AHC/WI/POD: Successful unified Indo-Greek Empire and settlement.

I am not disagreeing with you I am elaborating your point without your permission, sorry yes what you said is absolutely true central Asian Scythian may have shared to some extent y chromosome haplogroup of pontic Scythian but the mitochondrial DNA varied

Scythian's were by no means a group of people belonging to a single race, there are basically two type of Scythian to put it very crudely (sorry about that) one is pontic and other central Asian both of them had some cultural similarity like in terms of god's and certain religious practices but they looked different, the pontic Scythian were European in appearance In some aspects given their obvious proximity to Europe and it's safe to say they were not northern European and very few had blonde hair or blue eyes in fact most of them were brown hair with red hair making a second place with black coming third and blonde in last and they were tall and of huge stature while central Asian Scythian were more similar in appearance to Iranian people but with east Asian admixture it's easy and tempting to put all of them in one box and say all of them were the same but no they were quite different in appearance
Coming back to pontic Scythian apart from alans or ossetians the entire steppe Russia and Ukraine are decendents of pontic Scythian with Slavic admixture hence you get blondes in such large number today but I think I would not be wrong to say southern Russians such as Don Cossacks are different from central and northern Russians while the former are closely linked to Anatolia Or ancient Indo Iranian with northern Russian belong to a more northern European stock, I may be wrong
Didn't Herodotus describe Pontics as blonde?
 
You misunderstood me based on one off post I made
Any specific reason why you're assuming I didn't read the thread and the other posts?
It's kind of appearant that all the first pragraph I wrote after quoting you was agreeing with you on most of your post, and trying to answer you about how it came that since Antiquity, a particular phenotype was associated by Greeks to Scythians (or other Barbarian peoples) due to their consideration of these "far" Barbarians as living in a geographical/ethnographical stasis, which was a consideration inherited by Romans and then a good part of western scholarship until contemporary historiography.

that was the purpose of using the top caste of ancient Iran and India as they did preserve their linage for some time before intermixing again not all preserved their so call linage
And this is the point where I disagree a bit : proto-historic lineages attitudes are hard at best to decipher and it essentially concerns accounts by their neighbors and rarely (if ever) on posterior developments within other societies. Giving the exemple of later societal behaviour in conservation or record of lineages to explain earlier, proto-historic behaviour is risky at best. My disagreement was not on that you based yourself on racial or even cultural (in the large sense) continuity, but on practical equivalence.
We know that societies or social groups that ethnicise/mythify their own origin have a great tendency to a posteriori endogamy than their forefathers.
 
Didn't Herodotus describe Pontics as blonde?
He did, but that's not necessarily useful to characterize either Scythic people at large or even Pontic people. "Blonde" in these contexts tended to be a literary trope of geographical accounts appliable to virtually any northern (read, "Hyperborean") people Greeks encountered. Not necessarily because it was an outright lie, but because "blond" in the context tend to mean any light-haired coulor (from actually blonde to more or less redhaired, light chestnut, etc.). Then Greeks tended to apply to all groups they considered related (sometimes on really thin evidence such as "they kinda live next to these Barbarians, so they must be the same") what they observed or collected about groups they interacted with ("Celts" from Gaul applied to all Halstattian and beyond groups; post-Cimmerian groups in Crimea to all Scythic people and beyond, etc.). Only self-defined groups as Persians were considered as in themselves and not as "far" Barbarians of the corner of the world whom expense was virtually borderless : as far as Greeks were concerned at least until the IIInd century BCE you had Scythians, Celts, Aethiopians and such from the edge of the known world up to the end corners of the world.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
I really don't know what those who want to prove Scythians are not European or even similar to Ossetians want to mean. Archaeology of Khotan,a Scythian kingdom,is clearly described as being close to Ossetians and European. Scythians were no doubt European. Scythians as with other Indo-Iranians and Tocharians were nothing but European. Since this is the accepted by Scientific and archeological communities,those who say they weren't need to present evidence first. So let's close the case of Scythians.
Continuing to post pseudoscience denying proven migrations without evidences will be reported henceforth.
 
Last edited:

Albert.Nik

Banned
Yaghnobi people are surviving purest descendants of Scythians and Sogdians in the East and they pass off easily as Northeastern or Central Europeans. I request people to first perform adequate study on the ones who are closely related existing before posting about Extinct ethnicities.
 
Of course they included artisans among the migrants back in the day when there was no specialization or division of labour a lot of artisans were in the army that is not to say artisans were not amongst the migrants many were actually. But I don't think 250.000 people who migrated were men of letters who go on impose the Greek way of life In bactria and other parts of modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan to extent that the culture becomes more Greek than Indian or south asian for that you need more people

Giving and taking between culture is common I know that and I also know that Greek influence lasted for a very long time in those parts but for a unified Indo Greek empire to be established the Greeks should not get Indianized to a large extent and should retain their Greek identity, influence the natives to adopt a Greek way of life to achieve a stable base for such a empire as the region in which Greek empire is to establish is quite diverse and if the Greek elite get indianize to a significant extent they will start to quarrel with other Greeks who happen to adopt a different culture or their Indian subjects declare independence further de stabilizing the empire
But Indo Greek kingdoms on the scale of our time line is certainly possible anything more is quite difficult due to the diverse nature of the subcontinent getting in the way of empire building

Any Indo-Greek empire will be mostly Indian culturally, you’re right. However, that’s no reason to suggest that that means it would fail or fall to local rule—look at the Delhi Sultanate for an example of foreign invaders of India who (somewhat) Indianized but maintained rule for a very long time.

The Greek way of life had already been imposed to a certain extent by their actions on arrival: building cities like Alexandria Arachosia to Greek city plans with Greek features like an amphitheater, spreading the use of the Greek language, and so on. Religiously the Indo-Greeks were quick to adopt Buddhism, AFAIK the primary religion in northwest Hindustan at this point, and made a major impact on the faith both in art and thought (for instance, with the Questions of King Milinda).

My idea of a lasting Indo-Greek empire wouldn’t necessarily be a continent-spanning colossus, so issues of cultural diversity among the non-Greeks might not be so complex. Let’s say the Indo-Greeks conquer the entirety of Punjab and don’t hold on to much more than that.* The Indo-Greek culture becomes a blend of Greek, Punjabi, and Central Asian cultures, compact and largely taking on features of contemporary OTL Punjabi states but with distinct Greek influence—an analogue might be Persian culture in OTL Turko-Persian states in India. Eventually Punjab would speak a heavily Punjabi-influenced Greek in the upper classes and a Greek-tinged Punjabi in the lower classes and the culture would be very Greco-Buddhist.

*It would honestly be better if the Indo-Greeks were to expand beyond the Indus region as it historically was extremely vulnerable to outside conquest. A better option might be for them to somehow invade Gujarat.
 
I really don't know what those who want to prove Scythians are not European or even similar to Ossetians want to mean.
That identifying ancient peoples with modern conceptions is at best anachronistic. It was and remains a common trope of nationalist historiography (ranging from "Our ancestors the Gauls", protochronism in Albania or Romania, Kossina's Indogermanen, Polish Sarmatism, Ossetia's identification with Scythians, etc. to name but a few) but it doesn't make it truer.
While more or less important connections are attested, it says nothing about acknowledged or relative kinship. Ossetians are a cultural evolution from medieval Caucasian Alans, themselves a sub-branch of Sarmatians, themselves a distinct eastern Scythic people distinct from Scythians they overthrew and forced down to Crimea. You have nowhere to be seen a cultural or historical "pure" continuity, because there's none. Too many conflicting migrations or genetic diversity among Scythic people (whom own broad definition included non-Northern Iranic peoples from the beginning)

Archaeology of Khotan,a Scythian kingdom,is clearly described as being close to Ossetians and European.
[Citation needed]
That Khotian cultures are definitely related to the broad Scythic ensemble (but as well to the Indo-Aryan ensemble in the same time) doesn't make it "close" to Ossetian or European. We know that Sarmatian peoples came westwards in Classical Antiquity, trampling over Scythian peoples (again, in the proper sense) with an Alanic sub-group going to Caucasus and eventually forming Ossetian peoples. The genetic relation is there, as well with Iranian peoples. So far, I never saw being argued that Persians are the "purest" descendents of Khotans. With reason, of course, because it can't be supported.

Since this is the accepted by Scientific and archeological communities,those who say they weren't need to present evidence first. So let's close the case of Scythians.
You're the one that brang platitudes about "pureness" of cultural continuity on the table, which is definitely not something accepted by the archeological or historical community.
Among other studies, I could mention "Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians" by Peter S.Wells on what makes up Barbarian identities relative to Greeks and Romans in Iron Age, and then relative to these identifications (for instance, chapter 7, about how Barbarian peoples super-adopted some "typical" features they were associated with by Greeks and Romans for themselves). You'd argue it concerns mostly eastern European Iron Age peoples, but you'd have something similar with Siberian populations : Saka/non-Saka Scythic peoples differenciation by Achemenids based on the kind of relationship and percieved sophistication is quite interesting there, with other evidence we might consider a double movement from Northern-Eastern Saka west and south that formed respectively Sarmatians and Khotan/Kushan ensemble that would be necessarily related but not a continuation of each other.

Continuing to post pseudoscience denying proven migrations without evidences will be reported henceforth.
Nobody can stop you doing this, but I do hope you have relevant sources and evidence at your side, because threatening of moderation action is frowned upon around there.
If you bring racialized considerations about pure descendence and racialized history (Blond Italians being descendant of Germans being beyond caricatural, honestly) you should expect some criticism.
For myself, I won't even go into the massive straw man of "denying migrations", because it was never about this, of course, but cultural continuity and specificity of Pontic-Siberian peoples

Any Indo-Greek empire will be mostly Indian culturally, you’re right.
Wouldn't that depends, however, from its general direction of expansion? AFAIK, we're discussing an Indus-centered Indo-Greek unified state that wouldn't take easily IMO on the core of Indian civilization that was the Gangetic plain : Indus was at this point more of a cultural "marche" it was eventually. Kushans fairly bypassed it in no small part due to a lack of pre-existing firmly rooted political centers. Without Kushans, or maybe better, Kushans being the reason of a stable Indo-Greek state-building, maybe you won't have a same geopolitical extention or even having a distinct Indo-Scythian state on the Gange.
If it's the case, the relative peripheral position of a litteral Indo-Greek state wouldn't make it this Indian-looking as we might expect and more culturally diverse between various Iranic, Indian and Hellenic influences.
I agree with you on this regard, that it might be a good ancient equivalent to Turkic-Persian influence in India but was Pendjab this important already into Indian civilization? I was under the impression it became to be less peripheral precisely after Kushans conquered and unified the whole of it.

*It would honestly be better if the Indo-Greeks were to expand beyond the Indus region as it historically was extremely vulnerable to outside conquest. A better option might be for them to somehow invade Gujarat.
What about Indo-Greek, under a Scythian rulership, going for (among other reasons, strategical defense) taking over directly or indirectly neighboring marges as far as easternmost Persian sub-kingdoms? Basically between Persian plateau and Indus?
 
Wouldn't that depends, however, from its general direction of expansion? AFAIK, we're discussing an Indus-centered Indo-Greek unified state that wouldn't take easily IMO on the core of Indian civilization that was the Gangetic plain : Indus was at this point more of a cultural "marche" it was eventually. Kushans fairly bypassed it in no small part due to a lack of pre-existing firmly rooted political centers. Without Kushans, or maybe better, Kushans being the reason of a stable Indo-Greek state-building, maybe you won't have a same geopolitical extention or even having a distinct Indo-Scythian state on the Gange.
If it's the case, the relative peripheral position of a litteral Indo-Greek state wouldn't make it this Indian-looking as we might expect and more culturally diverse between various Iranic, Indian and Hellenic influences.
I agree with you on this regard, that it might be a good ancient equivalent to Turkic-Persian influence in India but was Pendjab this important already into Indian civilization? I was under the impression it became to be less peripheral precisely after Kushans conquered and unified the whole of it.

Huh, that’s a good point—Indus culture was probably not so closely tied to Gangetic plains culture so tightly at this point. An Indo-Greek state persisting there would potentially maintain cultural distinctiveness. Then again the close ties to Buddhism will counteract that as Gangetic clergy get involved, not to mention expansionist Gangetic nations like the Shunga.

What about Indo-Greek, under a Scythian rulership, going for (among other reasons, strategical defense) taking over directly or indirectly neighboring marges as far as easternmost Persian sub-kingdoms? Basically between Persian plateau and Indus?

I just worry that such a nation would quickly be overrun by successive nomadic nations—Turks, Yuezhi, and so on—and lose its Greek character like what happened under the Kushans. I feel that in order to maintain a distinctly Greek nation there needs to be Greek leadership for at least a few centuries before a different culture takes over—which is why I think staying in the Indus region only would spell disaster.
 

Deleted member 116192

Any specific reason why you're assuming I didn't read the thread and the other posts?
It's kind of appearant that all the first pragraph I wrote after quoting you was agreeing with you on most of your post, and trying to answer you about how it came that since Antiquity, a particular phenotype was associated by Greeks to Scythians (or other Barbarian peoples) due to their consideration of these "far" Barbarians as living in a geographical/ethnographical stasis, which was a consideration inherited by Romans and then a good part of western scholarship until contemporary historiography.


And this is the point where I disagree a bit : proto-historic lineages attitudes are hard at best to decipher and it essentially concerns accounts by their neighbors and rarely (if ever) on posterior developments within other societies. Giving the exemple of later societal behaviour in conservation or record of lineages to explain earlier, proto-historic behaviour is risky at best. My disagreement was not on that you based yourself on racial or even cultural (in the large sense) continuity, but on practical equivalence.
We know that societies or social groups that ethnicise/mythify their own origin have a great tendency to a posteriori endogamy than their forefathers.
Okay may I should have used the ancestors of high caste Indians or iranian may be that would be slightly more accurate
Interesting to note that Indians sloved their problem of origin by ascribing divine origin or a origin from a mythical hero
 
Nobody can stop you doing this, but I do hope you have relevant sources and evidence at your side, because threatening of moderation action is frowned upon around there.
If you bring racialized considerations about pure descendence and racialized history (Blond Italians being descendant of Germans being beyond caricatural, honestly) you should expect some criticism.
For myself, I won't even go into the massive straw man of "denying migrations", because it was never about this, of course, but cultural continuity and specificity of Pontic-Siberian peoples
Very much this!

I assume @Albert.Nik is somehow referring to my continued objections to them describing Scythians and Northern European groups as genetically identical? Said objection somehow being equivalent to declaring them non-european or that migrations never happened.

Perhaps I should point out that genetic equivalence doesn't mean "looks similar", "speaks a language with a common ancestral tongue", or "shares a distant common lineage". Said equivalence means "member of the same population".
 
Interesting to note that Indians sloved their problem of origin by ascribing divine origin or a origin from a mythical hero
It's fairly common among ancient societies, IE or not. After all, there's always the necessity to explain why a given social order exists generally as a mirror to the cosmic world, in order to sacralize it in face of change (it's true you don"t have as much need to justify social order or existence when it's not criticized). If you manage to make it look "natural" that can be fairly efficient (even outside ancient societies, truth to be told)
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Very much this!

I assume @Albert.Nik is somehow referring to my continued objections to them describing Scythians and Northern European groups as genetically identical? Said objection somehow being equivalent to declaring them non-european or that migrations never happened.

Perhaps I should point out that genetic equivalence doesn't mean "looks similar", "speaks a language with a common ancestral tongue", or "shares a distant common lineage". Said equivalence means "member of the same population".
Okay let me explain it to you cool headed.
Scythians were descendents of Proto-Indo-Iranian peoples who originated in the Steppes just North of Caucasus. Now,Indo-Iranian isn't a separate race from the Indo-European race(ancestors of most Europeans,Iranians,most Indians/Afghans/Pakistanis). They just speak Proto-Indo-Iranian language a deviant of the Proto-Indo-European on the Satem side(Balto-Slavic the other Satem family). Proto-Indo-Iranians formed the Andronavo culture encompassing a large territories of Central Asian Steppes. Tocharian and Anatolian have separated already towards the East of Europe. Proto-Indo-Iranian was the third language family to separate probably. Scythian in turn branched out of Indo-Iranian languages on the Iranian and then Eastern Iranian subgroup. Languages are still connected to ethnic groups. Scythians are descendants of these colonizers of near empty Steppes. So they never mixed with anyone much retaining their European features. Iranians maintain to a large extent and upper caste Indians a little quite lesser than Iranians. East Asians or any South Asian people weren't present in the region Scythians lived at first. Same for Tocharians. So these two were very similar to Europeans. Just like how White Australian/Americans and British/Germans look similar it's that simple. The people who were physically distinct from Europeans arrived in this region only during the Early Mediaeval(in the form of Turks) and later mediaeval in the form of Mongols. Thus Yaghnobi(Tajikistan) and Ossetians are the only left original Scythians today both of whom are very European. That's enough evidence I guess. Also,the original Indo-Aryans survive in Indian subcontinent as Pashai and Kalash and other Dardic peoples who are also very similar to Europeans.
 
Last edited:
Okay let me explain it to you cool headed.
Scythians were descendents of Proto-Indo-Iranian peoples who originated in the Steppes just North of Caucasus. Now,Indo-Iranian isn't a separate race from the Indo-European race(ancestors of most Europeans,Iranians,most Indians/Afghans/Pakistanis). They just speak Proto-Indo-Iranian language a deviant of the Proto-Indo-European on the Satem side(Balto-Slavic the other Satem family). Proto-Indo-Iranians formed the Andronavo culture encompassing a large territories of Central Asian Steppes. Tocharian and Anatolian have separated already towards the East of Europe. Proto-Indo-Iranian was the third language family to separate probably. Scythian in turn branched out of Indo-Iranian languages on the Iranian and then Eastern Iranian subgroup. Languages are still connected to ethnic groups. Scythians are descendants of these colonizers of near empty Steppes. So they never mixed with anyone much retaining their European features. Iranians maintain to a large extent and upper caste Indians a little quite lesser than Iranians. East Asians or any South Asian people weren't present in the region Scythians lived at first. Same for Tocharians. So these two were very similar to Europeans. Just like how White Australian/Americans and British/Germans look similar it's that simple. The people who were physically distinct from Europeans arrived in this region only during the Early Mediaeval(in the form of Turks) and later mediaeval in the form of Mongols. Thus Yaghnobi(Tajikistan) and Ossetians are the only left original Scythians today both of whom are very European. That's enough evidence I guess. Also,the original Indo-Aryans survive in Indian subcontinent as Pashai and Kalash and other Dardic peoples who are also very similar to Europeans.
Ahem: Perhaps I should point out that genetic equivalence doesn't mean "looks similar", "speaks a language with a common ancestral tongue", or "shares a distant common lineage". Said equivalence means "member of the same population".
Essentially you now agree with me then and disavow what you originally claimed?
Also, thank you for the compliment about the temperature of my head.
 
The problem is that you mention an PIE "race". The very concept is largely abandoned since the 40's for pretty much obvious reasons. We simply don't know of an original IE people, let alone race : as soon we observe PIE peoples these are already differentiated genetically and culturally from related ensemble. Proto-Indo-Arian cultures (as from the beginning, we can't really trace a unique culture for forefathers of Iranic and Indo-Aryan branches) and were diverse genetically enough we can trace some mDNA and haplogroups to some groups they formed.
Similarily, we can't consider PIE peoples that formed Central Asian cultures in Bronze and Iron Age formed themselves into a vaacum : even Samara culture seems to have interacted with Near-East influences trough Namazga archeological horizon in modern Turkestan, and Bactriana-Margiana for some (namely Mallory) being a mixed ensemble only partly made of PIE peoples rather than proto-Indo-Aryan. Giving the really limited evidence of "proto-Vedic" elements, the debate does have merit.
We know, however, that eastern Scythic peoples were fairly mixed up with Asiatic peoples, in a proportion around 25% and Siberian elements. Definitely, genetic elements associated with Proto-Indo-Iranian peoples were dominant, but not the sole., and an increasing genetic differentiation can be observed since the Iron Age especially with westwards migrations of Scythians and Sarmatians.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8KTUCmzf3IQ/WLzGMUtnTnI/AAAAAAAAFZI/7BwU-qNYJVQJKEx411BlcFprASg8KglegCLcB/s1600/Sarmatians_%26_Scythians.png

Tokharian is definitely more complex to situate : it's possible (and my opinion) that related cultures have to be traced back to Corded Ware culture giving some similarities between later linguistical developments both in Europe and Tarim Basin. The date of their linguistical and cultural separation is still heavily debated without one hypothesis really dominating at this point : early separation along with Anatolian that you mentioned have the merit to propose an interesting modelisation (along the Afanassievo culture) but is more build on the absence of strong contradiction than beneficing from actual evidence. The hypothesis of a late migration (Bronze Age, or even early Iron Age) remains potentially feasible but suffers from a same lack of strong evidence of this migration and relies more on similarities with western Eurasian PIE (to be honest, this is why I tend to consider it plausible).

@The Professor
I think, to his credit, that when he said "cool-headed", he said that about himself, not you.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Ahem: Perhaps I should point out that genetic equivalence doesn't mean "looks similar", "speaks a language with a common ancestral tongue", or "shares a distant common lineage". Said equivalence means "member of the same population".
Essentially you now agree with me then and disavow what you originally claimed?
Also, thank you for the compliment about the temperature of my head.
Last sentence wasn't directed to you. I meant I will explain more patiently.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
@LSCatilina As for Tocharians,it is said that there were Caucasian mummies before first attested Tocharian language. But it is disputed if they were of Proto Tocharian or something like Basque or something. But it is proved that the mummies were Caucasian,red/blonde haired. They are said to be the first two or three languages to separate from PIE and remained Centum in a Satem sea. They are said to have separated from PIE with Anatolians and Celtics. As with other Indo Europeans in West Central Asia,Asian admixture was less to nil till Turkic invasions which happened during and after Rome's fall. Even today,many of Uyghurs are blue eyed giving a peek into the Tocharian past. All paintings depict Tocharians as Nordic.
 
@LSCatilina As for Tocharians,it is said that there were Caucasian mummies before first attested Tocharian language.
Thing is, Tokharian languages are really tardily attested, in the Vth or VIth centuries AD. It's almost a given that Tokharian speakers were present at the very least in the Late Iron Age giving that there's no record of important migration in the concerned region. We can't decisively attribute Tarim mummies to Tokharians speakers but their material similarity to Central/Eastern European features is at least indicating some connection with PIE or late IE peoples depending on support of an early "Proto-Tokharian" migration from Pontic steppe or a late Tokharian migration from Eastern Europe.

But it is disputed if they were of Proto Tocharian or something like Basque or something.
You definitely have nothing that would support a Proto-Aquitain relation : as litteraly every theory trying despairatly to link them to anything, it's pretty much reduced for now to a mix of local western European/Iberic Mesolithic origin with early Neolithic migrants.
Anyway, Tarim mummies of Xiaohe oasis seems to have formed a diverse people, mostly coming or related to steppe cultures but as well from eastern Siberian/eastern plateau Asian populations, possibly with increasing IE presence with time during Bronze Age. Were there Tokharian speakers? That's another issue altogether but it's true it gives some grounds, or at the very least doesn't disprove, early Proto-Tokharian migration from Siberian cultures notably Afanesevio culture.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4495690/

But it is proved that the mummies were Caucasian,red/blonde haired.
Not exactly : it's proven they had traits comparable to western Eurasian populations, as light hairs (which range from blond to chestnut), which is supported by genetics and material evidence. On the other hand, earlier populations of the necropolis were decisively more Asian and non-IE Siberian.

They are said to be the first two or three languages to separate from PIE and remained Centum in a Satem sea.
Centum/Satem division lost a lot of its relevance since decades, in no small part because of the existence of Tokharian languages. The consensus AFAIK is to consider Centum as an areal phenomenon which could either indicate an early separation of Proto-Tokharians and a connection with western Eurasian IE languages, or a late separation from Tokharian from these same groups.

The first theory about an early division is essentially valid but works essentially because there's no real proof against it : you don't have on the other hand a real evidence in its favour. The same could be said about the second main theory of a late separation in the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age from western Eurasian groups.
Morphologically and phonologically, it's true, Tokharian languages seems to have more in common with Greek, Armenian, Germanics, Italic, Balto-Slavic and Celtic. In terms of vocabulary, it's a bit different : Germanic is certainly closer, then Balto-Slavic, Greek and Indo-Iranian (which is largely remote morphologically).

It's as well possible that Tarim mummies and Afanesevio culture are representative of a previous, unknown IE population living in rough areas settled later by Tokharians. There's simply nothing really decisive about either theory, even if the first theory of an early Proto-Tokharian migration forming Afanesevio Culture (which would be related but not encompassing Tarim mummies population) does present less issues (notably because Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age steppe migrations aren't recorded from West to East).. So we're not sure at all we're talking of Proto-Tokharian in the Tarim basin at this point.

They are said to have separated from PIE with Anatolians and Celtics.
That on the other hand, isn't really supported. Basing on the Kurgan hypothesis (Renfrew's hypothesis have several issues, unfortunately, so it's best left undiscussed for now I think), we'd be talking of an early separation of Proto-Anatolian languages between -3600 at earliest, -3000 at latest.
There's no real date for the separation of Proto-Tokharian peoples, but if we consider Afanesevio Culture as their formative period outside urheimat, -3300 to -2000.
As for Celts, they might be a subsequent development to Corded Ware horizon, either Baden Culture, into Urnfield culture significantly late comparatively to both Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Tokharian in this hypothesis.

As with other Indo Europeans in West Central Asia,Asian admixture was less to nil till Turkic invasions
This is false : see linked article and diagram.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
I agree that Tocharians might have mixed a little being a small race. Iranians on the other hand were humongous. Most Iranian peoples(except some Balochis,not all) and many Indo-Aryan speakers(today's speakers descend from both Original Indo Aryans and Indo Iranians) today are undoubtedly White with some even passing well European in the mid continent. Considering you had Turkic and Mongol Xiongnu also 11% White Iranic,I can imagine how big the Indo-Iranian race might have been those days. Any admixture of East Asians would be dwarfed. Finns,Estonians and Russians all have Asian blood as would have Indo-Iranians. What happened to the features and the genetic component? They got dwarfed. Even among the Turkic states,except probably half of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan,others are strongly Caucasoid looking. Even going one step forward,Turkic mixed Bulgarians,Turkish,Volga Bulgars of today and if you think Ashkenazi Jews descend partially from Khazars,all these are predominantly Caucasian source of which might be Pre Turkic Iranian natives. Also considering first Mongol and Turkic invasions were unusually highly violent with Genocides reaching the top spots of those that took place in our World. Pre Turkic Scythians were in all probability mostly European with minor admixture from Asians and S Asians. Hepthalite descended ones and Indo-Scythian descended ones in India don't show any Mongoloid influence and neither do most of the Tajiks(Sogdians),Yaghnobhi,Ossetians or even Pashtuns show any significant trace. Just look at Eastern Iranian speaking Imran Khan who is a Pashtun. Honestly,he looks easily Southern European. Also,majority of Tocharians have been depicted completely White as well. So,admixture might exist but Iranian or Tocharian features have dominated. The Indo-Aryan Dardic peoples also pass easily European.
 
Wouldn't that depends, however, from its general direction of expansion? AFAIK, we're discussing an Indus-centered Indo-Greek unified state that wouldn't take easily IMO on the core of Indian civilization that was the Gangetic plain : Indus was at this point more of a cultural "marche" it was eventually. Kushans fairly bypassed it in no small part due to a lack of pre-existing firmly rooted political centers. Without Kushans, or maybe better, Kushans being the reason of a stable Indo-Greek state-building, maybe you won't have a same geopolitical extention or even having a distinct Indo-Scythian state on the Gange.
If it's the case, the relative peripheral position of a litteral Indo-Greek state wouldn't make it this Indian-looking as we might expect and more culturally diverse between various Iranic, Indian and Hellenic influences.
I agree with you on this regard, that it might be a good ancient equivalent to Turkic-Persian influence in India but was Pendjab this important already into Indian civilization? I was under the impression it became to be less peripheral precisely after Kushans conquered and unified the whole of it.

The Punjab remained an important cultural centre well into the 4th century CE till the breakdown of Kushan power and the formation of the Yaudheya confederacy turned it into a land of internecine warfare. Important institutions such as The University of Taxila continued to flourish despite Toramana’s sack and it was only the lack of a centralised authority that caused cultural power to move eastwards again.
 
Last edited:
Top