
Originally Posted by
Agrippa
First of all I didnt spoke about IE in general but in the narrower sense = Aryan = Indoiranian.
Their dominant type was and is in their core area from early times on Nordindid which is a fully Europid variant.
By their language and culture they are more or less "Aryan" in the narrower sense = Indoiranian.
Whereas you can see the relation between Nordids and Nordindids, there is no relation between Nordids and Armenids. So it might be possible to explain the Nordindid type as a mix of related Nordid-Mediterranoid individuals mixing with Armenids, that might be not the case, but at least possible.
But Armenids on the other hand have no direct relation to the European IE types, not genetically nor morphologically, whereas the Nordindids have a position between Europeans (Nordids and Atlantids in special) and the Armenid-Orientalid-Indid mix of Northwestern India-Iran.
Those people which conquered India might have been already mixed and mostly of the Nordindid type, probably with Nordid admixture.
So Nordindid is for the whole region the "Aryan" type in the narrower sense, no matter if they are European or not.
If they have Dravidian features they cant be Nordindid, even Indids are different from Indomelanids, Weddids and other tribal racial types, which represent the pre-Aryan AND probably even pre-Dravidian times.
So "Dravidian" means today something else (ethnic-linguistic-culturual) than in the past.
Better say Weddid, which is true in general, because most people from pre-Aryan Harappa were already people like in the Middle East or Indid and mixed, pure Weddids were a minority.
Most Iranians are Europid/Caucasoid, but what has this to do with being Aryan? Culturally they are, but by race can only Nordids, Nordindids and Northern Mediterranid types be.
No, the Slavs are related to "Aryans"-Iranians which were the forbears of the Indoiranians, therefore its more the other way around that "Satem speakers related to Slavs" came to India and brouth the "Aryan" culture.
Upper caste Indians are genetically more related to Eastern Europeans and the rests of Central Asian IE than the rest of the population which might be a clear indication.
Dravian = Dravidian? Dravidians have nothing to do with Slavs and Aryans.
BTW on wide plains it was much easier for the chariot-horse using Aryans to conquer land, so in flat lands they needed to much people to defeat local groups if they were not really good organized.
The Mitanni are another example of their success and so today Aryan language speakers must not have too much Aryan blood.
Even more so if you look at how big/dense the population of the Aryan-Iranian groups was f.e. in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, especially of the herdsmen.
There were not enough people for a complete repopulation of already dense populated areas.
They probably could have killed the locals, but they wanted them as workers which should bring them what they as herdsmen didnt produced.
So especially in the regions of Iran which were already densely populated by peasants, we might expect not a big "Aryan impact".
Only in the East (Persis) they Aryan, especially Persian settling was stronger although even their Elamits (which were probably related to the Dravidians) were most likely the big majority...
Kurds and Meder came in regions already very densely populated by Armenids and Iranids. Not to speak about later immigration waves from other non-Aryan people.
Bookmarks