last...having been 'engaged' er... hm.... so to speak with both.

There are also promoters of a mongoloid-caucasoid mix of ethnicities ref. the op....vice American Indians. Thru something known as 'lagodan influences'...whatever in the hell that is...



Sounds like when I puke on bad Tonto wine.

Tho...I don't argue the principal theory of 'New World Migration Model'. I remain open to variable routes.

-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2013 at 13:20
Originally posted by lirelou

Balochii, if you read up on the various states of Southeast that existed prior to the Vietnamese march south, you will see that all had Indian merchants resident in them, and all claimed descent from various Indian founders. Even the Cham peoples, who could be found in southern Central Vietnam as late as the 1800s. 

While there may be some genetic Indian contributions to the modern inhabitants of SEA, it helps to remember that India is a culture shared by many 'races' within the sub-continent, and had a lasting influence on Burma, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand, all either descended from Indianized states, or conquerors of the same who adopted much from the Indianized states they conquered. Mon-Khmers and Malay also have dark skins.



Cambodia is derived from Cambyses.  The Sassanians were in Vietnam where they recall nushivan and one of the biggest families "bunnag" related to the royal family has Persian ancestry....  This isn't Indian but Iranian of course.


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2013 at 13:21
Bunnag are from Thailand.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com