1. The earlier-mentioned Massive Migration paper.
Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (2015)
biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433
a. Found a comment there that sounded relevant.
b. PDF is downloadable.
Good grief. It's like 172 pages. Pass. I don't get paid to read this.
(How is this a journal article? It's like the length of an avg PhD thesis in my field...
Biologists. Their species diverged from the rest of ours a long time ago. I mean, can't they have spent 150 of those pages writing a fantasy novel instead?)
Anyway, so searched the PDF for "South Asia".
Bottom of p.88 of the PDF and over (page 88 is marked as 56):
About that final bit:
MRCA = most recent common ancestor
TMRCA = time to MRCA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
2. swarajyamag.com/magazine/aryans-caste-nationalism-emancipation-2/
About Maximiani Portas, that Greek nazi-era oryanist nazi dabbler in Hindus' heathenism:
Odd how the bold bit enunciates exactly the motivations I always figured were lurking about in the minds of ethnically Indian oryanists cum 'Hindu nationalists'. After all, nothing else could reconcile these last two positions but in the manner that the Greek dabbling nazi above had uttered.
Then again, the difference between Indian oryanists and white supremacists is that the former would simply be the latter had they but been born as Europeans in Euro-space. You know they would.
And if only they had, Hindus might have been free of them. Pity.
But at least I despise the aliens less now. Still don't understand their need for supremacism, especially as measured by the worthless standard they choose to use (whiteness, evolved into their more complex oryanism excuse, sometimes in the form of linguistic or cultural or civilisational superiority, via PIE-ism and not anything actual to show), but their descent into such pettiness and obsession is more forgivable - since their collective was robbed of its heathenism and got replaced with christianism which is the father of their racism - when compared to the same phenomenon now among Indics, who don't have such an excuse and among whom it therefore reveals itself (and themselves) as an abomination.
3. But to end on a happier note. A far happier one.
Last time I read the stuff in the following blockquote was half my life ago, so I didn't see the relevance back then.
It's taken from the materials of the once-famed philologist, Herr professor of Anglo-Saxon history, author of Da Legendarium (meant to be a mythos for Albion/Luthany, though the Ainulindalë and Valaquenta at least are admitted to be a rearranged version of the Finnish Kalevala**, plus the Narn for instance has more than a passing nod to the Kalevala too, not to mention the copious reused bits from Nordic/Germanic as well as GR religio).
Ereinion's suffix seems to have a throwback to Greek?
So, as seen from the obviously original root for arya above, PIE is .... not even the Adunaic from Numenor as I had suspected, but it's from .... Quenya? Classic!
Oh so funny. Can't stop laughing.
He was surely onto something. Or I should say, onto something better: it is hands-down a far grander mythos and history than oryanism/PIE-ism has ever managed.
** Here:
BTW, the fact that he felt the need to create a mythos for his nation says something: that it didn't have one, or not anything worthwhile as per him, or not distinctive to it.
The fact that he even (and prodigiously) pillaged from the Finno-Ugric mythology of the Finns to create an Indo-European variant for his nation says something else. And the fact that he didn't like to credit the Celtic influences, and his publisher originally declined the work for being "too Celtic", and that he also hid the Arthurian influences (Avalone anyone?), and dismissed the English language/lost interest in it after the influence of French are all further curiosities.
[His translation of the famous Germanic tale of Gudrun being forcibly married to Atla showed an interesting influence on his own work too. More interesting however is that Atla is clearly stated to be Attila the Hun who is admitted to be a Mongolian type of Hun. Which could explain where the whole 19th century/early 20th century American admonishment of Germans being "but Huns" comes from. But none of that belonged in this thread.]
Points 1 a and b in this post are all that's relevant.
Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (2015)
biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433
a. Found a comment there that sounded relevant.
Quote:Balaji 4 months ago
The Admixture figure at K=8 shows that the Early and Middle Neolithic Europeans as well as the WHG lack the light green component that is the largest part of South Asian populations. The early neolithic Near Easterners who were the ancestors of Early European Farmers must also lacked this component. But Yamnaya, Corded Ware and modern Near Easterners and Europeans all have this component. The explanation that immediately suggests itself is an Out-of-India migration that took this component to the Near East and Europe which were lacking this component until a few thousand years ago. An Out-of-India migration would also have taken along some ASI. Is there evidence for ASI in the Near East and Europe? At K=6 and K=7, there is a purple component that is modal in Papuans, Australians and Bougainville people and also prominent is South Asia. It is also present in East Asian populations. Clearly it is an ASI-related component. This component is present in Yamnaya and Corded Ware people. It is found in modern Near Easterners and in traces in modern Europeans.
Further evidence that an ENA component is present in modern Europeans and Near Easterners associated with the influx of ANE into these regions is provided by f3 statistics calculated by Davidski.
eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/07/f3-stats-100-present-day-populations.html
Europeans:
f3(Greek;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.000365561, z = -2.41124
f3(East_Sicilian;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.000569748, z = -3.09234
f3(Tuscan;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.000432676, z = -2.8525
f3(Portuguese;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.000915428, z = -3.77992
f3(Bulgarian;Dai,French_Basque = -0.00118302), z = -8.17306
f3(Romanian;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.00125626, z = -8.90695
f3(North_Italian;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.0002888, z = -1.80649
f3(West_Sicilian;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.000558259, z = -2.84604
Near Easterners:
f3(Assyrian;Dai,Sardinian) = -0.00059462, z = -3.05822
f3(Ashkenazi;Dai,Sardinian) = -0.000297346, z = -1.91756
f3(Armenian;Dai,Sardinian) = -0.000435056, z = -3.04019
f3(Cyprian;Dai,Sardinian) = -0.000721083, z = -4.49671
f3(Druze;Dai,Sardinian) = -3.8934E-005, z = -0.227219
f3(Sephardic_Jewish;Dai,Sardinian) = -0.00134829, z = -8.69989
b. PDF is downloadable.
Good grief. It's like 172 pages. Pass. I don't get paid to read this.
(How is this a journal article? It's like the length of an avg PhD thesis in my field...
Biologists. Their species diverged from the rest of ours a long time ago. I mean, can't they have spent 150 of those pages writing a fantasy novel instead?)
Anyway, so searched the PDF for "South Asia".
Bottom of p.88 of the PDF and over (page 88 is marked as 56):
Quote:The Early/Middle Neolithic European populations belong almost entirely to the ââ¬Åorangeââ¬Â ancestral population from K=2 to K=8, while hunter-gatherers show a relationship to eastern non-Africans from K=3 to K=8, consistent with sharing more genetic drift with these populations due to their lack of ââ¬ÅBasal Eurasianââ¬Â ancestry2. From K=4 to K=6, the hunter-gatherers and late Neolithic/Bronze Age (LN/BA) groups possess some of the ââ¬Åpinkââ¬Â component that is dominant in Native Americans; this may reflect either the presence of west Eurasian-related ââ¬ÅAncient North Eurasianââ¬Â ancestry in Native Americans5 or of the same type of ancestry in European hunter-gatherers. An interesting pattern occurs at K=8, with all the late LN/BA groups from central Europe and the Yamnaya having some of the ââ¬Ålight greenââ¬Â component that is lacking in earlier European farmers and hunter-gatherers; this component is found at high frequencies in South Asian populations and its co-occurrence in late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans (but not earlier ones) and South Asians might reflect a degree of common ancestry associated with late Neolithic migratory movements (e.g., the ~5,800-year old TMRCA of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-M417 suggests some gene flow affecting both Europe and South Asia in this time frame11, although this date is subject to uncertainty due to poor estimates of the human mutation rate.)
About that final bit:
MRCA = most recent common ancestor
TMRCA = time to MRCA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
Quote:In biology, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of any set of organisms is the most recent individual from which all organisms in a group are directly descended. The term is often applied to human genealogy.
The MRCA of a set of individuals can sometimes be determined by referring to an established pedigree. However, in general, it is impossible to identify the specific MRCA of a large set of individuals, but an estimate of the time at which the MRCA lived can often be given. Such time to MRCA (TMRCA) estimates can be given based on DNA test results and established mutation rates as practiced in genetic genealogy, or by reference to a non-genetic, mathematical model or computer simulation. [...]
2. swarajyamag.com/magazine/aryans-caste-nationalism-emancipation-2/
About Maximiani Portas, that Greek nazi-era oryanist nazi dabbler in Hindus' heathenism:
Quote:However, Belgian Indologist Koenraad Elst has pointed out that the relation between the Hindu nationalist movement and the Nazi ideologue was not a smooth one. Elst writes: ââ¬ÅThere was a sharp contradiction between her own racist and anti-egalitarian convictions and the reformist and egalitarian programme of the Hindu Mission. To the Hindu Mission, Hinduism was a value in itself; to Savitri Devi, it was but an instrument of her imagined Aryan race. In her years as a preacher, she kept her non-Hindu preoccupations to herself, but in her memoirs (Memories and Reflections of an Aryan Lady), she declared that she conceived of her reconversion mission as an exercise in deception: ââ¬ËFrom the racist Aryan viewpoint, it was necessary to give the most backward and degenerate aborigines a (false) Hindu consciousness.ââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬Â
Elst also points out that according to her, the Hindu Missionââ¬â¢s leader, Swami Satyananda, had seen through her insincerity and told her to preach from the Hindu viewpoint and keep her private opinions to herself (Elst, Return of the Swastika: Hate and Hysteria versus Hindu Sanity, 2015, p.119).
Odd how the bold bit enunciates exactly the motivations I always figured were lurking about in the minds of ethnically Indian oryanists cum 'Hindu nationalists'. After all, nothing else could reconcile these last two positions but in the manner that the Greek dabbling nazi above had uttered.
Then again, the difference between Indian oryanists and white supremacists is that the former would simply be the latter had they but been born as Europeans in Euro-space. You know they would.
And if only they had, Hindus might have been free of them. Pity.
But at least I despise the aliens less now. Still don't understand their need for supremacism, especially as measured by the worthless standard they choose to use (whiteness, evolved into their more complex oryanism excuse, sometimes in the form of linguistic or cultural or civilisational superiority, via PIE-ism and not anything actual to show), but their descent into such pettiness and obsession is more forgivable - since their collective was robbed of its heathenism and got replaced with christianism which is the father of their racism - when compared to the same phenomenon now among Indics, who don't have such an excuse and among whom it therefore reveals itself (and themselves) as an abomination.
3. But to end on a happier note. A far happier one.
Last time I read the stuff in the following blockquote was half my life ago, so I didn't see the relevance back then.
It's taken from the materials of the once-famed philologist, Herr professor of Anglo-Saxon history, author of Da Legendarium (meant to be a mythos for Albion/Luthany, though the Ainulindalë and Valaquenta at least are admitted to be a rearranged version of the Finnish Kalevala**, plus the Narn for instance has more than a passing nod to the Kalevala too, not to mention the copious reused bits from Nordic/Germanic as well as GR religio).
Quote:ar(a) - 'high, noble, royal' appears in a great many names, as Aradan, Aredhel, Argonath, Arnor, etc.; extended stem arat- appearing in Aratar, and in aráto 'champion, eminent man', e.g. Angrod from Angaráto and Finrod from Findaráto; also aran 'king' as in Aranrúth. Ereinion 'scion of kings' (name of Gil-galad) has the plural of aran; cf. Fornost Erain 'Norbury of the Kings' in Arnor. The prefix Ar- of the Adûnaic names of the Kings of Númenor was derived from this.
(Source: the Quenta S, of course)
Ereinion's suffix seems to have a throwback to Greek?
So, as seen from the obviously original root for arya above, PIE is .... not even the Adunaic from Numenor as I had suspected, but it's from .... Quenya? Classic!
Oh so funny. Can't stop laughing.
He was surely onto something. Or I should say, onto something better: it is hands-down a far grander mythos and history than oryanism/PIE-ism has ever managed.
** Here:
Quote:Encompassing both texts: "But the beginning of the legendarium, of which the Trilogy is part (the conclusion), was an attempt to reorganise some of the Kalevala ...." (Letter written in 1955)[6]
BTW, the fact that he felt the need to create a mythos for his nation says something: that it didn't have one, or not anything worthwhile as per him, or not distinctive to it.
The fact that he even (and prodigiously) pillaged from the Finno-Ugric mythology of the Finns to create an Indo-European variant for his nation says something else. And the fact that he didn't like to credit the Celtic influences, and his publisher originally declined the work for being "too Celtic", and that he also hid the Arthurian influences (Avalone anyone?), and dismissed the English language/lost interest in it after the influence of French are all further curiosities.
[His translation of the famous Germanic tale of Gudrun being forcibly married to Atla showed an interesting influence on his own work too. More interesting however is that Atla is clearly stated to be Attila the Hun who is admitted to be a Mongolian type of Hun. Which could explain where the whole 19th century/early 20th century American admonishment of Germans being "but Huns" comes from. But none of that belonged in this thread.]
Points 1 a and b in this post are all that's relevant.