Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
DahliaMorie

Blue-eyed Indians

35 posts in this topic

I remember my teacher saying something about Blue-eyed Indians living in Asia. Found a wikipedia website when I looked up for more info about it.

"The Pashto-speaking Pashtuns refer to themselves as Pashtuns or Pukhtuns depending upon whether they are speakers of the southern dialect or northern dialect respectively. These Pashtuns compose the core of ethnic Pashtuns who are predominantly an Iranian people and found in southern and eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Many Pashto-speaking Pashtuns have however intermingled with various invaders, neighboring groups, and migrants (as have the other Iranian peoples) including possibly the Ghilzai who may have mingled with Turkic tribes, the Durrani who have interacted considerably with the Tajiks (another Iranian people), and Pashtun tribes north of Peshawar who have mingled with Dardic groups. In terms of phenotype, the Pashto-speaking Pashtuns overall are predominantly a Caucasoid people with Mediterranean features, but blonde hair and blue and green eyes are not uncommon, especially amongst remote mountain tribes."

Can somebody elaborate on their ancestry? I'm interested to know why they have green/blue eyes and blond hair.

Sorry if this is under the wrong category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

can you find a picture of what they look like. or give me their name so i can find a picture of them.

i have a theory these indians are the humanoid aliens called the nordics and the pleiadians. But that's just me. but the humanoid aliens do have green eyes(sometimes) and blue eyes and blonde hair. just me though. you can decide for yourself. I'll post a pic.

Edited by McKenna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that Pashtuns are of Vedic or Aryan (Not the Nazi Aryan) descent. I know somebody who would know more about this than me, I'll see if I can coax her into posting tonight or tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

user posted image

Sharbat Gula, pashtun woman.

Edited by DahliaMorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pashtuns are Iranian and Indian descendants. Hamid Karzai (president of Afghanistan) is a Pashtun himself. There are sayings that Pashtuns came from the Hebrews, or Alexander's Greeks (but the Nuristanis are from Alexander's Greeks, or so they say.) Unlike the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Turkmens, etc of Afghanistan, they are in the southern part of Afghanistan (ie. Qandahar, etc), and the eastern portion of Afghanistan. But yeah, some Pashtuns do have blonde hair and green eyes, in the mountanious region. Yeah, Afghanistan is a very mountainious region, there's many ethnic groups, like the Hazaras (mongolian ancestry?), and etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And I do know a Pashtun with blonde hair and greenish eyes.

Edited by laily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read a book by Gore Vidal called "Creation." It's historical fiction, but based on fact. Anyway, it the book he talks a lot about the Aryan origins of many peoples in the Mideast, Asia Minor, etc.

It's extremely possible that there is much genetic contribution from white races of the north into these areas. Again, we're not talking about the Nazi aryan concept, but about ancient northern tribes of white, blue-eyed peoples who frequently swept down to raid and plunder, but also to trade and establish ties.

Another interesting note: When Lewis and Clark explored the American west, they supposedly found some green and blue-eyed Native Americans among the Mandan tribes of North Dakota. Now that's amazing! Speculation is early Viking visitations to the New World centuries before Columbus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these things are not uncommon, there are tribes in mongolia of which some people have blond hair. this is just because of mixing with other groups of people, supposedly the tribe in mongolia are descendants of the amazone women that used to live around russia but later moved to asia. (Discovery Channel)

plus many people in central asia have mixed decendants because of its position as being the middle of asia so a lot of different ethnic groups pass through and get busy with locals ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Helllo

Actually i have many Friends who are 'Pathans' They are Blue Eyed.

They Refer Themselves to Genghis Khan and Aryans . In Pakistan they live mostly in state of N.W.F.P (North West Frontier Province) there are High Mountains there.....

Afghanistan and Iran also Consist of Pashtuns and Pathans...

That's all

Zeeshan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Helllo

Actually i have many Friends who are 'Pathans' They are Blue Eyed.

They Refer Themselves to Genghis Khan and Aryans . In Pakistan they live mostly in state of N.W.F.P (North West Frontier Province) there are High Mountains there.....

Afghanistan and Iran also Consist of Pashtuns and Pathans...

That's all

Zeeshan

Ghenghis got around a good bit... It is easy to guess that he might have brought enough european courtiers/slaves back with him to establish a stable genetic base for these attributes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check routes of Indo-European languages.

See newest DNA studies in tracing back ancestry of Euros.

They came from Iran mostly.

Caucasians are native to the Middle East, all caucasians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an Afghani friend who is Pashtun (or Kandhari as he refers to himself). His family are light skinned, green eyes, light haired people. Its funny, his brother is very dark skinned, brown eyes, black hair. Heh.

Afghans are a very diverse group of people!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/nir...ya/Maqbool2.jpg < theres a picture of him if youre interested. Not too hard on the eyes either ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey he's cute! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember my teacher saying something about Blue-eyed Indians living in Asia. Found a wikipedia website when I looked up for more info about it.

"The Pashto-speaking Pashtuns refer to themselves as Pashtuns or Pukhtuns depending upon whether they are speakers of the southern dialect or northern dialect respectively. These Pashtuns compose the core of ethnic Pashtuns who are predominantly an Iranian people and found in southern and eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Many Pashto-speaking Pashtuns have however intermingled with various invaders, neighboring groups, and migrants (as have the other Iranian peoples) including possibly the Ghilzai who may have mingled with Turkic tribes, the Durrani who have interacted considerably with the Tajiks (another Iranian people), and Pashtun tribes north of Peshawar who have mingled with Dardic groups. In terms of phenotype, the Pashto-speaking Pashtuns overall are predominantly a Caucasoid people with Mediterranean features, but blonde hair and blue and green eyes are not uncommon, especially amongst remote mountain tribes."

Can somebody elaborate on their ancestry? I'm interested to know why they have green/blue eyes and blond hair.

Sorry if this is under the wrong category.

The Pashtuns are likely the original Aryan race. Their facial features are sharper than those of most Europeans.

A few thousand years ago, large numbers of sharp-nosed, dolichocephalic Aryans (Pashtu) migrated out of the cold, icy mountains of the Afghanistan/ north Pakistan regions towards the milder climates and more fertile landscapes of Europe and India.

In Europe, they obviously encountered the more snub-nosed, brachycephalic (broad-headed) Gauls/Celts and Slavs. They were often at war with the Celts and Slavs, but there was probably some intermarriage as well as trade and commerce between the European Celts, Gauls and Slavs on the one hand, and the Aryan invaders on the other. This would explain why Europeans appear to have a mixture (to varying degrees) of snub Celtic/Slavic features, combined with the sharper features of the Ancient Aryan (Afghan) invaders.

In India, the Aryans encountered the snub-nosed, "black-skinned" Dravidians, and the Rig Veda indicates considerable warfare. The light-skinned, sharp-featured Aryans established a brutal "caste-system" in India. However, even here, I believe there was eventually (over the centuries) some racial inter-mixture and political accommodation between perhaps the poorer segments of the Aryan population and the down-trodden Dravidians.

All of this would also explain why the Celtic, Slavic and Indian languages have a noticeable Aryan influence, and are thus part of the "Indo-European" group of languages, a name which reflects the migrations of the Aryans, who invaded Europe and India.

Of course, the bulk of the Aryans remained in their original homeland (the areas that are now part of north-western Pakistan and eastern and southern Afghanistan). The ancient name of this region is "Aryana".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Finno-Urgic peoples of Northern Asia introduced the "blond hair-blue eyes" gene into the other races. Asia steppe culture was nomadic culture and there was a lot of cross fertilization of races.

Lapiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ancient Indo-Europeans migrated into Pakistan, India, Iran, etc.. so its not surprising to find a remaining influence there.

The Pashtuns are likely the original Aryan race. Their facial features are sharper than those of most Europeans.

A few thousand years ago, large numbers of sharp-nosed, dolichocephalic Aryans (Pashtu) migrated out of the cold, icy mountains of the Afghanistan/ north Pakistan regions towards the milder climates and more fertile landscapes of Europe and India.

I thought most people belied Indo-Europeans' homeland was in Caucasus area.

Edited by Mars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ancient Indo-Europeans migrated into Pakistan, India, Iran, etc.. so its not surprising to find a remaining influence there.

Most people believe the Indo-European homeland was in Caucasus area.

Ummm, Afghanistan is directly adjacent to these areas.

And actually, the languages spoken in the Caucasus /aren't/ Indo-European.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummm, Afghanistan is directly adjacent to these areas.

I know I agree, I never said it wasn't.

And actually, the languages spoken in the Caucasus /aren't/ Indo-European.

Aren't Armenians in the Caucasus region?

Edited by Mars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armenians are to the south of the region we're talking about, yes, but they form a very separate group from most other Caucasian tribes .

But most of the rest of the languages spoken in the area are Georgian languages with no close tie to Indo-European languages. Armenian itself is often considered related only most distantly to Indo-European, with attachments at best to very old Greek.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ancient Indo-Europeans migrated into Pakistan, India, Iran, etc.. so its not surprising to find a remaining influence there.

Well, the Aryans originally came from these Afghanistan/ North Pakistan mountains (perhaps North-eastern "Iran" as well).The people of this region called themselves "Aryans" meaning the "noble" ones. Incidentally, the archaic name of their homeland was "Aryana" (to which the name "Iran" bears some noteworthy resemblance) . This is why there is a notable Aryan ("Iranian") presence there, consisting of people that are predominantly dolichocephalic ("long-headed") and displaying extreme leptorrhiny (thin, prominent noses).

This is in significant contrast to the Europeans, who display a varying mixture of alpine/brachycephalic ("broad-headed") measurements with varying degrees of dolichocephalic "admixture". The noses of the Europeans (Celts, Gauls, Slavs, Ugro-Finnics etc.) are also somewhat shorter and broader than those of the Aryans (Pathans, Persians, Kurds etc.). So the smaller degree of dolichocephalic admixture we observe in the European populations would likely have something to do with the sharp-featured, dolichocephalic Aryans migrating to Europe and encountering an already-established presence of Brachycephalic people there (i.e. the Celts and the Slavs, among others).

As for "nomenclature", there is no ancient people that called themselves "Indo-European". This would otherwise be a meaningless term except for the fact that it denotes the migration patterns of the Aryan migrants, who invaded Europe and India after abandoning their cold, harsh and desolate mountain home ["Aryana" the region that is now part of Eastern Afghanistan/ North-western Pakistan]. Hence, it is also useful in designating the languages that were influenced by these Aryan invasions into Europe and India (thus "Indo-European").

I thought most people belied Indo-Europeans' homeland was in Caucasus area.

Well, genetic tests confirm that a people of the Caucasus (the people of Dagestan from this particular example) are from the middle-east and yet many are also closely related to the Turks of Anatolia and Cyprus. [see reference below]. Chechens and Ingushetians are also from the Caucasus and are adjacent to the people of Dagestan.

However, they do not speak an "Indo-European" language, thus I certainly have to wonder how the "Indo-European" homeland could be here?

Finally, reputable linguistic studies generally trace the "indo-European" language migration patterns from an "Iranian" (Aryan) origin source.

Aformentioned Reference:

[1] Hum Biol. 2006 Aug;78(4):465-76.Links

Genetic structure of Dagestan populations: a study of 11 Alu insertion polymorphisms.

Yunusbayev B, Kutuev I, Khusainova R, Guseinov G, Khusnutdinova E.

Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa Science Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Prospekt Oktyabrya, 71, Ufa, Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for "nomenclature", there is no ancient people that called themselves "Indo-European". This would otherwise be a meaningless term except for the fact that it denotes the migration patterns of the Aryan migrants, who invaded Europe and India after abandoning their cold, harsh and desolate mountain home ["Aryana" the region that is now part of Eastern Afghanistan/ North-western Pakistan]. Hence, it is also useful in designating the languages that were influenced by these Aryan invasions into Europe and India (thus "Indo-European").

That's correct, but the study of their culture and of their language /is/ called Indo-European studies. The term "Aryan" is seldom used in modern linguistics (it stopped being used commonly at the beginning of the last century), and when it is used it's synonymous not with (Proto-) Indo-European as a whole, but the smaller division of Indo-Iranian languages:

According to Michael Witzel in his paper Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts, "the use of the word Arya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo-European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular race is an aberration of many writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided.

The quote is from an article you can read here.

Furthermore, the exact location of PIE speakers' homeland has never been determined. We know the general area (somewhere in the Caucasian steppes, probably not the mountains themselves:

linked-image

This image is from the Wikipedia discussion of The Kurgan hypothesis, one of the models of Indo-European langauge movement. It's old and has some flaws, but is still the most accepted of the various models suggested.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Zerjal et al [2003][29] identified a Y-chromosomal lineage present in about 8% of the men in a large region of Asia (about 0.5% of the men in the world). The paper suggests that the pattern of variation within the lineage is consistent with a hypothesis that it originated in Mongolia about 1,000 years ago. Such a spread would be too rapid to have occurred by genetic drift, and must therefore be the result of natural selection. The authors propose that the lineage is carried by likely male-line descendants of Genghis Khan, and that it has spread through social selection.

In addition to the Khanates and other descendants, the Mughal emperor Babur's mother was a descendant. Timur, the 14th century military leader, claimed descent from Genghis Khan."

This was my favorite fun fact about Khan. He is "grandfather" to .5% of all the men in the world. Wow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Europeans have been trading and invading Asia for over a thousand years, the British were there from the late sixteen hundreds to the middle of nineteenth century, from the very beginning solders and civilian employees not only married the local girls but were encouraged to do so by the army and government, giving a grant and married quarters to those that did marry asian women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Europeans have been trading and invading Asia for over a thousand years, the British were there from the late sixteen hundreds to the middle of nineteenth century, from the very beginning solders and civilian employees not only married the local girls but were encouraged to do so by the army and government, giving a grant and married quarters to those that did marry asian women.

Possibly, and I'm not sure (and you can confirm/clarify your intent), but it seems that you are trying to imply that British rule is of some genetic relevance when explaining why there are caucasian-looking people in "Asia". Let's examine your claim.

The British empire ruled Indian territories (south-east of Pakistan) for roughly 200 years or so. However, I don't see much of a genetic impact on the Indian population as a whole. They had control of the Bengal for a very long time, but somehow, the Bengalis don't look particularly British; at least that's my humble opinion (of course, you are free to dispute this). The British had control of what is now part of the Pakistani Punjab for roughly 100 years. But there is no evidence of Anglo-Saxon genetic impact here, either. Yet these Punjabis are more Caucasian than the people of India, the latter who were part of the British empire for a longer period of time than the Punjabis.

Finally, the British generally failed to subdue the Pashtun tribes of the North-west. The British either had no direct control (or negligible control at best in a few cases) of the Pashtun tribal areas. They had the least amount of contact with these conservative Pashtun tribes on a personal level (especially when compared to the prolonged British presence in India).

However, the *dolichocephalic* Pashtuns seem to be more Caucasian in appearance than the predominantly Brachycephalic British, never mind the Indians and Punjabis. Incidentally, Lord Elphinstone visited Afghanistan in the early 1800s and commented on the strong caucasian appearance of the Pashtun tribes, long before the British empire even reached the Northwestern regions (the book he wrote was called "The Kingdom of Caubul").

Yet by your line of reasoning (assuming that's what you were trying to say), the Indian population ought to be at least as caucasian-looking as the Punjabis and Pashtuns, because the Indians were in contact with the British for a much longer period of time.

It's interesting, then, that the people who had the least contact with the British empire (i.e. the Pashtuns), are the most caucasian of all these groups. In terms of common-sense and logic, I think an alternative explanation would have to be favored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Possibly, and I'm not sure (and you can confirm/clarify your intent), but it seems that you are trying to imply that British rule is of some genetic relevance when explaining why there are caucasian-looking people in "Asia". Let's examine your claim.

The British empire ruled Indian territories (south-east of Pakistan) for roughly 200 years or so. However, I don't see much of a genetic impact on the Indian population as a whole. They had control of the Bengal for a very long time, but somehow, the Bengalis don't look particularly British; at least that's my humble opinion (of course, you are free to dispute this). The British had control of what is now part of the Pakistani Punjab for roughly 100 years. But there is no evidence of Anglo-Saxon genetic impact here, either. Yet these Punjabis are more Caucasian than the people of India, the latter who were part of the British empire for a longer period of time than the Punjabis.

Finally, the British generally failed to subdue the Pashtun tribes of the North-west. The British either had no direct control (or negligible control at best in a few cases) of the Pashtun tribal areas. They had the least amount of contact with these conservative Pashtun tribes on a personal level (especially when compared to the prolonged British presence in India).

However, the *dolichocephalic* Pashtuns seem to be more Caucasian in appearance than the predominantly Brachycephalic British, never mind the Indians and Punjabis. Incidentally, Lord Elphinstone visited Afghanistan in the early 1800s and commented on the strong caucasian appearance of the Pashtun tribes, long before the British empire even reached the Northwestern regions (the book he wrote was called "The Kingdom of Caubul").

Yet by your line of reasoning (assuming that's what you were trying to say), the Indian population ought to be at least as caucasian-looking as the Punjabis and Pashtuns, because the Indians were in contact with the British for a much longer period of time.

It's interesting, then, that the people who had the least contact with the British empire (i.e. the Pashtuns), are the most caucasian of all these groups. In terms of common-sense and logic, I think an alternative explanation would have to be favored.

Ali --

I thought it was a bit odd when you broke out the term "Aryan" to describe Indo-Iranian language and culture, but I /knew/ that was a bit... dated.

Your idea of racial characteristics being described through skull size, the cephalic index, is pretty obsolete. It's only one step or so away from Eugenics...

I just want to post this link that talks about how and why it's discounted...

Maybe you're posting from 1903...

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.