Colonial Roots of the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory and the Contemporary Archaeological Evidence in Western Sources

2021 ◽  
pp. 037698362110521
Author(s):  
Kundan Singh
Keyword(s):  
European Ancestry ◽  
Common Ancestry ◽  
Graduate Study ◽  
Archaeological Evidence ◽  
Current Form ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Invasion Theory ◽  
Imperial Power ◽  
Migration Theory ◽  
The Common

William Jones, famously, by identifying close linkages between Sanskrit and European languages, gave birth to research into the common ancestry between Indians and Europeans. In the earlier years of contention on the matter, India was considered the cradle of civilisation and Sanskrit as the mother of all Indo-European languages. With the rise in the imperial power of Europe over India, the cradle of civilisation began to shift outside India and ultimately landed in Europe. Simultaneously, the idea of invasion of India by the ‘Aryan race’, or the Aryan invasion theory (AIT), was promoted. Since then, however, one archaeological find over another have consistently refuted the AIT, proving it as false. As flawed as it remains, this theory has, nonetheless, persisted and morphed in its current form as the Aryan migration theory (AMT) and continues to find mention and favour in contemporary academic discourse. In mainstream academia, today, whether in grade-school texts or in texts meant for undergraduate and graduate study, whenever India and Hinduism are mentioned, the coming of Aryans from outside of India and establishing Hinduism and civilisation in India are discussed as veritable facts. By examining the theory in anticolonial and postcolonial contexts, we show that despite considerable archaeological evidence refuting the theories of the invasion or migration of Aryans into India, its colonial embeddedness in the notion of the racial superiority of the Europeans or people with European ancestry that the theory does not fade into oblivion.

Irano-Tocharica et Tocharo-Iranica

2005 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 421-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
XAVIER TREMBLAY
Keyword(s):  
Common Ancestry ◽  
Loan Words ◽  
Northern India ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Loan Word ◽  
The Common ◽  
Political Vocabulary

This paper attempts a periodization and dialectal attribution of Iranian loan words found in Tocharian A and B, two Indo-European languages attested in c. 10,000 fragments unearthed in Chinese Turkestan since 1892. More than 100 loan words are scritinized and classified in eight sections, according to their origin: Old Iranian (probably issued from the common ancestry of the ‘Sakan’ languages, Khotanese, Tumshuqese and Waxi), three different stages of Khotanese, ‘Śaka’, (the language of the Iranian invaders of northern India), Parthian, Bactrian and Sogdian. Tocharians had dealings with all neighbouring Iranian peoples, but Khotanese and its ancestors clearly exerted the most durable influence. No loan word from more remote dialects (e.g. Persian and Ossetic) can be evidenced. The predominance of war-related and political vocabulary among the loan words and the direction of borrowing, overwhelmingly from Iranian to Tocharian, both point to a political ascendancy of Sakan-speaking tribes, and later of Bactria, on Tocharians.

scholarly journals Homozygosity for TYK2 P1104A underlies tuberculosis in about 1% of patients in a cohort of European ancestry

2019 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 10430-10434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaspard Kerner ◽  
Noe Ramirez-Alejo ◽  
Yoann Seeleuthner ◽  
Rui Yang ◽  
Masato Ogishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Genetic Basis ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
European Ancestry ◽  
Uk Biobank ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Common ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Level

The human genetic basis of tuberculosis (TB) has long remained elusive. We recently reported a high level of enrichment in homozygosity for the common TYK2 P1104A variant in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with TB from non-European countries in which TB is endemic. This variant is homozygous in ∼1/600 Europeans and ∼1/5,000 people from other countries outside East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. We report a study of this variant in the UK Biobank cohort. The frequency of P1104A homozygotes was much higher in patients with TB (6/620, 1%) than in controls (228/114,473, 0.2%), with an odds ratio (OR) adjusted for ancestry of 5.0 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.96–10.31, P = 2 × 10−3]. Conversely, we did not observe enrichment for P1104A heterozygosity, or for TYK2 I684S or V362F homozygosity or heterozygosity. Moreover, it is unlikely that more than 10% of controls were infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, as 97% were of European genetic ancestry, born between 1939 and 1970, and resided in the United Kingdom. Had all of them been infected, the OR for developing TB upon infection would be higher. These findings suggest that homozygosity for TYK2 P1104A may account for ∼1% of TB cases in Europeans.

Language Rights as a General Principle of Community Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iñigo Urrutia ◽  
Iñaki Lasagabaster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Principal Characteristic ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Current Form ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Great Heterogeneity ◽  
Official Recognition ◽  
The Eu

The territory of the European Union is made up of a rich and wide-ranging universe of languages. The European Union contains a wealth of languages. In its current form there are more than 60 autochthonous languages in the 27 Member States, with widely differing situations and legal statuses. The principal characteristic of the European linguistic diversity is the great heterogeneity of situations and internal legal statuses that the european languages display. Most of the languages of EU are spoken by very few people and few languages are enormously widespread. There are many languages in the EU, which, in spite of having an appreciable number of speakers, do not have official recognition. And there are languages that are co-official or have some sort of official recognition in some areas, but struggle to survive. Multilingualism is one of the defining characteristics of the EU, and it is worth examining how EU law deals with it.

scholarly journals Gender Resolution in Croatian, Slavic and Proto-Indo-European

Fluminensia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-29
Author(s):  
Ranko Matasović
Keyword(s):  
Gender Agreement ◽  
Historical Explanation ◽  
Feminine Gender ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Resolution Rule ◽  
The Common ◽  
Gender System ◽  
Germanic Languages ◽  
Masculine Gender

This paper deals with the origin and development of the gender resolution rule according to which the predicate adjective agrees with the masculine antecedent when there is agreement with a conjunction of subjects at least one of which denotes a male person. Apart from Croatian, such a rule exists (or existed) in the other Slavic languages, as well as in Baltic languages, so it can safely be posited for Proto-Slavic and Proto-Balto-Slavic. We further show that most contemporary and ancient Indo-European languages had such a gender resolution rule. Where such a rule does not exist (as in Germanic languages), there is a plausible historical explanation. In Hittite, which preserves the most ancient gender system of Indo-European (with only common and neuter genders, and no feminine gender), the default agreement is with the common gender noun. Recent advances in our understanding of the development of gender in Indo-European allow us to show that the rule taking the masculine as the default gender has developed from the rule taking the common gender as default. This is because the morphemes showing gender agreement on adjectives and pronouns of the masculine gender have developed from Early Proto-Indo-European morphemes expressing the common gender.

scholarly journals The common ancestry of life

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene V Koonin ◽  
Yuri I Wolf
Keyword(s):  
Common Ancestry ◽  
The Common

Triassic reptiles from the Elgin area: Ornithosuchus and the origin of carnosaurs

1964 ◽  
Vol 248 (744) ◽  
pp. 53-134 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
Lower Cretaceous ◽  
The Other ◽  
Type Material ◽  
Common Ancestry ◽  
New Information ◽  
Restricted Sense ◽  
The Common ◽  
A New Species

The osteology of Ornithosuchus is described in some detail. This study is largely based on material discussed by previous workers, but also takes into account specimens hitherto undescribed. It is considered that the species O. taylori Broom 1913 is invalid, being based on larger individuals of the form previously named O. woodwardi by Newton (1894). Furthermore, evidence is presented to show that specimens previously described by Huxley (1877) and Walker (1961) as Dasygnathus longidens are also referable to Ornithosuchus . It is concluded that but one species is present in the material, the correct name for which is Ornithosuchus longidens (Huxley). At least eleven individuals are present with skulls ranging from about 50 to 450 mm in length. Observations on the smaller members of this series suggest that changes in the shape and proportions of the skull took place with growth in a similar manner to those seen in living crocodiles. In the light of new information concerning the osteology of Ornithosuchus it is considered that this reptile is a primitive carnosaur, occupying a position very close to the ancestry of the Jurassic and Cretaceous members of this group. An examination of descriptions and figures of Triassic reptiles referred by von Huene (1932) and later authors to the Carnosauria has led to the conclusion that the great bulk of this material is more properly allocated to the Prosauropoda, and that the only Triassic carnosaurs known at the present time, apart from Ornithosuchus , are Teratosaurus and Sinosaurus , these two names being here used in a restricted sense. It is suggested that Ornithosuchus is close to the common ancestry of both the Megalosauridae and the Tyrannosauridae, and the derivation of the skull patterns of these forms from that of Ornithosuchus is discussed. Additional fenestrations marginal to the preorbital fossa and in the surangular of advanced carnosaurs are held to be related to the development of the pterygoid musculature rather than to the need to lighten the skull. In the course of a brief review of the Carnosauria the view is put forward that Acrocanthosaurus is a Lower Cretaceous representative of the tyrannosaur group, using this term in a broad sense, and is perhaps related to the Cenomanian Spinosaurus and the Wealden Altispinax . As a result of examination of English megalosaurian material, the name Eustreptospondylus oxoniensis gen. et sp.nov. is proposed for the Oxford specimen previously known as ‘ Streptospondylus’ cuvieri , and Metriacanthosaurus gen.nov. for Megalosaurus parkeri . The incomplete cranium from Dives figured by Piveteau (1923) is made the type of a new species, E. divesensis , to which certain other carnosaurian material from Normandy is provisionally allocated. Following Chakravarti (1935), the endoskeletal elements included by Matley (1923) in the type material of the Indian nodosaur Lametasaurus are held to belong to one or other of the two carnosaurs Indosuchus and Indosaurus, but the numerous scutes are not thought to be carnosaurian and the name Lametasaurus is here restricted to them. It is suggested that Indosuchus from the ? Turonian is a tyrannosaund. On the other hand Ceratosaurus and Proceratosaurus are regarded as coelurosaurs. A modified classification of the Infra-order Carnosauria is given, in which two main groups are recognized; Superfamily Megalosauroidea to include the Megalosauridae, and Superfamily Tyrannosauroidea to include the Ornithosuchidae (restricted), Spinosauridae and Tyrannosauridae.

Periphrastic Progressive Constructions in Dutch and Afrikaans: A Contrastive Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adri Breed ◽  
Frank Brisard ◽  
Ben Verhoeven
Keyword(s):  
Exact Nature ◽  
Common Ancestry ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
Written Text ◽  
Verb Constructions ◽  
The Common

Given the common ancestry of Dutch and Afrikaans, it is not surprising that they use similar periphrastic constructions to express progressive meaning:aan het(Dutch) andaan die/’t(Afrikaans) lit. ‘at the’;bezig met/(om)te(Dutch) lit. ‘busy with/to’ andbesig om telit. ‘busy to’ (Afrikaans); and so-called cardinal posture verb constructions (zitten/sit‘sit’,staan‘stand’,liggen/lê‘lie’ andlopen/loop‘walk’), CPVte(‘to’ Dutch) and CPVen(‘and’ Afrikaans). However, these cognate constructions have grammaticalized to different extents. To assess the exact nature of these differences, we analyzed the constructions with respect to overall frequency, collocational range, and transitivity (compatibility with transitive predicates and passivizability). We used two corpora that are equal in size (both about 57 million words) and contain roughly the same types of written text. It turns out that the use of periphrastic progressives is generally more widespread in Afrikaans than in Dutch. As far as grammaticalization is concerned, we found that the Afrikaansaan die- and CPV-constructions, as well as the Dutchbezig- and CPV-constructions, are semantically restricted. In addition, only the Afrikaansbesig- and CPVen-constructions allow passivization, which is remarkable for such periphrastic expressions.*

scholarly journals The Russia-EU perspective: national security and counterterrorism from a different angle

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-75
Author(s):  
Milka Malfait
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Inductive Method ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Distrust ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

Introduction: Statistics have proven that both the European Union (“EU”) and the Russian Federation (“Russia”) suffer from terrorism in its current form. Intensifying partnerships to combat terrorism would be a good idea. This essay envisages to illustrate a common base for cooperation in the fight against terrorism despite of some general differences in policy and structure between the EU and Russia.Materials and methods: The methodological basis of the research has both an analytical and descriptive nature. As for the analytical nature, sta­tistical, qualitative and comparative analyses were used while researching political phenomena and processes in the sphere of national security and coun­terterrorism. The author also applied the inductive method. The materials observed include the distinct approaches of Russia and the EU in terms of threats to national security including terrorism.Results: The author reveals there are four fundamental issues which ask for more attention in the EU-Russia dialogue on Freedom, Justice and Security and particularly with regard to the fight against terrorism. Firstly, statistics prove that Europe (EU and Russia) are impacted by modern terrorism, yet not by the same cases of terrorism. Secondly, Russia’s experience in counterterrorism is crucial. Thirdly, the scale ‘freedom’ and ‘human rights’ versus ‘security’ has not the same ratio in the EU and in Russia. Fourthly, the concept sovereignty is differently interpreted by the EU, the EU Member States and Russia. Despite all the differences in views, it is clear that the EU could learn a lot from Russia, as one of the key States with considerable experience in the fight against terrorism. Although the EU and Russia face different forms and problems and the roots of Western European terrorism sometimes have a slightly different origin, this does not negate the fact that they could foster cooperation.Discussion and conclusion: The governmental approaches of the EU and Russia on national security were discussed as well as the common grounds for cooperation, namely the threat of terrorism. It is proved that both systems have different features and are not always compatible with each other. The following recommendation of setting up an anti-terrorism working group was provided as well as the advice to eliminate the political distrust.

scholarly journals COMMON IRANIAN HERITAGE IN THE OSSETIAN LEXICAL FUND

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Э.Т. Гутиева
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
Late Antiquity ◽  
Great Migration ◽  
Compound Words ◽  
European Area ◽  
European Languages ◽  
The Great Migration ◽  
The Common

Значение осетинского языка для языкознания определяется сложностью его исторической судьбы. Его архаический характер и ранняя дивергенция от остальных иранских языков вызывает к нему интерес со стороны иранистов, а конвергентные процессы с другими индоевропейскими языками привлекают исследовательское внимание русских и европейских ученых. Прото-осетинский язык можно рассматривать как транслятор иранского влияния в европейский ареал в период Великого переселения народов (в IV-VII вв.), т.к. из всех племен, теснивших порядок Римской империи, ираноязычными среди основных действующих лиц были именно европейские иранцы сарматы и аланы, предки современных осетин. Общеиранская лексика была предметом рассмотрения многих исследователей, но всё же имеется целый ряд вопросов, которые нуждаются в уточнении, развитии, целый ряд этимологий осетинских слов нуждается в обосновании или в ревизии. Некоторые лексемы, которые традиционно относились к кавказскому слою лексики, должны быть проанализированы более подробно. В работе внимание уделяется степени сохранности иранского лексического фонда в осетинском языке. Рассматриваются разные сценарии процессов развития общеиранской лексики, которые снабжены языковыми примерами. Возможности выдвижения альтернативных уже существующим этимологиям иллюстрируются на примере рефлексов общеиранского корня hwar- (xwar-) есть. Некоторые лексемы могли быть сохранены обоими языками, но претерпели семантические и фонетические изменения, не позволяющие их опознать, они могли окаменеть в сложных словах, во фразеологических оборотах. Кроме того, общие корни могли быть утеряны, и восстанавливаются только по родственным словам в других иранских языках. The significance of the Ossetian language for linguistics is determined by the complexity of its historical fate. Its archaic character and early divergence from other Iranian languages arouses the interest of Iranian scholars, and convergent processes with other Indo-European languages attract the attention of Russian and European scientists. The Proto-Ossetian language can be considered as a transmitter of Iranian influence into the European area during the Great Migration of Peoples (in the IVth VIIth centuries). Of all the tribes that shattered the order of the Roman Empire in late antiquity, the only Iranian-speaking were the Sarmatians and Alans, ancestors of the modern Ossetians. Common Iranian vocabulary has been the analyzed by many researchers, but still there is a number of issues that need clarification, development, a number of etymologies can be subjected to revision. A number of words that have traditionally referred to the Caucasian stratum should be analyzed in greater detail. The work focuses on the degree of preservation of the Iranian lexical fund in the Ossetian language. Different scenarios of the processes of development of common Iranian vocabulary, which are illustrated with examples, are considered. The possibilities of advancing alternatives to already existing etymologies are illustrated by the example of reflexes of the common Iranian root hwar- (xwar-) eat. Some lexemes could have been preserved in both languages, but due to semantic and phonetic changes they are no longer identifiable, they could have been fossilized in compound words, in phraseological units. In addition, common roots could be lost, and can be restored only via related words in other Iranian languages.

scholarly journals Stress assignment in Hittite and Proto-Indo-European

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Anthony D Yates
Keyword(s):  
Common Ancestor ◽  
Theoretic Analysis ◽  
Left Edge ◽  
Stress Assignment ◽  
Primary Stress ◽  
Prosodic Word ◽  
European Languages ◽  
The Common ◽  
Lexical Accent

This paper develops a new optimality theoretic analysis of lexical accent in Hittite (Anatolian, Indo-European). I demonstrate that Hittite synchronic stress assignment is consistent with Kiparsky and Halle's (1977) Basic Accentuation Principle, which assigns primary stress to the leftmost morpheme lexically specified for prosodic prominence or else to the left edge of a prosodic word. The Hittite evidence is thus shown to converge with Kiparsky and Halle's reconstruction of this principle for the common ancestor of the non-Anatolian Indo-European languages (i.e. Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European), and in view of this agreement, argued to be reconstructible for Proto-Indo-European itself.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document