Post 270 (Ben Ami):
<b>EDITED</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Greeks had invaded the fringes of North-Western India during the 3rd century BCE. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->To be precise, they got to present-day Pakistan and barely touched present-day India proper.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Though Chandragupta Maurya eventually ended the Greek rule in that region, there were a large number of Greeks who adopted Budhism or Hinduism and settled down there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Even if there had been 100s of Greeks who settled down in India (there were never more than 100s posted to this region, and most of them returned to the ancient lands of the Greeks once their post was over) - this is too tiny a number to make any difference to our population phenotypically. It's barely a drop in an ocean. Besides, many of them (especially in later times) were actually of Afghan descent but were trained to become culturally Greek, making them ethnically Indian anway though they would still be indicated as 'Greek'.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Then there was reign of the Kushana dynasty. They are believed to have come from the West China - Central Asia region.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><i>If</i> they came in their millions and <i>if</i> they were like the Han Chinese (though I had read the Kushanas were Central Asian and therefore closer to Mongolian/Turkic than Chinese), they <i>might</i> have skewed the North Indian population phenotype a little bit to a fairer skin-colour (to a much smaller extent than their more profound influence in the darker-shaded South China region though). There's a lot of ifs to satisfy here.
In any case, that does not mean that Euro-centred Indologists would allow the possibly Mongolian-Turkic Kushanas into the elite central-Asian "Oryan" club anytime soon. Unless they classify the Kushanas as a non-Turkic non-Mongolian (hence Oryan) people who nevertheless roamed the Turkic and Mongolian regions of C-Asia, of course.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The people who occupy Gujarat today are belived to be the descendants of a Central Asian tribe that arrived in India sometime between the Gupta age and the rule of Harshavardhana.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't know where I read it, it was either an article on anthropology (Brian Hemphill) or one by Schaffer & Lichtenstein (archaeology mainly, with anthropology too) that said that today's people of Gujarat (as well as other regions) are directly related to the Indus Valley people of yore. So it's amazing that the Central Asian tribe that only arrived during the Gupta Age should have authored the Indus Valley which was already there millenia before.
The first footnote to http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/agarwal.html also seems to hint briefly at what I am referring to here:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[1] Archaeologists like Jim Shaffer and D. A. Lichtenstein [1999] completely reject the notion of transfer of IA languages into South Asia as a result of migrations and invasions, and speak in terms of cultural shifts and diffusion of cultural traits. They do however, acknowledge a population shift from the IVC area to East Punjab and Gujarat [1999:256]:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That the archaeological record and significant oral and literature traditions of South Asia are now converging has significant implications for regional cultural history. A few scholars have proposed that there is nothing in the "literature" firmly placing the Indo-Aryans, the generally perceived founders of the modern South Asian cultural traditions(s), outside of South Asia, and now the archaeological record is confirming thisâ¦. Within the context of cultural continuity described here, an archaeologically significant indigenously significant discontinuity was a regional population shift from the Indus valley, in the west, to locations east and southeast, a phenomenon also recorded in ancient oral traditions. As data accumulate to support cultural continuity in South Asian prehistoric and historic periods, a considerable restructuring of existing interpretative paradigms must take place. We reject most strongly the simplistic historical interpretations, which date back to the eighteenth century, that continue to be imposed in South Asian culture history. These still prevailing interpretations are significantly diminished by European ethnocentrism, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism. Surely, as South Asia studies approaches the twenty-first century, it is time to describe emerging data objectively rather than perpetuate interpretations without regard to the data archaeologists have worked so hard to reveal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now, to state that there was "a population shift from the IVC area to East Punjab and Gujarat" means that the researchers must have compared <i>present-day</i> Gujaratis and E-Punjabis with the IVC people to conclude of a population shift. Reading between the lines, we see that the researchers have determined that present-day populations of E-Punjab and Gujarat are descendants of IVC people.
So unless the IVC's moved to Central Asia and then backtracked to Gujarat during the Gupta Age, I can't see how it tallies with that "belief" mentioned in post 270 relating to "the people who occupy Gujarat today".
Also, I thought Huns were Turkic/Mongolian? (That's what all the racket was about when a Scotsman was chosen to play Attilla the Hun in the similarly titled American TV-movie). Gujaratis don't look Mongolian to me at all.
<b>EDITED</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Greeks had invaded the fringes of North-Western India during the 3rd century BCE. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->To be precise, they got to present-day Pakistan and barely touched present-day India proper.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Though Chandragupta Maurya eventually ended the Greek rule in that region, there were a large number of Greeks who adopted Budhism or Hinduism and settled down there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Even if there had been 100s of Greeks who settled down in India (there were never more than 100s posted to this region, and most of them returned to the ancient lands of the Greeks once their post was over) - this is too tiny a number to make any difference to our population phenotypically. It's barely a drop in an ocean. Besides, many of them (especially in later times) were actually of Afghan descent but were trained to become culturally Greek, making them ethnically Indian anway though they would still be indicated as 'Greek'.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Then there was reign of the Kushana dynasty. They are believed to have come from the West China - Central Asia region.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><i>If</i> they came in their millions and <i>if</i> they were like the Han Chinese (though I had read the Kushanas were Central Asian and therefore closer to Mongolian/Turkic than Chinese), they <i>might</i> have skewed the North Indian population phenotype a little bit to a fairer skin-colour (to a much smaller extent than their more profound influence in the darker-shaded South China region though). There's a lot of ifs to satisfy here.
In any case, that does not mean that Euro-centred Indologists would allow the possibly Mongolian-Turkic Kushanas into the elite central-Asian "Oryan" club anytime soon. Unless they classify the Kushanas as a non-Turkic non-Mongolian (hence Oryan) people who nevertheless roamed the Turkic and Mongolian regions of C-Asia, of course.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The people who occupy Gujarat today are belived to be the descendants of a Central Asian tribe that arrived in India sometime between the Gupta age and the rule of Harshavardhana.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't know where I read it, it was either an article on anthropology (Brian Hemphill) or one by Schaffer & Lichtenstein (archaeology mainly, with anthropology too) that said that today's people of Gujarat (as well as other regions) are directly related to the Indus Valley people of yore. So it's amazing that the Central Asian tribe that only arrived during the Gupta Age should have authored the Indus Valley which was already there millenia before.
The first footnote to http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/agarwal.html also seems to hint briefly at what I am referring to here:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[1] Archaeologists like Jim Shaffer and D. A. Lichtenstein [1999] completely reject the notion of transfer of IA languages into South Asia as a result of migrations and invasions, and speak in terms of cultural shifts and diffusion of cultural traits. They do however, acknowledge a population shift from the IVC area to East Punjab and Gujarat [1999:256]:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That the archaeological record and significant oral and literature traditions of South Asia are now converging has significant implications for regional cultural history. A few scholars have proposed that there is nothing in the "literature" firmly placing the Indo-Aryans, the generally perceived founders of the modern South Asian cultural traditions(s), outside of South Asia, and now the archaeological record is confirming thisâ¦. Within the context of cultural continuity described here, an archaeologically significant indigenously significant discontinuity was a regional population shift from the Indus valley, in the west, to locations east and southeast, a phenomenon also recorded in ancient oral traditions. As data accumulate to support cultural continuity in South Asian prehistoric and historic periods, a considerable restructuring of existing interpretative paradigms must take place. We reject most strongly the simplistic historical interpretations, which date back to the eighteenth century, that continue to be imposed in South Asian culture history. These still prevailing interpretations are significantly diminished by European ethnocentrism, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism. Surely, as South Asia studies approaches the twenty-first century, it is time to describe emerging data objectively rather than perpetuate interpretations without regard to the data archaeologists have worked so hard to reveal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now, to state that there was "a population shift from the IVC area to East Punjab and Gujarat" means that the researchers must have compared <i>present-day</i> Gujaratis and E-Punjabis with the IVC people to conclude of a population shift. Reading between the lines, we see that the researchers have determined that present-day populations of E-Punjab and Gujarat are descendants of IVC people.
So unless the IVC's moved to Central Asia and then backtracked to Gujarat during the Gupta Age, I can't see how it tallies with that "belief" mentioned in post 270 relating to "the people who occupy Gujarat today".
Also, I thought Huns were Turkic/Mongolian? (That's what all the racket was about when a Scotsman was chosen to play Attilla the Hun in the similarly titled American TV-movie). Gujaratis don't look Mongolian to me at all.