Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Kusala »

sphairos wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:24 pm
Kusala wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:52 pm
sphairos wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:15 pm Everyone who is posting here light-featured Indians (and for some reason Afghani-s -- which is a totally different story, "white" people have been living there for millennia) -- just go to India/Pakistan/Nepal and see everything with your eyes. Indians are not light-featured. All these photos is extreme cherry-picking , and if researched most of those people had some "white" colonial blood recently or etc. Most "white" out of all Indians are "Brahmins" (brāhmaṇa in Hindi/Sanskrit), it's true. I have a lot of friends from old and authentic Brahmin lineages, many of whom are affiliated with traditional Sanskrit science/studies. All of them are quite/very dark-skinned. They have often facial features alike South Europeans/Arabic/Mediterranean people, but still the "Indian" character is clearly distinguishable and shade is dark. Don't fool yourself and don't get fooled, Indians/Iranians/Āryans have never been white-skinned and blue-eyed. Moreover, Greeks and Romans for the most part weren't. It's all stupid 19-th century romantic and then Nazi myths. Don't repeat and spread them, it's just ignorance.
The Indo-European expansion to the East is not a 19-th century myth. The Scythian and other Iranic tribes are recorded by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. Are you telling me that Caucasian looking people in places like Iran all the way to Western China is nothing more than a fabrication and that blonde and red head blue eyed individuals never existed in that part of the world?



This little girl and her sister from Iran is a perfect example of ancient Indo-European settlement in Central Asia.

Image
In short: Aryans weren't "white" . Everything that you post in the result of admixture of various nomads, steppe people, migration of groups of European descent and appearance LONG AFTER the dissemination of Indo-Europeans. And according to the renowned Diakonoff-Renfrew-Ivanov hypothesis, which you surely don't know, because you-re not very knowledgeable on the subject, the Proto-Indo-European ORIGINATED somewhere in Eastern-Southern Anatolia (in modern Turkey), and didn't have anything to do with North Europeans in the first place.

And Greeks and Romans also weren't "white". Aryans weren't "white", it's a stupid old-fashioned myth that people like you still adhere to. It has no relation to reality.

And I actually have been to India and Pakistan and I KNOW how they look like.
It's ok to be wrong...

Marija Gimbutas Triumphant: Colin Renfrew Concedes by Carol P. Christ

https://feminismandreligion.com/2017/12 ... -p-christ/
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by SDC »

Kusala wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:54 pm
The OP has stated that skin color is a factor in the decision to undertake the practice. Is that why you’re so adamant about it as well? Or are you mainly interested in historical accuracy? I’m just trying to understand the significance - not for any other reason than to clarify the implication that I’m gathering from the OP: that the world, the experience as a result of a living body, is the beneficiary of the insight of the practice. An assumption that looks to be unsupported by any text that actually matters.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Kusala »

SDC wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:31 pm
Kusala wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:54 pm
The OP has stated that skin color is a factor in the decision to undertake the practice. Is that why you’re so adamant about it as well? Or are you mainly interested in historical accuracy? I’m just trying to understand the significance - not for any other reason than to clarify the implication that I’m gathering from the OP: that the world, the experience as a result of a living body, is the beneficiary of the insight of the practice. An assumption that looks to be unsupported by any text that actually matters.
Personally, I could careless whether the historical Buddha was white, green, purple; his skin color is of no importance to me. But as a student of history and practicing Buddhist, I seek the "truth" even if it goes against the mainstream narrative. I understand certain topics invoke strong emotions...but like David Reynolds, I've always been somewhat of a politically incorrect Buddhist...
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by SDC »

Kusala wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:09 am
I appreciate the response, Kusala.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

Kusala wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:52 pm

The Indo-European expansion to the East is not a 19-th century myth. The Scythian and other Iranic tribes are recorded by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. Are you telling me that Caucasian looking people in places like Iran all the way to Western China is nothing more than a fabrication and that blonde and red head blue eyed individuals never existed in that part of the world?



This little girl and her sister from Iran is a perfect example of ancient Indo-European settlement in Central Asia.

Image
In the Buddha's teachings ancestry is less important than ones lineage in the dhamma. Ones conduct.
We are attached to our identity views and concepts no matter their accuracy if they make us feel good.
So the following will be a good excericise is examining and abandonong idealized and wishful perceptions.

Actually you are unwittingly rehashing some standard false stereotypes there. Same with cherry picking Bollywood actors where there is a strong post colonial prejudice that the upper castes bought into to try to appear 'more European' and select fair skinned actors.
Same when we see the Kalash who look white and would seem a good candidate for the 'blonde Aryan' myth.
This belief seems reasonable at face value because the Indian population varies in light to dark skin whereas Europeans are mainly 'white'. But then we look deeper and there are big twists in the story.

Indeed, a picture can be worth a thousand words...

As DNS mentioned there seems to be a preference in the West to try to turn all religious figures into European blue eyed blondes. It's seems not enough to acknowledge the shared kinship between Indo-Europeans, we need him to be 'white'. This occurs with Jesus and an attempt has been made with the Buddha and even to falsely claim that upper castes were 'white' before being mixed which you are rehashing.

Also the study you posted is more than 20 years old. There have been more recent studies that make things more clear.


First up it is misleading to simply say the upper castes are more 'European'.

Who are white people aka Europeans?
Europeans themselves are actually a mix of 3 different tribes and they have also become much lighter skinned over last few thousand years.


https://www.livescience.com/ancient-che ... -lola.html

This is what a Norwegian, called Western Hunter Gatherer looked like just 5-6000 years ago.
tb-lola-final-lores-1-800x445.jpg
As we will see, it is sanna or our perception which 'colors' our views of this.

"Blue eyes, it suggests, could come from hunter gatherers in Mesolithic Europe (10,000 to 5,000 BC), while other characteristics arrived later with newcomers from the East.....

The Bronze Age (around 3,000–1,000 BC) was a time of major advances... One people that was particularly important in the spread of both early Bronze-Age technologies and genetics were the Yamnaya...

By comparing DNA from various Bronze-Age European cultures to that of both Yamnaya and the Neolithic farmers, researchers found that most had a mixture of the two backgrounds....
And it appears that the Yamnaya also moved east. The Afanasievo culture of the Altai-Sayan region in central Asia seemed to be genetically indistinguishable from the Yamnaya...


The DNA of several hunter gatherers living in Europe long before the Bronze Age was also tested. It showed that they probably had a combination of features quite striking to the modern eye: dark skin with blue eyes.

The blue eyes of these people – and of the many modern Europeans who have them – are thanks to a specific mutation near a gene called OCA2. As none of the Yamnaya samples have this mutation, it seems likely that modern Europeans owe this trait to their ancestry from these European hunter gatherers of the Mesolithic (10,000-5,000 BC).

Two mutations responsible for light skin, however, tell quite a different story. Both seem to have been rare in the Mesolithic, but present in a large majority by the Bronze Age (3,000 years later), both in Europe and the steppe (Yamnaya)...."
https://theconversation.com/ancient-dna ... ance-43078


So in summary its more accurate to say upper castes have more Yamnaya ancestry (thought to be the so called 'Aryans') and so do Europeans. But they mixed in both Europe and India with earlier farmer populations and hunter gatherers.
Also surprisingly the blue eyes come from the dark skinned hunter gathers in Europe, not the 'Aryans' who later came and invaded/migrated to Europe and India, from Central Asia.

So it looks like what happened was Europeans have only been light skinned for about 6 thousand years. They went 'all the way' with the skin lightening since then while in India it was mainly the North that got skin lightened by marriage selection not the South.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/scienc ... 556277.cms


To make matters more interestng and fully end the blonde Aryan myth, recent genetics and culture has linked the very dark skinned Dravidians like Tamils to migrations both to South India and to ancient Europe even before the Aryans came, from the Indus Valley region. So a migration of dark skinned 'caucasians' who lost the color on the European side.
"Ukrainian archaeologist Iurii Mosenkis, according to whom the Dravidian culture of the Indus valley has expanded to Iran (Zagros culture), Mesopotamia (Ubaid culture), Anatolia (Çatal Höyük), the Balkans (Vinča) to Northern Gaul (megaliths of the Vth millennium BC in Barnenez (Brittany) and in the Parisian basin), as well as to Majkop (North Caucasus) to Northern Gaul (Parisian basin) and Southern Gaul (Fontbouisse, Languedoc), French megalithic sites where can be found according to him characteristical elements of Ubaid and Majkop cultures. He also underlines that the cult language of Vinča could be Dravidian, given the Dravidian etymology of several words of the language and the script of Vinča."
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Ou ... Dravidians

Now if we compare to those blonde Kalash that we would love to romanticize, they do not have the genetics of Europeans, those blondes have almost the same genetic profile as other Indian groups including the darkest skinned Tamils of South India! That is the 3 main tribes that form the Indian population.

main-qimg-ac30c58c59f1dffd2102a0f4961b0dfc.jpeg
You can see here 'Steppe' in blue (which is the same as what is called Yamnaya and is speculated to be the 'Aryan' part).

Actually it is skin lightening that is the mystery process that helps us understand all this and the similar appearance of people from India to Europe with variance in coloration.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24244186/

And this picture really demystifies the debate.
Dravidian.jpg
Did the Aryans have any with blue eyes and blonde? Unlikely, majority probably had the typical dark hair and eyes is what the studies of the Steppe dna tells us. And either way they were all very dark just a few thousand years earlier, with the original very dark color only preserved in India especially South for speculated sociodemographic factors.

It just goes to show how sanna conditions papanka and then our preferred identity views come in, reinforced by more thought and perception.
All very interesting and still being researched. Expect science to make more revelations in future!
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
alicem
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:33 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by alicem »

He probably would have been an admixture of the Indo-Aryan migrations and the native Austroasiatic population (Munda people), and so had phenotypical traits of both peoples. "Light skin" is relative and aristocrats from all societies tended to be considered "light skinned" in comparison to their subjects, since they spent less time working in the sun.
User avatar
Tennok
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 2:02 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Tennok »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:44 am Did the Aryans have any with blue eyes and blonde? Unlikely, majority probably had the typical dark hair and eyes is what the studies of the Steppe dna tells us. And either way they were all very dark just a few thousand years earlier, with the original very dark color only preserved in India especially South for speculated sociodemographic factors.

It just goes to show how sanna conditions papanka and then our preferred identity views come in, reinforced by more thought and perception.
All very interesting and still being researched. Expect science to make more revelations in future!
I 'm quiet sure "DNA studies" as a serious tool of a historical research, will be doubted and debunked some day. Such researches cannot really be evaluated and checked, unless you are a genetic experts yourself. I ve seen such "studies" proving what ever needs to be proven, and reaching to contradictory conlusions. And supporting tons of nonsence, various nationalistic agendas, etc.

Historians prefer to work with written sources from the time period - or as close as possible. And all serious historical sources about ancient Indoeuropean Nomads say they wre blond or red haired, with blue eyes. And some authors, like M. Ammian, saw Indoeropean nomads, direct descendants of the Aryans, with their own eys. In Homer's work, Acheans - one of Indoeuropean tribes - are often described as blond. And Homer's work is pretty close in time, to Aryan migrations to India.

I just wonder if people, who get offended by the very idea of the "white Buddha", are aware, that they are being conditioned by the present culture - which deliberately decides which identities and ideas can be a source of one's pride, and which cannot.

Btw, the culture which Buddha chose as his focus and life path - the sramana, hermit culture of Yoga and meditataion - is considered by many scholars, such as M. Elliade, to be of a Dravidian, pre - Indoeuropean origins. Anti - Vedic, in a way. So in a cultural sense, Buddha abbandoned his origins. If he stay true to them, he would be happy doing rituals, purifications and sacrifices, Brahman style...

So he investigated elements of India's older, pre - Indoeuropean culture, and used his own, Indoeuropean language, related to Pali, to express his discoveries and share it with his students. A story of courage, inclusion and cultural exchange, i would say.
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by BrokenBones »

The oxygen this thread is receiving is sad... re OP... it doesn't matter one way or the other... there... I've just added more fuel 😔
alicem
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:33 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by alicem »

Tennok wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:27 amBtw, the culture which Buddha chose as his focus and life path - the sramana, hermit culture of Yoga and meditataion - is considered by many scholars, such as M. Elliade, to be of a Dravidian, pre - Indoeuropean origins. Anti - Vedic, in a way. So in a cultural sense, Buddha abbandoned his origins. If he stay true to them, he would be happy doing rituals, purifications and sacrifices, Brahman style...
The Sakyas weren't considered part of Vedic society and were criticized repeatedly by Brahmins for not respecting them.
Ambaṭṭhasutta wrote:[Ambaṭṭha] said to the Buddha, “Master Gotama, the Sakyan clan are rude, harsh, touchy, and argumentative. Riffraff they are, and riffraff they remain! They don’t honor, respect, revere, worship, or venerate brahmins. It is neither proper nor appropriate that the Sakyans—riffraff that they are—don’t honor, respect, revere, worship, or venerate brahmins.”
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by salayatananirodha »

Gwi wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:23 am DN 30--Lakkhaṇa suttank

The Buddhå explained what actions
Caused Bhagavā to have blue eyes,
Forty teeth, etc.


The Buddhå was born spontaneously.
:goodpost:
TRobinson465 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:21 am
Kusala wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:49 am
Aldebaran wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:29 pm I assume he would have been as I've seen Indians which are virtually indistinguishable from Europeans but not as many nowadays it has to be said.
A picture(s) is worth more than a thousand words. According to geneticists the warrior/aristocratic caste(Kshatriya) and priestly caste(Brahmin) have a certain of amount of European/Caucasian admixture...India today is highly mixed, but during the Buddha's time, the ruling class rarely mixed outside their race. We see it in the origin story of the Sakyan clan. The Sakyans were very prideful and refused to mixed outside of their race...which, unfortunately, led to the destruction of their kingdom...

Image

Image

Image

Image
As blue eyes is a recessive trait i think the fact that they wouldnt mix actually increases the chance one of them would have blue eyes. There are literally cases of people in africa with blonde hair, so i honestly dont think its that unlikely. That or maybe his eye color was different from the standard brown and so people called it blue. There are plenty of people in Afghanistan with pale blue or green eyes. and that part of the world isnt that far from where the Lord Buddha lived. We should get it out of our heads that white people are the only people capable of not having black hair and brown eyes.

As the Lord Buddha was exceptional its totally possible he was one of these relatively rare cases of having such an eye color in that part of the world. Being light skinned is not that unusual in that part of the world, my Nepalese friend is light skinned, but black haired and brown eyed. One of my close friends is also quite light skinned while her brother is somewhat dark skinned. Genetics is complicated.

It is also possible the texts are simply exaggerating (for instance the Lord Buddha having "golden skin" probably does not mean literally gold in color) or perhaps we are mistranslating the wording due to millenias of knowledge decay (think the meaning of "gay" back in the 50s and the meaning now). Maha Moggallana was said to have blue skin, which actually is a possible skin real life skin condition, but people generally agree it probably meant "dark" skin.
:goodpost:

why not suspend judgment as to what the buddha looked like, except for what's described in the early buddhist texts. also, its not racist if bodhisatta had racial characteristics that were desirable/he was high caste. because of his kamma, he excelled most other human beings in appearance, wealth, influence, etc. remember he would have been a wheel-turning monarch if not for becoming a buddha. whatever skin color would have been beautiful to many people would be his color i think
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by un8- »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:44 am

And this picture really demystifies the debate.
Dravidian.jpg
You killed any credibility you had by making that comment, that picture of a sunburned albino is about albinism. Albinism has nothing to do with ethnicity. It is a genetic mutation for the lack of pigment.
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

un8- wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:53 am
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:44 am
And this picture really demystifies the debate.
that picture of a sunburned albino is about albinism. Albinism has nothing to do with ethnicity. It is a genetic mutation for the lack of pigment.
Well maybe if you read the studies I posted instead of just impulsively responding you wouldn't think that way.

On a common sense level, the fact of dark skinned South Indians with albinism looking virtually identical to Western Europeans is enough evidence by itself to undercut 'blonde Aryan' myths or at least make us realize the situation is far more complex than 19th century writers who had a vested interest in promoting myths wanted to think.

Regarding albinism, the mutation in the genetic markers that cause it are actually the same genes that control for skin, hair and eye color more generally so it is very relevant.
" A non-synonymous substitution (rs1426654) in the third exon of SLC24A5 accounts for lighter skin in Europeans but not in East Asians...Sequencing 11.74 kb of SLC24A5 in 95 individuals worldwide reveals that the rs1426654-A alleles in South Asian and West Eurasian populations are monophyletic and occur on the background of a common haplotype that is characterized by low genetic diversity.
We date the coalescence of the light skin associated allele at 22-28 KYA. Both our sequence and genome-wide genotype data confirm that this gene has been a target for positive selection among Europeans. However, the latter also shows additional evidence of selection in populations of the Middle East, Central Asia, Pakistan and North India but not in South India."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24244186/

Then we have a study on albinism, the same genes are involved
"Oculocutaneous albinism (OCA) is a genetically heterogeneous disorder. Six genes are associated with autosomal recessive OCA (TYR, OCA2, TYRP1, SLC45A2, SLC24A5 and LRMDA), and one gene, GPR143, is associated with X-linked ocular albinism (OA)."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37272-5

So what this means is the light skin color gene has been preferentially selected for in Europe, to a lesser degree in Middle East, Central Asia and North India, and almost not at all in South India.
When we see an albino from India who would normally have dark skin, we see in one generation a skin color change which took about a hundred generations to select for in colder climates across most of the population of Europe.
05fd54d3656a0b8b7d2748594224b17d.jpg
The remainder of the research posted speaks for itself, you can follow up on the science.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by un8- »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 8:23 am
un8- wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:53 am
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:44 am
And this picture really demystifies the debate.
that picture of a sunburned albino is about albinism. Albinism has nothing to do with ethnicity. It is a genetic mutation for the lack of pigment.
Well maybe if you read the studies I posted instead of just impulsively responding you wouldn't think that way.

If you posted this anywhere where there is at least a level of high school education, people would facepalm.

Albinism has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity, at all. That's like saying a certain ethnicity came from autism.

Albinism affects ALL people, you can have chinese albinos, African albinos, Caucasian albinos, etc.. There is absolutely zero connection to albinism and ethnicity.

Please, stop posting nonsense misinformation.
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
sphairos
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by sphairos »

Kusala wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:54 pm
Marija Gimbutas Triumphant: Colin Renfrew Concedes by Carol P. Christ

https://feminismandreligion.com/2017/12 ... -p-christ/
As a student of history you must run away when you hear words "Gimbutas" and "Kurgan theory". It's pure delusion and was refuted by multiple scholars right after the book was published (1965).

Don't you think that for a serious student of history it is weird to seriously refer to a link to a site "feminismandreligion.com"?

In the actual paper on which Renfrew's talk is based ("Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe". Nature, 2015) it is actually very articulately written that the study DOES NOT confirm Gimbutas in any way nor refute Anatolian Urheimat:

"The study does not reveal the precise origin of PIE, nor does it clarify the impact Kurgan migrations had on different parts of Europe."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 075334.htm

I don't know what C. Renfrew has been up to lately, maybe he really changed his mind, and anyway he is just an archaeologist, but it does not in any way affect purely linguistic arguments put forward by Diakonoff, and especially Ivanov (1984, Indoevropjskij jazyk i indoevropejcy: Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologieskij analiz prajazyka i protokultury. Tiflis: Tiflis University Press 1984. xcvi + 1328 p.; Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. 2 vols. Trans. J. Nichols. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1: 1994, 2: 1995), that in all major ancient Indo-European languages we find either full-fledged or reduced traces of of glottalised stops or ejectives (pʼ) tʼ kʼ kʷʼ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottalic_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis

, which shows that the language arose in direct connection to the languages where such glottalised sounds are essential , such as languages of Caucasus (and Semitic languages).

It is practically impossible to really fully understand for a non-(very competent Indo-European)linguist, but it is a genious contribution, that simply cannot be dismissed.

And this is exactly what modern genetic data suggests (David Reich was the head of the paper from 2015):

David Reich, in his 2018 publication Who We Are and How We Got Here, noting the presence of some Indo-European languages (such as Hittite) in parts of ancient Anatolia, states that "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_ ... #Reception

It is Ok to be wrong and let the science speak for itself.

Aryans and Proto-Indoeuropeans weren't "white", abandon stupid ancient racist and Nazi myths, educate yourself.

Immanuel Kant proclaimed that the motto of the Age of Enlightenment is Sapere aude ("Dare to be wise/thinking").
Last edited by sphairos on Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
sphairos
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by sphairos »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 8:23 am
On a common sense level, the fact of dark skinned South Indians with albinism looking virtually identical to Western Europeans is enough evidence by itself to undercut 'blonde Aryan' myths or at least make us realize the situation is far more complex than 19th century writers who had a vested interest in promoting myths wanted to think.
Yes, Cause and Effect is right in that various racists and Nazi specifically look for and find abnormal looking (including albinos) Indians and post them everywhere on the Internet to persuade the feeble minded in their racist beliefs.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
Post Reply