since when Indo-Aryans started to burning their Dead instead of burying ?

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,442
USA
I don't at all believe in mixing religion with either science or economics

I've posted some references below for your kind perusal if you're not angry with me. You would know after reading these scientific reports that north India has a hotspot of this phenotype, which has an older age (calculated through the corresponding allele's mutation rate and diversity) than it has in Europe

Another thing to note is that these projects have researchers participating from highly respected institutions such as Cambridge and Pennsylvania State University. If we label research coming out of Cambridge and Pennsylvania State University pseudo-science, I've no idea what would pass as real science

References:
Gene Mutation Links Asian & European Ancestors by Cheng et al
The Light Skin Allele of SLC24A5 in South Asians and Europeans Shares Identity by Descent by Chandana Basu Mallick et al
It doesn't matter which university it came from, it should say Aryans came from Steppes, then it is true:)
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,210
New Delhi, India
They were non Indo-European and that's clear. .. The appearance of Indo-Iranians before this is said to be mostly Northern European with 60+% having Blue eyes and Blonde Hair.
True, all people everywhere are a mix. The Central Asians were not IE or Indo-Iranians to begin with. They got a migration from Kurgan region. The two mixed and became Indo-Iranians. The Kurgan migrants brought their mythology. As Kurgan people also went into Europe, the European mythologies - Slav, Greek, German, Celtic and Norse mythologies and Language were also affected by them. Scythians were their neighbors in North and East. It is partly because of their pressure that the Indo-Iranians landed up in India and Iran, or the natural urge of Indo-Irnians to seek new pastures.Blue eyes and blond hair do not determine IE or Indo-Iranian-ness. Such characteristics will be found only in a minority of people. My mother has blue eyes and my aunt was a red-head. Our younger genertion (grandchildren) neither have blue eyes nor red hair. But then three sons and a daughter of the family have married Punjabis.

@Kadi, one article that you refer to indicate a mixing 50,000 years ago, the other a mixing 28-22,000 years ago. That is genetics and not history. :)
 
Last edited:
Jul 2017
510
Sydney
It doesn't matter which university it came from, it should say Aryans came from Steppes, then it is true:)
Even for a certain section of academia your statement seems likely to be correct

I can understand though why our fellow member on this forum thought blue eyes originated in the black sea area. There was a paper in 2008 that seemed to have made that conclusion

But for that 2008 paper we have a 2018 paper, in which even Reich is involved, that shows blue eyed people to have entered Israel from the Iran side

A more interesting find in this recent publication is that 9 out of 10 of these ancient people found in an Israeli cave had a paternal lineage that seems a lot more likely to have arisen in western India than in Iran
 
May 2013
1,720
The abode of the lord of the north
@Kadi, one article that you refer to indicate a mixing 50,000 years ago, the other a mixing 28-22,000 years ago. That is genetics and not history. :)
History as we discuss here, is a consequence of such mixing, you do understand that right? I don't think Kadi intended to turn this thread into discussing genetics, but you need to understand since we're all debating on the consequences of the migrations of population, we should make good use of whatever data is available to us.

I am not advocating discussing genetics, in fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. I'm saying we need not debate much on genetics at all. Whatever data that branch of study has provided has credibility almost of the level as of the data we have from archaeology. It'll be more reliable than linguistics ever will be. So there's no harm in giving sources where you yourself can go and verify the numbers (dates). We don't need to discuss genetics.
 
Likes: Kadi
Jul 2017
510
Sydney
History as we discuss here, is a consequence of such mixing, you do understand that right? I don't think Kadi intended to turn this thread into discussing genetics, but you need to understand since we're all debating on the consequences of the migrations of population, we should make good use of whatever data is available to us.

I am not advocating discussing genetics, in fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. I'm saying we need not debate much on genetics at all. Whatever data that branch of study has provided has credibility almost of the level as of the data we have from archaeology. It'll be more reliable than linguistics ever will be. So there's no harm in giving sources where you yourself can go and verify the numbers (dates). We don't need to discuss genetics.
Thanks for understanding, @Ajathashatru

I didn't intend to discuss genetics but was forced to use those references because a forum member said I was mixing religion and science to reach my stance, which isn't true as I base all my opinions on the latest frontier of science

If my arguments hadn't been suspected in that manner, I would have felt no need of providing these references

I do feel that even if we don't discuss genetics, we shouldn't feel shy to share relevant papers as reference points without discussing them
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
2,845
Australia
Now you lot are discussing the validity of discussing what we are not to discuss and giving reasons and apologies and justifications for doing what you should not be doing.

Do you know what happens next if you keep it up ........





1549136740493.png
 
Jul 2017
510
Sydney
Well, we've had a lot of discussion on this thread. Even though we started with burial versus cremation in South Asia, we went on to discuss a lot of things including as always the Aryan question :)

But very interesting on the whole, I'd say
 
May 2013
1,720
The abode of the lord of the north
Now you lot are discussing the validity of discussing what we are not to discuss and giving reasons and apologies and justifications for doing what you should not be doing.

Do you know what happens next if you keep it up ........





View attachment 15356
No actually. I'm saying we need not discuss. Just put links as to show how the study validates the dates. And If there is any further need to discuss, we can in private.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,216
India
BMAC only has interaction with the Indo-Iranians/Aryans and they are not entirely Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian. Well,though Genetics discussion is frowned upon here,I would like to just use it to talk about the BMAC since there is no much other markers. BMAC is in a region south of Andronavo. It is a strategic region where South Asia first begins. They were non Indo-European and that's clear. They have genetic source from a wide range of region starting from North/East Africa to Asia. They were ethnically diverse like the IVC from what it seems. Andronavo culture first began interacting with them before absorbing them in giving rise to the Iranian and Indo-Aryan peoples as they are characteristic today. The appearence of Indo-Iranians before this is said to be mostly Northern European with 60+% having Blue eyes and Blonde Hair. The Scythians were a mix of other people in the Pontic Steppe and the Caucasus with the Indo Iranians probably and hence were very close to modern Europeans. Iranians,Pashtuns,Tajiks,many Indians don't look too different.
Tocharians were an another Indo-European branch older than Indo-Iranian probably and a Centum speaking people like Celtic,Italic,Anatolian,Hellenic and Germanic people. They went into the Tarim Basin from a path east of Andronavo.
How you know Indo-Iranian had blue eyes. Beside, this Iranian people are the mix race of Elam people and the Indo-Iranians. Elam were culturally very similar to Mesopotamia.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,442
USA
Gimbutas' theory can't stand as soon as her Przewalski horse premise is defeated

The reason is as follows
A) She was thinking that the people of the Kurgans must be locals of the places these burials were found
B) They had a source of quick mobilization in the form of the Przewalski horse
C) Using that vehicle they could quickly expand in all directions

Now as soon as B) is shown to be false, we are left wondering about their real homeland

It immediately gets revealed that they couldn't have been local to the places where those burials were as that's not where their horses came from
@Kadi, I know you were mentioning about cows, especially Bos Indicus. I looked up on the origin of the Latin word bos, and found that it is equivalent to Old Greek word βοῦς Not surprisingly the PIE champions jump and mention that these words are incorrectly related to PIE g*ows (Vedic gO). But I have some suspicion of the Latin and Greek words being related to gO. Instead they seem to be related to Vrsha of Vrshabha(bull). Note that the Kannada equivalent of Vrshabha is Basava. Or another possibility could be that those words are related to "pashu". The former seems to be more probable relation. This is important because both bos and cow are related to two different Vedic words - one related to cow(gO) and one related to bull(vrshabha). This is yet another pointer to the direction of migration.