Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: [Split] The Yuezhi: Who Were They?

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Posts
    1,647
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93
    mtDNA (M)
    H28/W(M) : H1b5
    Y-DNA (M)
    Wife (P) : R1a-Z80

    [Split] The Yuezhi: Who Were They?

    [Admin/DMXX]: Conversation split from here.

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX View Post
    Agreed, the Pashtun frequency for Y-DNA R1a1a probably lies in the 45-55% range if all samples are collated. Considering that the overwhelming majority of R1a1a-M17 in South (and West) Asia is Z93+ with a recent common ancestor (2500 B.C.?), that is still a significant statistic. Parasar is correct in correlating the 70+% values in specific Pashtun locales or tribes with genetic drift (the intact tribal structure of Pashtuns basically resulted in a socially-mediated founder effect on the paternal lines). Specific Y-DNA motifs in particular tribes or regions are obviously useful to appraise, but the point is, a context must be established and understood.

    Not addressing anyone in particular here, but there is a tendency online for some enthusiasts to fixate on the large frequency numbers. If we're going by frequency alone, the Khotons of Mongolia currently surpass all the isolated groups of South-Central Asia (e.g. Pashtuns, Tajiks) as well as all Subcontinental groups (refer to Sharma et al. 2009*) with a frequency of 82.5% (Katoh et al. 2005). As beefy and as stimulatory of the inferior temporal gyrus that figure is, it doesn't mean much with respect to the general picture of Y-DNA R1a1a, particularly in the absence of diversity indicators (STR or SNP). The Mongols have their own clan system variant, once more making the proposition this frequency is the result of a super founder effect a confident one.

    This is just my personal speculation, but I do wonder whether there's a hidden Z93- element among the Pashtuns we haven't picked up yet... It was mentioned elsewhere on the forum that the Xiaohe R1a were Z93-. Z93+ is generally taken as indication of the Indo-Iranian dispersals. A non-Z93 form of R1a1a found in Xiaohe implies Afanasievo too was Z93-, meaning the speakers of Tocharian were Z93-. The Yuezhi were a tribal confederation displaced into territory currently home to the Pashtun people. It is widely speculated they had a Tocharian element among them. A part of me entertains the proposition there are patchy signs of Tocharian admixture among the Pashtun people we haven't been able to definitively affirm just yet. Who knows, zahra's Kandahari copper SNP variant (rs111400=C) might be "Tocharian" in origin.

    * There was a lot of excitement online when West Bengali Brahmins were noted to be 72% R1a1a-M17. I never understood the excitement for the reasons stated above. But I've always been more interested in the phylogenetic rooting of branches rather than highly-specific genealogical twigs.
    yes i think r1a lies in this range, maybe a bit higher (50%-60%) but this depends much on the location and tribal origin. Haplogroup Q and L are also quite typical for pashtuns and the frequency of both haplogroups seem to lie between 10-15%.

    the yuezhi had probably not much to do with the tocharians of the tarim basin. Correct me if i am wrong but the yuezhi seem to be nomadic people who used bactrian and left no traces of their original language in central asia. But the tocharians of the tarim basin were sedentary people who lived in oasis city states and were at least in historical periods not nomads anymore. The origin of yuezhi and kushan is unclear but we should consider that they were maybe nomadic eastern iranic tribes and not tocharians but i would not be surprised if i am wrong. This could explain why pashtuns and tajiks are almost entirely z93+ and lack other subclades of r1a. Tajiks and uzbeks have some tiny traces of other subclades but all tested pashtuns were z93+ untill now. So it seems that indo-iranian tribes rich in z93+ were the only indo-europeans who left genetic traces in afghanistan but this does not exclude that other indo-european tribes with z93- were present there.
    Last edited by DMXX; 02-06-2015 at 01:11 AM. Reason: Split the discussion from L1c-M357 thread

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     Afshar (09-27-2015),  Alain (07-10-2018),  DMXX (02-05-2015),  Michał (02-07-2015),  Sein (02-05-2015),  Táltos (02-06-2015)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,417
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA (M)
    D4j5*

    England United Kingdom England
    the yuezhi had probably not much to do with the tocharians of the tarim basin. Correct me if i am wrong but the yuezhi seem to be nomadic people who used bactrian and left no traces of their original language in central asia. But the tocharians of the tarim basin were sedentary people who lived in oasis city states and were at least in historical periods not nomads anymore. The origin of yuezhi and kushan is unclear but we should consider that they were maybe nomadic eastern iranic tribes and not tocharians but i would not be surprised if i am wrong. This could explain why pashtuns and tajiks are almost entirely z93+ and lack other subclades of r1a. Tajiks and uzbeks have some tiny traces of other subclades but all tested pashtuns were z93+ untill now.
    Possibly every aspect of Yuezhi history is still debated, so the portions of your post which refer to them are all very much accepted by different historians. There is a consensus, whereby the Yuezhi originally resided somewhere between the Tian Shan mountains and central China (basically the territory flanking the Tarim basin) and were displaced by the Xiongnu. They undertook a counter-clockwise migration route around the Karakoram mountains and settled around Bactria, as you mentioned.

    The status of Tocharian speakers (both A and B ) as sedentary farmers is something of a distraction here; their ancestors were certainly pastoral nomads derived from Yamnaya (->Afanasievo). Afanasievo itself sits partially on the Tian Shan. Their territory was eventually superceded by Andronovoid groups. This is one source of the justification for a Tocharian element* amongst the Yuezhi, as either of the speculated homelands of the Yuezhi lay on Tocharian territory. I do agree an East Iranic element looks quite likely among them as well given the Andronovo expansion, as explained above.

    I wouldn't put much stock in the lack of a linguistic presence by the Yuezhi in South-Central Asia. The Kushans (immediate successors) had an empire which lasted over three centuries, yet despite their (likely) affiliation with Iranic languages, the northern Indian subcontinent does not host any Northeast Iranic dialects. Elite dominance of the sort observed in Turkey, Azerbaijan or Iran via the Oghuz Turks need not be replicated in an identical manner elsewhere.

    * Please note I've consistently used this phrase, in keeping with the speculation by some scholars that the Yuezhi probably didn't belong to a uniform culture or language. We simply don't know. But I would be curious to see whether a Tocharian loanword strata has been found in any dialects of Pashto.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DMXX For This Useful Post:

     Alain (07-10-2018),  Coldmountains (02-05-2015),  Michał (02-07-2015),  Sein (02-05-2015),  Táltos (02-06-2015)

  5. #3
    Moderator
    Posts
    1,647
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93
    mtDNA (M)
    H28/W(M) : H1b5
    Y-DNA (M)
    Wife (P) : R1a-Z80

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX View Post
    Possibly every aspect of Yuezhi history is still debated, so the portions of your post which refer to them are all very much accepted by different historians. There is a consensus, whereby the Yuezhi originally resided somewhere between the Tian Shan mountains and central China (basically the territory flanking the Tarim basin) and were displaced by the Xiongnu. They undertook a counter-clockwise migration route around the Karakoram mountains and settled around Bactria, as you mentioned.
    i agree they must orginate somewhere near the tarim basin. But we know that eastern iranic languages were also spoken in the tarim basin (khotan) and that some nomadic iranic tribes even settled in mongolia. We can only speculate which language was spoken by them in the Gansu region, where they orginated.
    The status of Tocharian speakers (both A and B ) as sedentary farmers is something of a distraction here; their ancestors were certainly pastoral nomads derived from Yamnaya (->Afanasievo). Afanasievo itself sits partially on the Tian Shan. Their territory was eventually superceded by Andronovoid groups. This is one source of the justification for a Tocharian element* amongst the Yuezhi, as either of the speculated homelands of the Yuezhi lay on Tocharian territory. I do agree an East Iranic element looks quite likely among them as well given the Andronovo expansion, as explained above.
    Their ancestors were certainly pastoral but the historical Tocharians were described by Chinese as skilled merchants but less skilled warriors, who lived in oasis-city states. But the Yuezhi where described by Chinese as a great horde of pastoral people, and had 100,000 or 200,000 cavalrymen, according to some chinese sources. It is unlikely that sedentary Tocharians of this oasis city states could recruit such a huge army of cavalrymen even when the mentioned numbers are probably exaggerated. But of course there could exist other Tocharians outside of this oasis city states who were nomads and could sustain such an army but it is almost impossible to link archaeological sites to any language when there are no texts found and nomads left in most cases only few archaeological traces and used no scripts. I personally think that is more likely that Yuezhi were iranian speaking and related to the Saka because like Turks later iranic people dominated the steppes and tocharian shows indeed influences from neighbouring iranic languages and the Tocharians adopted some administrative and military terms from iranic people.

    I wouldn't put much stock in the lack of a linguistic presence by the Yuezhi in South-Central Asia. The Kushans (immediate successors) had an empire which lasted over three centuries, yet despite their (likely) affiliation with Iranic languages, the northern Indian subcontinent does not host any Northeast Iranic dialects. Elite dominance of the sort observed in Turkey, Azerbaijan or Iran via the Oghuz Turks need not be replicated in an identical manner elsewhere.
    Yes this is true, the Kushan adopted bactrian very quickly and even some indian religions when they conquered indian territorries so they left only very few traces of their own language, religion and culture.
    * Please note I've consistently used this phrase, in keeping with the speculation by some scholars that the Yuezhi probably didn't belong to a uniform culture or language. We simply don't know. But I would be curious to see whether a Tocharian loanword strata has been found in any dialects of Pashto.
    As nomads they were probably a mix of various people and spoke various languages similar to the Hepthalites later who were a mix of eastern Iranic and altaic tribes.

    Pashto has a dardic/indo-aryan substrate because many regions of eastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan were once Dardic speaking before Pashtuns settled there but it seems that there exist no Tocharian loanwords in Pashto or that they were not found untill yet. Bactrian has also no tocharian loanwords and Kushan had here a very important presence but the Kushan adopted quickly Bactrian so it is unlikely that they left much traces of their original language in Afghanistan or Tajikistan. So this all does not exclude that Kushan were tocharian speaking before they entered bactria but i tend to prefer the "eastern iranic/iranian" hypothesis even when i have to admit that it also very weak and speculative
    Last edited by Coldmountains; 02-06-2015 at 12:09 AM.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     Alain (07-10-2018),  DMXX (02-06-2015),  Michał (02-07-2015),  Sein (02-07-2015)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,417
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA (M)
    D4j5*

    England United Kingdom England
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    Their ancestors were certainly pastoral but the historical Tocharians were described by Chinese as skilled merchants but less skilled warriors, who lived in oasis-city states. But the Yuezhi where described by Chinese as a great horde of pastoral people, and had 100,000 or 200,000 cavalrymen, according to some chinese sources. It is unlikely that sedentary Tocharians of this oasis city states could recruit such a huge army of cavalrymen even when the mentioned numbers are probably exaggerated. But of course there could exist other Tocharians outside of this oasis city states who were nomads and could sustain such an army but it is almost impossible to link archaeological sites to any language when there are no texts found and nomads left in most cases only few archaeological traces and used no scripts.
    Right on all points. There may be a misunderstanding here with respect to the Tocharian-oasis connection I tried expounding upon in the previous message. Some broad points to consider:

    - Tocharian A and B are considered different languages (mutually unintelligible). There's some overlap in range, but the densest assortment of Prakrit texts is in the northern Tarim. All the major cities (Agni, Kroran, Kucha, Turfan) are located in a northeastern trajectory. This essentially borders Gansu, a province in modern China that borders Xinjiang/the Tarim. I mention Gansu as some Chinese historians assert the Yuezhi were derived from this location.
    - Following from the above, Iranic speakers entered the Tarim basin from two directions; if I recall correctly, the earliest was via the Pamirs (southwestern Tarim) at around 500 B.C.; these people seem to have adopted a semi-sedentary farming strategy. Nomadic Andronovoid tribes did enter from the north, the same direction taken by Afanasievo derived groups.
    - Tocharian A and B are considered by linguists to have been liturgical languages (Buddhism). Analogous to the situation with Persian, where Old Persian was attested at Behistun (regional native language), but historical Greek accounts (Herodotus' Histories from memory) thankfully give us indication of the linguistic situation across the plateau at that time (different nations with mutually intelligible languages). Attestation of one or two languages in given locations does not imply that is their only range in territory. As both Tocharian A and B are attested only in the ancient cities, it is possible (even likely?) that various Tocharian dialects existed across a large swathe of area. Given the distribution of Afanasievo outside of the Tarim, I daresay that makes a reasonable amount of sense.

    The above essentially serves as a giant set of complicators to any clear-cut scenarios in identifying the Yuezhi and correlating them with either Iranic or Tocharian speakers given both the Tian Shan and Tarim were home to both at some point. Earlier, I did not insinuate that oases-settled Tocharian speakers reverted to their ancestral economy mode. Rather, other speakers of Tocharian dialects living elsewhere may have contributed to the Yuezhi confederacy.

    I suppose a synthesis between the above and your proposition is that the Yuezhi were actually a mixed confederacy of Iranic speakers via Andronovo who incorporated earlier Afanasievo-derived Tocharian communities into their own. A very interesting recent review by Anthony and Ringe went into some depth exploring the successful social strategy employed by early Indo-European groups via their guest-host patronage system. There's no reason why one expanding IE group (Andronovo/Iranians in this case) cannot apply this onto earlier incumbents (Afanasievo/Tocharians). Just some more food for thought.

    Yes this is true, the Kushan adopted bactrian very quickly and even some indian religions when they conquered indian territorries so they left only very few traces of their own language, religion and culture.

    As nomads they were probably a mix of various people and spoke various languages similar to the Hepthalites later who were a mix of eastern Iranic and altaic tribes.
    Agreed, once more, precisely why I invoked Tocharian elements existing amongst the Yuezhi rather than a crystallised component among them, in either a cultural, linguistic or genetic sense.

    Pashto has a dardic/indo-aryan substrate because many regions of eastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan were once Dardic speaking before Pashtuns settled there but it seems that there exist no Tocharian loanwords in Pashto or that they were not found untill yet. Bactrian has also no tocharian loanwords and Kushan had here a very important presence but the Kushan adopted quickly Bactrian so it is unlikely that they left much traces of their original language in Afghanistan or Tajikistan. So this all does not exclude that Kushan were tocharian speaking before they entered bactria but i tend to prefer the "eastern iranic/iranian" hypothesis even when i have to admit that it also very weak and speculative
    Yes. From my general reading on Tocharian, it does seem as if it was very much a recipient of Iranic loanwords rather than the reverse occurring. Would be interesting to see if any strictly Tocharian terms somehow made their way into SE Iranic languages.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DMXX For This Useful Post:

     Alain (07-10-2018),  Coldmountains (02-06-2015),  Michał (02-07-2015),  Sein (02-07-2015)

  9. #5
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,873

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    [Admin/DMXX]: Conversation split from here.



    yes i think r1a lies in this range, maybe a bit higher (50%-60%) but this depends much on the location and tribal origin. Haplogroup Q and L are also quite typical for pashtuns and the frequency of both haplogroups seem to lie between 10-15%.

    the yuezhi had probably not much to do with the tocharians of the tarim basin. Correct me if i am wrong but the yuezhi seem to be nomadic people who used bactrian and left no traces of their original language in central asia. But the tocharians of the tarim basin were sedentary people who lived in oasis city states and were at least in historical periods not nomads anymore. The origin of yuezhi and kushan is unclear but we should consider that they were maybe nomadic eastern iranic tribes and not tocharians but i would not be surprised if i am wrong. This could explain why pashtuns and tajiks are almost entirely z93+ and lack other subclades of r1a. Tajiks and uzbeks have some tiny traces of other subclades but all tested pashtuns were z93+ untill now. So it seems that indo-iranian tribes rich in z93+ were the only indo-europeans who left genetic traces in afghanistan but this does not exclude that other indo-european tribes with z93- were present there.
    There was one Pakhtoon under Z283 (Z282+) in the Underhill data-set, but that sample looks like an anomaly.

    The Kushan were considered Turks about 1000AD as per both Kalhana Pandit (Turushka) and El Beruni (Tibet Turki). There is a possibility that later Kushans were turkified or that often Turk was used in the sense of a mongoloid people.
    But another issue is that for the names of early Kushans - Vima, Kudjula, Kanishka, Huvishka - the etymology is not clear.
    Eg. in KUJULA KASASA KUSHANA YAVUGASA DHARMATHIDASA, Harmatta has tried to explain Yavuga as IE, but I have my doubts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yabgu

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     DMXX (02-06-2015),  Táltos (02-06-2015)

  11. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,298
    Sex
    mtDNA (M)
    u2b2 gonur;swat

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    Pashto has a dardic/indo-aryan substrate because many regions of eastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan were once Dardic speaking before Pashtuns settled there but it seems that there exist no Tocharian loanwords in Pashto or that they were not found untill yet. Bactrian has also no tocharian loanwords and Kushan had here a very important presence but the Kushan adopted quickly Bactrian so it is unlikely that they left much traces of their original language in Afghanistan or Tajikistan. So this all does not exclude that Kushan were tocharian speaking before they entered bactria but i tend to prefer the "eastern iranic/iranian" hypothesis even when i have to admit that it also very weak and speculative
    Interesting info! The Frontier region(Peshawari) and FATA Pashto dialects sounds odd to my ears. Firstly, they pronounce words differently and then they use major loan words possibly from urdu and dardic languages!? Can you give me examples of say dardic loan words used by pashto speakers from Pakistan?

  12. #7
    Moderator
    Posts
    1,647
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93
    mtDNA (M)
    H28/W(M) : H1b5
    Y-DNA (M)
    Wife (P) : R1a-Z80

    [QUOTE=DMXX;67632]
    Right on all points. There may be a misunderstanding here with respect to the Tocharian-oasis connection I tried expounding upon in the previous message. Some broad points to consider:

    - Tocharian A and B are considered different languages (mutually unintelligible). There's some overlap in range, but the densest assortment of Prakrit texts is in the northern Tarim. All the major cities (Agni, Kroran, Kucha, Turfan) are located in a northeastern trajectory. This essentially borders Gansu, a province in modern China that borders Xinjiang/the Tarim. I mention Gansu as some Chinese historians assert the Yuezhi were derived from this location.
    - Following from the above, Iranic speakers entered the Tarim basin from two directions; if I recall correctly, the earliest was via the Pamirs (southwestern Tarim) at around 500 B.C.; these people seem to have adopted a semi-sedentary farming strategy. Nomadic Andronovoid tribes did enter from the north, the same direction taken by Afanasievo derived groups.
    - Tocharian A and B are considered by linguists to have been liturgical languages (Buddhism). Analogous to the situation with Persian, where Old Persian was attested at Behistun (regional native language), but historical Greek accounts (Herodotus' Histories from memory) thankfully give us indication of the linguistic situation across the plateau at that time (different nations with mutually intelligible languages). Attestation of one or two languages in given locations does not imply that is their only range in territory. As both Tocharian A and B are attested only in the ancient cities, it is possible (even likely?) that various Tocharian dialects existed across a large swathe of area. Given the distribution of Afanasievo outside of the Tarim, I daresay that makes a reasonable amount of sense.

    The above essentially serves as a giant set of complicators to any clear-cut scenarios in identifying the Yuezhi and correlating them with either Iranic or Tocharian speakers given both the Tian Shan and Tarim were home to both at some point. Earlier, I did not insinuate that oases-settled Tocharian speakers reverted to their ancestral economy mode. Rather, other speakers of Tocharian dialects living elsewhere may have contributed to the Yuezhi confederacy.
    i agree with your points, the Yuetzhi certainly not orginated in the region where the tocharian texts were found but we dont know where else tocharian was spoken once. So it is possible that there existed nomadic tocharian tribes outside of this oasis city states and which represnted maybe another branch of Tocharians, who spoke other unknown tocharian languages. Maybe there were found some archaeological sites of nomadic Tocharians but it is very hard to distinguish tocharian from iranic sites. We would probably think that people in the northern edge of the Tarim Basin spoke iranic languageS if there were no tocharian texts found there. If they had not converted to Buddhism and adopted indian scripts we would never know anything about their existence. But the hypothetical nomadic tocharians converted probably not to Buddhism and would because of that most likely not use any script.

    But interestingly the ethnonym Tocharian was not used by this people and they called themself Agni or Kucha. The "real" Tocharians ,who settled in bactria, were iranic tribes because the term tochar is indeed clearly indo-iranian (cf. Old Persian tuxāri-, Khotanese ttahvāra, and Sanskrit tukhāra) and they seem to be related to the Saka. But i dont know if they were directly related to the Yuezhi and had any connection with them. Central Asia was populated by many different nomadic tribes duiring this period.

    "Most of the Scythians, beginning from the Caspian Sea, are called Dahae Scythae, and those situated more towards the east Massagetae and Sacae; the rest have the common appellation of Scythians, but each separate tribe has its peculiar name. All, or the greatest part of them, are nomads. The best known tribes are those who deprived the Greeks of Bactriana, the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari, and Sacarauli, who came from the country on the other side of the Iaxartes, opposite the Sacae and Sogdiani" (Strabo, 11-8-2)


    I suppose a synthesis between the above and your proposition is that the Yuezhi were actually a mixed confederacy of Iranic speakers via Andronovo who incorporated earlier Afanasievo-derived Tocharian communities into their own. A very interesting recent review by Anthony and Ringe went into some depth exploring the successful social strategy employed by early Indo-European groups via their guest-host patronage system. There's no reason why one expanding IE group (Andronovo/Iranians in this case) cannot apply this onto earlier incumbents (Afanasievo/Tocharians). Just some more food for thought.
    i agree, it is likely that indo-iranian tribes encountered in Central Asia also other Indo-European tribes, which they gradually assimilated like the non-indo-europeans there. The Tocharians were maybe not the only group of non indo-iranian Indoeuropeans there but this is of course speculative. The Yuezhi had very likely some kind of tocharian element but we will probably newer know if this was just a substrate, adstrate or dominant component.

    i recommend this free books about the history of civilization in Central Asia. This books are quite well written and have many interesting information about Tocharians, Saka/Scythians and Yuezhi.
    http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/001...7/105703eo.pdf

    Yes. From my general reading on Tocharian, it does seem as if it was very much a recipient of Iranic loanwords rather than the reverse occurring. Would be interesting to see if any strictly Tocharian terms somehow made their way into SE Iranic languages.
    if i am not wrong turkic languages seem to have some tocharian loanwords but except of this languages tocharian terms were not found in other languages yet. Tocharians had some iranic loanwords but iranic languages seem to lack tocharian loanwords. But this is also not a concrete evidence against a tocharian origin of Yuezhi or an evidence against tocharian components among them.

    For me it is more likely that Yuezhi were some very eastern iranic tribes, who absorbed siberian, tocharian and maybe altaic elements. They spoke maybe some kind of eastern iranic language related to the saka language and had a pre-zoroastrian iranic religion before they entered bactria but i admit that a "para-tocharian" origin of Yuezhi is also reasonable.

    There are also some interesting theories about the origin of the term Yuezhi, some believe that Yuezhi is just a chinese transcription of the term "scythian" but according to others the name Yuezhi is a transliteration of their own name for themselves, the Visha ("the tribes") But this theories are not generally accepted yet.
    Last edited by Coldmountains; 02-06-2015 at 02:02 PM.

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     Alain (03-01-2019),  DMXX (02-06-2015),  Michał (02-07-2015),  Táltos (02-07-2015)

  14. #8
    Moderator
    Posts
    1,647
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93
    mtDNA (M)
    H28/W(M) : H1b5
    Y-DNA (M)
    Wife (P) : R1a-Z80

    Quote Originally Posted by zahra View Post
    Interesting info! The Frontier region(Peshawari) and FATA Pashto dialects sounds odd to my ears. Firstly, they pronounce words differently and then they use major loan words possibly from urdu and dardic languages!? Can you give me examples of say dardic loan words used by pashto speakers from Pakistan?
    I think all dialects of Pashto have some dardic/indo-aryan loanwoards but dardic languages (pashayi) have also many pashto loanwords. But even pamiri languages of Tajikistan have in some cases dardic loanwords. Eastern iranic people like Pashtuns, Bactrians and even Saka had much contact with indian civilization and dardic/indo-aryan people. But despite of this dardic influences pashto is one of the most conservative iranic/iranian languages today and has some connections to the ancient avestan language and khotanese language but it is not a direct descendant of this languages. I dont know much about pashto spoken by pashtuns in pakistan because my fathers family is from Afghanistan but maybe Sein knows more about that. I have found this in the internet about the linguistic contacts of Pashtuns with other people.
    Scholars have found it difficult to reach consensus regarding specific claims about Pashto’s origins. Nonetheless, it is clear that the speech community’s location in a contested part of the ancient world instigated extensive contact with, and borrowing from, other languages, including varieties of ancient Greek, Saka, Parthian, and Persian. Pashto also converged with the northwestern Indian languages, especially the Prakrits, Balochi, and Sindhi. From these languages, Pashto acquired retroflex sounds (sounds produced with the tip of the tongue curled against the roof of the mouth) and approximately 5,550 loanwords.

    The dialects of Pashto fall into two main divisions: the southern, which preserves the ancient /sh/ and /zh/ sounds, and the northern, which uses /kh/ and /gh/ sounds instead. Aspirates—sounds accompanied by an audible breath—are common to most of Pashto’s neighbouring Indo-Aryan languages but are uncommon in Pashto.

    The slight changes that denote loanwords from the Prakrits, Sindhi, and Balochi are generally quite easy to identify. For instance, gadi ‘a cart’ in Sindhi is rendered as gari in Hindi and gadai in Pashto. Likewise, the term for ‘male buffalo’ is rendered sand in Hindi and sanr in Pashto. A number of words are identical in Hindi, Sindhi, and Pashto, including sadak ‘road,’ peda ‘a sweet,’ and khirki ‘window.’

    The Pashto language has also borrowed words from Tajik (a form of Persian) and Uzbek (a Turkic language); examples include ruai-jirge ‘a common platform’ and ilghar ‘attack.’ A number of Arabic words or their Persianized forms have also been assimilated into Pashto, as have several Persian verbs. The sound /n/ of Persian is replaced by /l/ in Pashto.
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ashto-language
    It seems clear that despite its many superficial resemblances to Indic languages, Pashto is an Iranian language (one of the most conservative); and that the only features in it which cannot be exp lained by direct reference to Avestan are the stops / é / and / Î /. My own tentative explanation for all the phenomena discussed above ergativity, use of prepositions with postpositions, gender distinctions, initial consonant clusters, and retroflex consonants ˛ is the following: the Iranian languages had these features, or the seeds of their development, to begin with. In the western or Persic branch, these features, or potential features , died out before the development of modern Farsi/Dari. I n the eastern branch, they were retained and augmented by retroflex stops. T his retention was no doubt caused by areal fa c tors ; that is, contact with the Prakrits from which the mode r n Indic languages developed (with Emenau, I consider the Dardic languages a branch of Indic). T he fact that aspiration was not borrowed is significant, and leads to the following hypothesis concerning the appearance of the retroflex stops: it is probably the case that [ é ] and [ Î ] were present in Pashto as allophones of /t/ and /d/ in some contexts, and that borrowings from Indic languages caused the phonemicizati on of these retroflex allophones in the same manner that borrowed English words have caused the phonemicization of Hindi / ý /, which is no longer the intervocalic allophone of / é / .
    http://people.ku.edu/~mmth/Some_Indi..._in_Pashto.pdf
    On the other hand, Pashto has also adopted Indo-Aryan forms that must have occurred at a deeper time depth, evidently, the precise entrance of these forms remains uncertain, but we may have some circumstantial evidence. In the first place, the term Avagāṇa- is mentioned in a late Sanskrit encyclopaedia by the Indian astronomer Varāha Mihira (of East Iranian stock) in the 6 th century CE. Of course, it all hinges on whether we can equate the ancient (Pre-/Pro-to-) Pashto speakers with Avagāṇa-. More recently, the late scholar Sir Harold Bailey (Bailey, 1993, p. 10; Vogelsang, 2002, p. 229) has suggested that the Pasianoi , cited by the classical historians Strabo (1 st cent. CE) Justin (2 nd cent. CE) can be linked to the Pashtuns. This will be discussed in my forthcoming “On the origin of the terms "Afghan" & "Pashtun" (again)”. The most likely older Indo-Aryan language variety that the ancestors of the Pashto speakers may have come into contact is the archaic Prakrit variety of the Gandhara area. Gandhara is of course adjacent to the traditional homeland of the Pashtuns located in the Sulayman mountain region. The earliest inscriptions date from 3 rd cent. BCE and may have been employed right well into the Islamic era. Arguably, it is possible that some older Indo-Aryan borrowings in Pashto may well be from the Rgvedic “sisterdialect” (“Proto-Dardic”) from which the modern Dardic languages have emerged. The following forms may have entered Pashto at this period in time, when Pashto had not yet disintegrated into numerous dialects:

    — brág m. ‘multicoloured, variegated; furious, angry, enraged’, cf. Skt. uparāga - m. ‘co-louring; rebuke’. The final consonant in -g precludes an Iranian origin (i.e. from the root * ranǰ-/raǰ - ‘to colour, dye’), Also in the “Reimbildung” črag-brag ‘speckled’.

    — owrex̌t m. ‘precipitation, rainfall; snow’, cf. Skt. ava-vṛṣ ‘to rain upon’ (* avavṛṣṭi - ‘rainfall’, Turner no. 845).

    — roγ m., róγa f. ‘healthy, sound; in good order, well made; whole, intact’ is considered an “Ancient LW < IA, cf. T[urner, no.] 622 arōga - ‘healthy’, etc.” ( NEVP , p. 69 f.)

    http://www.academia.edu/6502595/Pash...d_its_Speakers
    Here is an old etymological dictionary of pashto, which is quite interesting to look at but hard to read.
    https://ia601607.us.archive.org/11/i...ierne_text.pdf
    Last edited by Coldmountains; 02-06-2015 at 02:06 PM.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     DMXX (02-06-2015),  Michał (02-07-2015)

  16. #9
    Moderator
    Posts
    1,647
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93
    mtDNA (M)
    H28/W(M) : H1b5
    Y-DNA (M)
    Wife (P) : R1a-Z80

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    There was one Pakhtoon under Z283 (Z282+) in the Underhill data-set, but that sample looks like an anomaly.

    The Kushan were considered Turks about 1000AD as per both Kalhana Pandit (Turushka) and El Beruni (Tibet Turki). There is a possibility that later Kushans were turkified or that often Turk was used in the sense of a mongoloid people.
    But another issue is that for the names of early Kushans - Vima, Kudjula, Kanishka, Huvishka - the etymology is not clear.
    Eg. in KUJULA KASASA KUSHANA YAVUGASA DHARMATHIDASA, Harmatta has tried to explain Yavuga as IE, but I have my doubts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yabgu
    very interesting, it is not unlikely that the original Indo-Iranians carried not only R1a-z93+ and that the dominance of this lineage is maybe the result of a massive founder effect in ancient times. R1a in Europe looks more diverse than R1a in Asia but this could also be just sampling bias. There are much more Europeans who test themself than Pashtuns or Tajiks. But if i am not wrong there were not found any Indians with R1a-z93- till yet and there were quite many indians tested. z283/z280 in central asia among some Uzbeks, Tajiks and Mongolians could theoretically also orginate from Russians but it is very unlikely for me that Tajiks or Uzbeks mixed with christian/atheist russian males. But it can not be excluded or this lineages were maybe brought by slave trade .It would be interesting to see how similar is central asian z283/z280 to eastern European z283/z280 so that we can estimate how old this lineages are there. The Pashtun under Z283 is very interesting and is maybe representing an old non-indoiranian indoeuropean or very rare indo-iranian lineage which was less successful than r1a-z93+

    This sources you mentiond were written very late during a period when Turks dominated large parts of Central Asia so indian and other historians associated the ancient central asian kushan with the current turkic population of central asia but a turkic origin of Kushan/Yuezhi is unlikely for me. During this period nobody knew much about the Kushan and there were mostly just myths about them. The same happened in the shahnahme where Turanians were associated with Turks but we know from older texts that Turanians were just eastern iranic nomadic tribes who were anti-zoroastrian. Turks had no presence in Central Asia before 300-400 AD. and the Kushan show no turkic influences . Their origin is indeed very unclear and it is also possible that they were originally not even Indo-European but a turkic origin seem to be much less likely than an iranic/iranian or tocharian origin.

    But i would not exclude that some proto-altaic tribes/clans were among them. Some depictions of Kushan show indeed some mongolid or pseudo-mongolic traits and i am sure that they mixed with mongolid people in the Gansu region like late tocharians and eastern saka were mixed with east asians/siberians.
    Last edited by Coldmountains; 02-06-2015 at 01:16 PM.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     Michał (02-07-2015),  Táltos (02-07-2015)

  18. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,567
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    I have to say I am a lot less confident that Afanasievo around Altai 3400BC, Tarim Basin Mummies later in the Bronze Age and Tocharian language records link together. Its an interesting possibility but by god there are huge assumptions required. The most convincing - simply because it fits together chronologically is the Afanasievo-Tocharian branch link. However, IMO its quite a leap from this to the Tarim mummies in a different location with a different way of life, on a different east-west route from Afanasievo and in a significantly later period. IMO we need to wait until we have a good sample of actual Afanasievo ancient DNA. Assuming the Tarim mummies are displaced descendants of Afanasievo people of the Altai area is a huge leap IMO.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (02-06-2015),  Michał (02-07-2015)

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mytrueancestry.com split?
    By JoeyP37 in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-13-2019, 02:11 PM
  2. [Split] ASI outside of the Indus: How and When?
    By thejkhan in forum Southern
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-24-2018, 05:18 PM
  3. [SPLIT] L'hypothčse solutréenne
    By anglesqueville in forum French
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-03-2016, 03:42 PM
  4. [SPLIT] Padamalgam & co.
    By Ric in forum French
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-21-2016, 12:00 AM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-23-2013, 07:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •