I have made a few posts about : the old Aryan 'Empire' that stretched from (now ) western China to (now ) Turkey , 'Caucasian Chinese mummies ' , how the Aryans were not to be defined by race or ethnicity and put up a picture of a painting of an old Aryan King from Pishdadian dynasties ( before history ) in very much Chinese looking robes features and hairstyle.And this led my down the rabbit hole to be sure! It is actually quite amazing - the science research to debunk the Neo-Nazis.
I have made a few posts about : the old Aryan 'Empire'
You mean like Neo-Nazi b.s.? Is my response to which I post links to the same topic on Neo-Nazi websites. E.G.:
So you're just lifting b.s. from a neo-nazi website?Apr 14, 2017 - 10 posts - 6 authorsScattered across the desert sands of the Tarim Basin in present-day Xinjiang were mummies so different from the standard East Asian ...
Sorry there is no Aryans mentioned.
So this book says "proto-Indo-Aryan" spread into the "subcontinent" while "proto-Tocharian" stayed in Central Asia.
So I don't know what the whole Aryan neo-nazi b.s. is about - except to whine about "mongol" or "arab" contamination of the pure blood. haha. disgusting.
And so then someone tries to defend themselves by really stepping in it!
That these ancient Aryans prior to admixture with other population groups were of a Nordic European type is really undeniable to anyone who studies the matter without bias.. Its about what me may perhaps describe as "Nordish" or "Northern European" features, namely being Caucasoids with fair skin, hair ranging in colors but possessing red and blonde hair, and light eyes.What? Full on Nazi propaganda on thetaobums! haha. Hilarious.
So I post the standard clarification of why the term Aryan is not used anymore:
only Indic and Iranian languages explicitly affirm the term as a self-designation referring to the entirety of their people, whereas the same Proto-Indo-European root (*aryo-) is the basis for Greek and Germanic word forms which seem only to denote the ruling elite of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) society
So I think you wanting to claim Aryan for Proto-Indo-Europeans is blatantly racist.
So then the defense is - hey using the term Aryan isn't Nazi brainwashing it....refers to language and culture!this term had come to be widely used in a racist context referring to a hypothesized white master race, culminating with the pogroms of the Nazis in Europe. Subsequently, the term Aryan as a general term for Indo-Europeans has been largely abandoned by scholars (though the term Indo-Aryan is still used to refer to the branch that settled in Southern Asia).
Ah Language and Culture - that's not Nazi propaganda is it?
If these languages and culture are similar, the hypothesis went that these must have come from the same group of people. Since no such name existed for this group, the visiting German scholars named them Aryans - from the Sanskrit word for noble, pure.
Right now, only a few rare white supremists use the term outside of India & Iran.
Aryans had noble virtues
O.K. Now the b.s. really starts hitting the fan!!
The two Neo-Nazi Aryan racists start chatting together about their "Homeland" - in German!
At the beginning of the 19th century, the Germans were going through a low phase in self esteem, for they had nor the cultural heritage like the British or French, and neither the expansion capabilities like other European powers. As a means to show that they came from great heritage, they started to look at the East as a possible "urheimat".And just in case you don't believe me:
The study of Indian Texts was just gaining popularity, and seeing the similarity in language, they proposed that India was the land they all came from.
By the end of the century, owing to nationalistic, chauvinistic policies, this whole theory was reversed, and it was said that Indians came to India from Europe. The Britishers capitalised on this, and proposed the Aryan Invasion Theory, and later when enough evidence was not found for that, they changed it into the Aryan Migration Theory.
Europeans 'Aryans'And my response?
That's a blatant racist phrase you are using.
So then I start making fun of these other Neo-Nazis trying to do genetics research.
that the racists cite the genetic research of "farmers" and say that the Aryan genetics if from the culture of farming.
Yep - white skin is from Malnutrition from wheat monocultural farming lacking vitamin D.
The rest of that article is hilarious!
So then I'm told that since 'Aryan' was in quotes it was meant to be "ironic" or something. Really?The Aryan farmers who colonized southern Europe took their women. They are the ancestors of the dark skinned southern European "Whites".
Google search it."Old aryan empire"
And this "ronic" quote phrase?The invention of history in this movement's written sources is quite amazing.
I also remind people that I am NOT suggesting Europeans 'Aryans'
It's always funny when Eastern or Northern Europeans claim Aryan ancestry or whatever. It would be like a Middle Eastern or South Asian trying to claim Slavic or Germanic ancestry.
So I'm not saying there wasn't an Indo-European chariot culture - I'm just saying that it was not Aryan, nor was it the origin of white people in Europe as Aryans.
The Iranian language group is very closely related to Indo-Aryan, the branch of Indo-European that occupies the northern two thirds of India; these language groups presumably shared a common origin in the steppe region, during the Bronze Age, perhaps around 2500 BCE.So this pdf of Victor Mallory, professor, indicates a Proto-Indo-European origin, not Aryan.
Therefore Aryan only applies to a particular region of people at a particular time and any other use of it is aligned with the Nazi use of the term - that is why academics don't use the term Aryan.
So even linguistically - the term Aryan has nothing to do with certain "phenotypes."
"Oswald Szemerényi has suggested that *arya- is a loanword from an Ugaritic word meaning "kinsmen", from Proto-Afro-Asiatic *ħər (“free, noble”)"
Actually, the Ugaritic word noted by Szemerényi is ’ary 'kinsman', from a different root (*ʔar-), but if we see the meaning of the terms derived from the Afro-Asiatic root proposed above, one is surprised by their close similarity with the meanings of the Indo-European terms.
You want to connect the word Aryan to phenotype and then even connect that to European "phenotypes" - again this is just Neo-Nazi rhetoric.
That's Aryan to you? Hilarious - that is the standard Nazi definition of Aryan.Caucasoids with more Northern European associated features.
the Indo-Iranian branch (differently from the other Indo-Europeans) chose to name itself with the adjective or name connected with that root.Still not connecting apparently - hence the scream font size. haha.
So now I have to really explain things. Ho-hum.
Basically the genetics are primarily from the farmers - who again got white skin from wheat malnutrition - lack of vitamin D in the diet.
This farming culture started around 11,000 BCE.
So what happened is that it created ecological disaster - since the forest was cut down so people could water proof their houses from the ash.
Hilarious since no forest, then no rain anyway.
So then from this ecological disaster of early wheat monoculture - two things happened - you had white skin farmers escape as refugee immigrants into Europe - where the people were dark skin Africans as hunter-gatherers.
That was around 9,000 BCE.
Also you had pastoralism develop as an escape method to the wheat monocultural farming.
So then the pastoralist Yamnaya culture is Indo-European - but NOT Aryan - and the Yamnaya culture then spread into Europe around when....
about 5000 years ago
So this is much later - Europe already had white skin people primarily from the farmers.
Northern European blue eyes - like in Sweden - is also from dark skin albino eye-Africans.
But the primary source of white skin in Europe is from the early wheat farmers - lack of vitamin D in the diet.
First, a group of hunter-gatherers arrived in Europe about 37,000 years ago. Then, farmers began migrating from Anatolia (a region including present-day Turkey) into Europe 9000 years ago, but they initially didn’t intermingle much with the local hunter-gatherers because they brought their own families with them. Finally, 5000 to 4800 years ago, nomadic herders known as the Yamnaya swept into Europe. They were an early Bronze Age culture that came from the grasslands, or steppes, of modern-day Russia and Ukraine, bringing with them metallurgy and animal herding skills and, possibly, Proto-Indo-European, the mysterious ancestral tongue from which all of today’s 400 Indo-European languages spring. They immediately interbred with local Europeans, who were descendants of both the farmers and hunter-gatherers. Within a few hundred years, the Yamnaya contributed to at least half of central Europeans’ genetic ancestry.
So as I have pointed out - the white skin of Europe primarily came from the farmers of the near east-West Asia: http://sciencevibe.com/2017/05/25/most-modern-europeans-white-skin-did-not-evolve-in-europe-at-all/
But not only did Europeans have dark skin for far longer than previously thought, it turns out that what’s more is that white skin for most modern Europeans did not evolve in Europe at all. A new genetic analysis of an ancient European hunter-gatherer man has revealed that he had dark skin and blazing blue eyes which has lead scientist to rethink how white skin evolved.
light skin evolved not to adjust to the lower-light conditions in Europe compared with Africa, but instead to the new diet that emerged after the agricultural revolution.
And so Northern Europeans have more blue eyes from the African albinos.
Blue eyes is an albino gene.
The new analysis of that DNA now shows the man had the gene mutation for blue eyes, but not the European mutations for lighter skin.
The DNA also shows that the man was more closely related to modern-day northern Europeans than to southern Europeans.
The discovery may explain why baby blues are more common in Scandinavia. It's been thought that poor conditions in northern Europe delayed the agricultural revolution there, so Scandinavians may have more genetic traces of their hunter-gatherer past — including a random blue-eye mutation that emerged in the small population of ancient hunter-gatherers, Lalueza-Fox said.
Europeans were not what many people today would call 'Caucasian', said Guido Barbujani, president of the Associazione Genetica Italiana in Ferrara, Italy, who was not involved in the study.
Instead, "what seems likely, then, is that the dietary changes accompanying the so-called Neolithic revolution, or the transition from food collection to food production, might have caused, or contributed to cause, this change," Barbujani said.
So now the term Aryan is not valid to describe European phenotypes. haha.
Time to lose the Nazi terminology. http://new-indology.blogspot.gr/
Kongming read this:
THEREFORE WRONG:All this has nothing to do, fortunately, with the disastrous and artificial concept of a Nordic 'Aryan race'.
The point is that the Indo-Europeans or Aryans come from one root people who were of a particular ethnic type, namely Caucasoids with more Northern European associated features.
Now, in the first study of its kind, an international team of scientists has found that after agriculture arrived in Europe 8,500 years ago, people’s DNA underwent widespread changes, altering their height, digestion, immune system and skin color.
Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmer, Pontus Skoglund, Helena Malmström, Ayça Omrak, Maanasa Raghavan, Cristina Valdiosera, Torsten Günther, Per Hall, Kristiina Tambets, Jüri Parik, Karl-Göran Sjögren, Jan Apel, Eske Willerslev, Jan Storå, Anders Götherström, and Mattias Jakobsson, Science, DOI:10.1126/science.1253448The authors reiterated that there was a massive genetic difference between the first farmers who arrived in Sweden ~5,000 years ago, and a native hunter-gatherer tradition....In other words, two contemporaneous ancient populations in Sweden which were in near proximity for many generations had a genetic distance on the order of half the distance of Eurasia today.... But it is in the functional genome where there’s a twist on the story: the farmers may have looked physically more like modern Swedes than the hunters. That’s because at two SNPs which are fixed (in SLC24A5) or nearly fixed (in SLC45A5) in modern Europeans yield matches to the farmers and not the hunters.
Whew! I'm not even going to correct the formatting!! too much work.Prehistoric population structure associated with the transition to an agricultural lifestyle in Europe remains contentious. Population-genomic data from eleven Scandinavian Stone-Age human remains suggest that hunter-gatherers had lower genetic diversity than farmers. Despite their close geographical proximity, the genetic differentiation between the two Stone-Age groups was greater than that observed among extant European populations. Additionally, the Scandinavian Neolithic farmers exhibited a greater degree of hunter-gatherer-related admixture than that of the Tyrolean Iceman, who also originated from a farming context. In contrast, Scandinavian hunter-gatherers displayed no significant evidence of introgression from farmers. Our findings suggest that Stone-Age foraging groups were historically in low numbers, likely due to oscillating living conditions or restricted carrying-capacity, and that they were partially incorporated into expanding farming groups.
There's no such thing as a 'pure' European—or anyone elseBy Ann GibbonsMay. 15, 2017 , 3:00 PM
almost all indigenous Europeans descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East.
Ancient DNA records their arrival in Germany, where they are linked with the Linear Pottery culture, 6900 to 7500 years ago. A 7000-year-old woman from Stuttgart, Germany, for example, has the farmers’ genetic signatures, setting her apart from eight hunter-gatherers who lived just 1000 years earlier in Luxembourg and Sweden.
So you want to claim that northern Europeans are white because of a later Yamnaya migration but that is not true.
So now you want to claim some Latin purity - IndoEuropean is a language terminology.
the ethnic difference between the native, Mediterranean, non-Indo-European Etruscan dancer and the Latin/Indo-European dancer:
Your fascination is just your ignorance being projected onto reality:
The Etruscans had a rich literature, as noted by Latin authors. Unfortunately only one book (now unreadable) has survived, although there is always some possibility that more will turn up. By AD 100, Etruscan had been replaced by Latin.
The point is that there is a lot of history hidden from view during the period when the Etruscans left Anatolia. They were established in the Italian peninsula by 800 BCE, but likely were not present before 1200 BCE. This suggest their emigration was during the chaos following the collapse of the Hittie empire and the rise of Phyrgia (the western Anatolian kingdom which preceded Lydia as the preeminent power). This whole period is shadowy, so we have to focus on the variables we know and have and allow that others may always be free ranging parameters.
people wanted a pretentious term somewhat less coarse than white, and since most people are geography-challenged, “Caucasian” sounds good if you want to pose as the faux-sophisticate.
For those readers who have qualms about the coarseness of “white,” and the genericness of “European, how about the term “Aryanoids”? It will still make you sound smarter to the herd. And, it’s just as stupid and also derived from a scientific tradition which is in disrepute. But it has the convenience that it doesn’t correspond to anything real in this world.
dang - that nails it.
White people are from farming - not your "Aryan caucasoid" fantasy.
White skin is malnutrition - lack of vitamin D in the diet.
White skin does not mean "pure" as in Aryan.
The root word Aryan is from semitic-African language, when farming first started.
Those people became white due to malnutrition.
Caucasus, are homes to modern populations that display these features in large part.
Later they migrated to the Steppes - to escape the ecological destruction of the early farming.
The steppe culture later migrated into Europe - and then into India.
Yes those people were white - but they were not the origin of white skin.
The people you are referring to are called "Late-PIE" or Late Proto-Indo-European.
Do you get it yet?
Volker Heyd, Kossinna's smile, Antiquity, Volume 91, Issue 356, April 2017, pp. 348-359, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.17
So the farmers were already white.
The herders were white from the white farmers - the herders were "semi-nomadic" and also had wheat farming.
Do you get it yet?
..Here we show the genetic relationships of modern Etruscians, who mostly settled in Tuscany, with other Italian, Near Eastern and Aegean peoples by comparing the Y-chromosome DNA variation in 1,264 unrelated healthy males from: Tuscany-Italy (n=263), North Italy (n=306), South Balkans (n=359), Lemnos island (n=60), Sicily and Sardinia (n=276). The Tuscany samples were collected in Volterra (n=116), Murlo (n=86) and Casentino Valley (n=61). We found traces of recent Near Eastern gene flow still present in Tuscany, especially in the archaeologically important village of Murlo. The samples from Tuscany show eastern haplogroups E3b1-M78, G2*- P15, J2a1b*-M67 and K2-M70 with frequencies very similar to those observed in Turkey and surrounding areas, but significantly different from those of neighbouring Italian regions. The microsatellite haplotypes associated to these haplogroups allow inference of ancestor lineages for Etruria and Near East whose time to the most recent common ancestors is relatively recent (about 3,500 years BP) and supports a possible non autochthonous post-Neolithic signal associated with the Etruscans.
So because the Etruscans were not white farmers - they had darker skin.
The Etruscans had Mongol ethnicity - which means they were not farmer white yet.
Etruscans were a cattle culture - as pastoralists.
By further considering two Anatolian samples (35 and 123 individuals) we could estimate that the genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia date back to at least 5,000 years ago, strongly suggesting that the Etruscan culture developed locally, and not as an immediate consequence of immigration from the Eastern Mediterranean shores.
As also suggested by the analysis of skull diversity , contacts between people from the Eastern Mediterranean shores and Central Italy likely date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly to the spread of farmers from the Near East during the Neolithic period , , but not necessarily so (we only estimated a minimum separation time between gene pools). At any rate, these contacts occurred much earlier than, and hence appear unrelated with, the onset of the Etruscan culture (Figure 5).
So your white skin fetish is from the older neolithic culture - while Etruscan is from the later "indo-European" cattle migration.
The Etruscan World
Hilarious - your Indo-European Cattle migrants were LESS WHITE than the Roman wheat farmers.
Caucasoid Steppe Aryanoid?
The early farmers of the Near East seem to have over-exploited the land. Constant cultivation, over-grazing and felling trees for timber and fuel led to erosion and loss of fertility. Çatalhöyük was one of a number of sites abandoned between around 6900-6000 BC. People moved in all directions - south into Mesopotamia and to North Africa, westwards into Central and Western Anatolia, northwards into the Caucasus. This is where R1b1b2 gets into the act. It must have been in the Neolithic Levant by about 6,000 BC, in time to catch the boat to North Africa. So it could also have spread west into Anatolia. If I'm right about its origins S of the Caspian Sea, it was already in the Caucasus.
Just as I stated.
So much for your Nordic R1a claim.
Recently published genome-wide study results showing the absence of any significant admixture for Armenians over the past 4 KYA  justify using this population as a reference group for addressing the issue of Neolithic migration from the Near East to Europe and the North Caucasus.
Early Neolithic Southern Caucasus - NOT Indo-European as the source of most common chromosome lineage in Europe.
The haplogroup R1b1a2-M269 is the most frequently encountered subclade in all Armenian samples, except Sasun, which differs from others due to the predominance of haplogroup T (20%) . Of the lineages within haplogroup R, its subclade R1a1a-M198 is linked to the spread of Indo-Aryan languages  and detected with low frequencies or even absent in the analyzed populations.
The Caucasus cluster, comprising Abkhazians, Georgians, and Ossetians, is found to be connected to the haplogroup G-M201, which is also a marker for the Neolithic migration.
So you have Caucasoid Neolithic farming migration as the most common chromosome in Europe - No Indo-Aryan source.
The haplotypes of western Armenian origin are widely scattered and mainly associated with haplotypes from the Near Eastern (Lebanese) population. In addition, there are four haplotypes shared between Armenians and Europeans (Ireland and Italy), which was not revealed in Herrera et al. .
So you have white lebanese, white caucosoids in armenia, white europeans - all from wheat monocultural farming spread from the Near East/West Asia into the Southern Caucus.
Here's your pure Nordic Aryan b.s. debunked in a nice image for you.
White skin in Europe is from monocultural wheat farming.
Non-Indo-European Root Nouns in Germanic: Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis.
https://forums.skadi.info/showthread.php?t=152087as much as one third of the Germanic lexicon (cf. Rifkin 2007: 55) – lacks a solid Indo-European background.
e phonology of Germanic is radically different from what is reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European.
One example of this is the pan-Indo-European or pan-Aryan god Aryaman, who in the Avestan is Airyaman, appears as the legendary king Eremon in the Irish, and likely is related to the Irmin of the Germanic tribes.
Tell us more B.S. lies!! haha. Hilarious.
Now back to the truth:
To my mind, the most promising hypothesis regarding the Germanic substrate is the linkage with the introduction of agriculture in North-West Europe.
Yep - I just posted the genetics that corroborates this argument of Guus Kroonen!!
the Germanic substrate is related to the non-Indo-European layer of words in Greek (“Pelasgian”), and represents the linguistic residue of the first European farmers (Kallio 2003; Schrijver (2007: 21).
The distribution of haplogroup R1b1b2 has thus become geographically and linguistically compatible with the Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis that is evident for Greek as well as Germanic.
So your "fascination" with the white Latin roman farmers? haha - that's from Non-Indo-European origins!!
Strabo in Geographia 11.8.2 states: "But the best known of the nomads (Saka) are those who took away Bactriana from the Greeks, I mean the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari (Tarim basin, Khotan),
Really is that in the original quote or did you add that blatant error?
Which error? the one you put in bold print. haha.
Oh gee - I googled it and YES - it's in the original quote! That means your "source" that you keep quoting doesn't know much does he? haha. Hilarious.
The Tochari referred to by Strabo are NOT the Tochari of the Tarim Basim but rather the Tochari who moved to Bactria.
You didn't know about the difference between those two?
Let me explain:
o.k. google tocharians and you get a hit for Bactria.
Does that give you a hint?
These people were called "Tocharian" by late-19th century scholars who identified them with the Tókharoi described by ancient Greek sources as inhabiting Bactria.
Oh and in case you didn't read that right - let me use my perfectly legal option of enlarging it for emphasis.
These people were called "Tocharian" by late-19th century scholars who identified them with the Tókharoi described by ancient Greek sources as inhabiting Bactria.
Dude - try using some different sources that are not so uneducated - the internet is a big place.
Or should I say, "Dudette?" hahaha.