Tajiks of Swat?

[Samandri]

People of Swat prior to Pashtun settlement were not Tajiks or any other Iranic people. The Achaemenid sources label it a foreign, Indian territory (Gandhara, along with Hindush) and it is labelled as part of the "Aniran" (ie, non-Iranian lands) in the Sasanian era.

In the Alexander Chronicles written by Greek and Roman generals they also refer to Brahman priests and Indians generally in those parts.

Any Tajiks in Swat, which i think would be few and far between, are clearly foreigners and much later arrivals to that region. The 'natives' were most likely Indians and extinct groups which the Kalash and Nuristani once belonged to.

In the few urban and trading posts in the region, that likely would have had a mixture of communities, but there is zero evidence that the villages and surrounding country were "Tajik". Frankly, the evidence suggests that it was mostly Indian, the Indic's now known as Hindkowans.

I read his profile description and he seems to be a typical citizen of Pakiland. He is confused about his identity, and appears to have adopted the Indic inferiority complex that Pakiland so naturally inspires in its citizens, even reaching to the minority non-Indic groups.

According to him, his father is a Pashtun and his mother is English. But for some reason, he has decided that he wants to be a 'Persian' and is actually, somehow 'Persian'.

This is Pakiland for you. This is what living in an inferior Punjabi state does to people, where even a mixed Pashtun-Englishman is confused of who he is and feels dirty and ashamed of being associated with Pakis, and so wants to believe he is something else and is in owe of foreigners, particularly Persians and dreams of being a 'Persian'. It is a typical paki story.

Persian, the so called "high culture" that every Indic tells themselves it is, and know that they can never be equal to.

It's sady really.

The is no greater inferiority complex than the Paki and Indian lust for that which is 'Persian'.

I forgot to mention important point. Tirahi language has been examined and its Dardic according to the studies. Yet this Akhundzada is claiming them to be Tajiks. Interestingly the Tirahi chieftains mentioned in Mughal and Roshniya sources, were also using Sultan title like those of Swat. So i am convinced that these Swatis were Dardics by origin but had adopted Farsi language in Swat.

[maneatinglizard]

You are wrong. The only way to conclusively determine remnants of Greek DNA is to find common ancestors i.e. find the same greeks as the ancient greeks that were in the region at the time.

Already been done:

The Greeks really do have near-mythical origins, ancient DNA reveals | Science | AAAS
Ancient DNA analysis reveals Minoan and Mycenaean origins

Not sure why you'd expect them to be radically different though. I don't think there's ever been any major event that would cause a huge shift in genetics in Greece since ancient times. Only fringe racial supremacists actually thought that the ancient Greeks were actually black or blond Nordics that were replaced by the modern population.

You'd have to assume the Greeks of today are the same as the ancient greeks... a very flawed assumption.

Why is it flawed? What evidence is there to suggest that they're radically different? I don't believe the Slavic invaders into parts of Greece assimilated or mixed with the Greeks much until recently, and the modern Greeks do reflect that, as is mentioned in the articles I've linked. Other than that, there isn't any reason to think there'd be a big difference between modern Greeks and ancient ones.

Same story with Persians, Syeds, etc. Unless you can control for what happened in the past X amount of generations, the information we have available is too limited right now to draw any conclusion of this sort.

The problem with people claiming Syed status is that Y-DNA is actually pretty easy to track, and so as long as you can find one definite Syed, you can immediately dismiss any other claimant simply if their Y-DNA differs. Supposedly someone in the Jordanian royal family (Hashemites) has had their DNA tested, and he belonged to the J1 haplogroup. Assuming he is legitimate (and the haplogroup does make sense as the majority of Kohanite Jews belong to it as well), then we can expect all try Syeds to have roughly the same Y-DNA.

As for Persians, I don't know too much about how their DNA has changed, but Persia suffered multiple depopulation and migration events, so it's likely their genetic makeup has changed.

You're also ignoring what happens to DNA with time. As well, you're grossly exaggerating how large of a data set we have to actually analyze this. 20-30 (****... call it 2-300) results on 23&me is not at all representative.

You mean mutate? That doesn't happen fast enough for all traces of Greek ancestry in Central Asia to have disappeared. Alexander only invaded ~2300 years ago. If our DNA mutated that quickly we'd be in a lot of trouble.

And I'm not sure where you got that 20-30 number from. There have been multiple studies on Central Asian DNA that have tested hundreds of people, and I don't know of a single one that has indicated any connection between Central Asians and Greeks.

And honestly this should be expected. The Greeks had little effect on our cultures, no effect on our languages, and didn't stay around very long. Most likely what happened is they created their own, Greek exclusive cities, and were all either killed or fled when their kingdoms were overthrown. The few that remained wouldn't have had any effect on the local gene pool after a few generations.

With the Kalash, some people did some DNA test, and they found common genetic traits with Austrians. Some have concluded that this means some Austrians today have some DNA of ancient Greeks. Although this conclusion is still considered a stretch.

I'd like to see that study, as Kalash have been shown to be pretty typical Aryans in every DNA study I've seen, except with higher amounts of Steppe ancestry compared to other Indics. The idea that they're the remnants of the Greeks doesn't make any sense, as culturally they're Aryan through and through. Their religion is some form of proto-Hinduism/pre-Zoroastrian Iranic religion, but if they were Greek, you'd expect them to retain some element of Greek religion.

[Elite Pakhtun]

It's not flawed, it is correct and has actually been discussed in the news just this week that modern Greeks are indeed largely descended from their earliest Minoan and Mycenaean ancestors.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...eks-180964314/

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...nt-dna-reveals

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-civili...s-science.html

I just went through it. It appears to conclude that minoan and myceneanan were similar, and there is genetic continuity ie modern Greeks are descended from these civilisations. Continuity doesn't mean the same/unchanged though.


"Minoans, Mycenaeans, and modern Greeks also had some ancestry related to the ancient people of the Caucasus, Armenia, and Iran. This finding suggests that some migration occurred in the Aegean and southwestern Anatolia from the further east after the time of the earliest farmers," lead author*Iosif Lazaridis said in*a statement.


That's a fairly wide geographic range. Great finding in terms of proving the historical sites are authentic.

[maneatinglizard]

https://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/...tcallback=true

Did you read the study? The argument is extremely flimsy, resting on one person having an extremely uncommon haplogroup for Pashtuns (E-M35) that sorta resembles the also uncommon E-M35 in Europe. Apparently there were only 53 people with the haplogroup in the database when the study was done over 10 years ago too.

Even worse, the authors mention that at the time of their study the haplogroup was found most frequently in Macedonia. Too bad they didn't read up on their history because modern Macedonians are Slavs that settled in the area hundreds of years after Alexander, not the Greeks that his army comprised of. I ran the search on the database myself (you can do it here) and it now is most common in Albania, which is close to Greece, but has very few Greeks.

Could this single Pashtun described in the study have descended from the Greek colonists? It's not impossible, but this study is a poor one, and their evidence is really shaky.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Already been done:

The Greeks really do have near-mythical origins, ancient DNA reveals | Science | AAAS
Ancient DNA analysis reveals Minoan and Mycenaean origins

Not sure why you'd expect them to be radically different though. I don't think there's ever been any major event that would cause a huge shift in genetics in Greece since ancient times. Only fringe racial supremacists actually thought that the ancient Greeks were actually black or blond Nordics that were replaced by the modern population.

Lol world wars, Ottomans, even some other Europeans. That's plus movement of local population due to migration etc. To assume the same population without change is flawed. There may be links ie continuity, implying a connection. Doesnt mean it's the same. This changed population is being compared with another changed population.

Not sure what you're going on about regarding fringe stuff. You may be more in tune with that.

Why is it flawed? What evidence is there to suggest that they're radically different? I don't believe the Slavic invaders into parts of Greece assimilated or mixed with the Greeks much until recently, and the modern Greeks do reflect that, as is mentioned in the articles I've linked. Other than that, there isn't any reason to think there'd be a big difference between modern Greeks and ancient ones.

So many wars. World wars, ottomans, Romans, Persians... where are you getting unchanged from?

The problem with people claiming Syed status is that Y-DNA is actually pretty easy to track, and so as long as you can find one definite Syed, you can immediately dismiss any other claimant simply if their Y-DNA differs. Supposedly someone in the Jordanian royal family (Hashemites) has had their DNA tested, and he belonged to the J1 haplogroup. Assuming he is legitimate (and the haplogroup does make sense as the majority of Kohanite Jews belong to it as well), then we can expect all try Syeds to have roughly the same Y-DNA.

Not really. Do you know if down the line there was dilition or not? Hard to believe consistent control for 1400 years. We're assuming the claims are authentic.

DNA Ancestry Tests Are 'Meaningless' for Your Historical Genealogy Search

As for Persians, I don't know too much about how their DNA has changed, but Persia suffered multiple depopulation and migration events, so it's likely their genetic makeup has changed.

K

You mean mutate? That doesn't happen fast enough for all traces of Greek ancestry in Central Asia to have disappeared. Alexander only invaded ~2300 years ago. If our DNA mutated that quickly we'd be in a lot of trouble.

No I don't mean mutate. First off, traces have been found and linked. Secondly I meant if any mixing with locals happens vs mixing with others in Greece, then the populations genetic makeup diverge and depending on various factors, may be traceable in some/few and not others. Doesn't necessarily negate ancestry. Doesn't prove it either.

And I'm not sure where you got that 20-30 number from. There have been multiple studies on Central Asian DNA that have tested hundreds of people, and I don't know of a single one that has indicated any connection between Central Asians and Greeks.

I just posted one in this thread and a new thread. Show me your studies. Central Asian is a misrepresentation since not all of central Asia had Alexander's army.

And honestly this should be expected. The Greeks had little effect on our cultures, no effect on our languages, and didn't stay around very long. Most likely what happened is they created their own, Greek exclusive cities, and were all either killed or fled when their kingdoms were overthrown. The few that remained wouldn't have had any effect on the local gene pool after a few generations.

Did you forget the indo greek empires? They had influence on our culture. Gandhara for example.

Gene pool.. thats harder too conclude on. They probably didn't outnumber the locals so they may gave mixed and just assimilated, leaving less of a mark vs outnumbering and even less vs displacing.

I'd like to see that study, as Kalash have been shown to be pretty typical Aryans in every DNA study I've seen, except with higher amounts of Steppe ancestry compared to other Indics. The idea that they're the remnants of the Greeks doesn't make any sense, as culturally they're Aryan through and through. Their religion is some form of proto-Hinduism/pre-Zoroastrian Iranic religion, but if they were Greek, you'd expect them to retain some element of Greek religion.

Modern genes yield atlas of ancient inter-ethnic sex : Nature News & Comment

The Kalash Genetic Isolate? The Evidence for Recent Admixture

[Elite Pakhtun]

Did you read the study? The argument is extremely flimsy, resting on one person having an extremely uncommon haplogroup for Pashtuns (E-M35) that sorta resembles the also uncommon E-M35 in Europe. Apparently there were only 53 people with the haplogroup in the database when the study was done over 10 years ago too.

Even worse, the authors mention that at the time of their study the haplogroup was found most frequently in Macedonia. Too bad they didn't read up on their history because modern Macedonians are Slavs that settled in the area hundreds of years after Alexander, not the Greeks that his army comprised of. I ran the search on the database myself (you can do it here) and it now is most common in Albania, which is close to Greece, but has very few Greeks.

Could this single Pashtun described in the study have descended from the Greek colonists? It's not impossible, but this study is a poor one, and their evidence is really shaky.

The **** are talking about? "Uncommon haplogroup for pashtuns". Where is this pashtun haplogroup study. You're probably pulling things from 23&me. Show me the source of your claims of what or isn't common for pashtuns.

I did read the study. It's fine. They compared the populations claiming ancestry to Greeks ie burosho kalash and pathan.

Only issue is small sample size. Larger sample size will likely increase odds of evidence.

[Nertj]

What is going on in this thread?

[khushal]

oblem with people claiming Syed status is that Y-DNA is actually pretty easy to track, and so as long as you can find one definite Syed, you can immediately dismiss any other claimant simply if their Y-DNA differs. Supposedly someone in the Jordanian royal family (Hashemites) has had their DNA tested, and he belonged to the J1 haplogroup. Assuming he is legitimate (and the haplogroup does make sense as the majority of Kohanite Jews belong to it as well), then we can expect all try Syeds to have roughly the same Y-DNA.

from what I understand, Syeds claim ancestry from mother as well. It does not have to Y-DNA.

[jahan2]

It's probably a mix of this and the reverse.

"Tajik" as a self-designation is new. I'm pretty sure some groups that are called Tajiks still don't like the term. As such, Tajiks aren't a single, monolithic group.

Rather, I think the best way to describe Tajiks is that they are a Persianized people who are primarily of Eastern Iranian origin. Modern Tajiks mostly descend from urban people who spoke any of the now extinct Eastern Iranian languages (like Khawarezmian, Sogdian, Bactrian, etc.) that were gradually supplanted by Persian. Some of them are likely also Western Iranians (Persians and other groups, probably not including Kurds), but I don't think the number is very high, as genetically they're closer to Pashtuns than Persians, and lack the Middle Eastern aspect that Persians tend to have.

In contrast, Pashtuns are basically a tribal Eastern Iranian people who speak Pashto. So, the basic differences between Pashtuns and Tajiks are language (Pashto vs Persian) and social organization (tribal vs non-tribal, though I think some Tajiks may still be organized into tribes). There are cultural differences too, but these are minor, and both can pretty neatly fit into the overall culture of Central Asia.

Looking at those definitions, it's pretty easy to imagine people who were Pashtun at one time losing their tribal identity and language, eventually becoming "Tajik" even if that didn't exist as a distinct identity at the time, and the reverse happening as well, with previously non-Pashtun Eastern Iranians adopting Pashto and Pashtun identity, eventually being assimilated into the Pashtun tribal structure.

As for the article in question, I haven't read too much about the subject, but referring to any group of people from the past with a modern ethnonym like Tajik is anachronistic, and usually driven by nationalistic fervor rather than reality. So the people the article is referring to may have been the ancestors of some modern Tajiks, but they would not have referred to themselves as such at the time. It's like calling the ancient Aryan tribes Pashtuns because some of their descendants are modern Pashtuns. It's wrong and annoying, and usually only done because nationalists tend to have inferiority complexes that leave them desperate to find any way to elevate the status of their national identity throughout history. Likewise annoying is how people like Zamakhshari and al-Khawarizmi have been subsumed into the nationalist Persian identity (and hence are referred to as Persians), despite the fact that the first was definitely Khawarezmian, not Persian, and the second is of unknown ethnic background, but is probably also Khawarezmian. You can find this kind of historical appropriation with every nationalistic movement (Turks claim Sumerians were Turkic lol), it's not just a Tajik thing.

Define "new" because the terms Tajik and Persian/Persian speaker synnomesly at least to 800-900 years ago as documented by rumi. Although there are farsizaband who May not be knowleged about, but then there are also people in some regions in afg who consider the word "Afghan" as alien to their identity. Most Farsi speakers identify as Farsizabon, then their place of origin. Tajik means the same thing. Its the same with Farsi speakers in Iran. They identify in place of origin.

I was refering to the article anyway. We cannot not rule out the man's claims. It's Interesting.
there are Pockets of Farsi speakers as far as in Western China who self identify as Tajik. Farsi speaking people are scattered all over the region. I wouldnt be surprised if Pakistan had a pocket of them too.

[Nertj]

It's probably a mix of this and the reverse.

"Tajik" as a self-designation is new. I'm pretty sure some groups that are called Tajiks still don't like the term. As such, Tajiks aren't a single, monolithic group.

Rather, I think the best way to describe Tajiks is that they are a Persianized people who are primarily of Eastern Iranian origin. Modern Tajiks mostly descend from urban people who spoke any of the now extinct Eastern Iranian languages (like Khawarezmian, Sogdian, Bactrian, etc.) that were gradually supplanted by Persian. Some of them are likely also Western Iranians (Persians and other groups, probably not including Kurds), but I don't think the number is very high, as genetically they're closer to Pashtuns than Persians, and lack the Middle Eastern aspect that Persians tend to have.

In contrast, Pashtuns are basically a tribal Eastern Iranian people who speak Pashto. So, the basic differences between Pashtuns and Tajiks are language (Pashto vs Persian) and social organization (tribal vs non-tribal, though I think some Tajiks may still be organized into tribes). There are cultural differences too, but these are minor, and both can pretty neatly fit into the overall culture of Central Asia.

Looking at those definitions, it's pretty easy to imagine people who were Pashtun at one time losing their tribal identity and language, eventually becoming "Tajik" even if that didn't exist as a distinct identity at the time, and the reverse happening as well, with previously non-Pashtun Eastern Iranians adopting Pashto and Pashtun identity, eventually being assimilated into the Pashtun tribal structure.

As for the article in question, I haven't read too much about the subject, but referring to any group of people from the past with a modern ethnonym like Tajik is anachronistic, and usually driven by nationalistic fervor rather than reality. So the people the article is referring to may have been the ancestors of some modern Tajiks, but they would not have referred to themselves as such at the time. It's like calling the ancient Aryan tribes Pashtuns because some of their descendants are modern Pashtuns. It's wrong and annoying, and usually only done because nationalists tend to have inferiority complexes that leave them desperate to find any way to elevate the status of their national identity throughout history. Likewise annoying is how people like Zamakhshari and al-Khawarizmi have been subsumed into the nationalist Persian identity (and hence are referred to as Persians), despite the fact that the first was definitely Khawarezmian, not Persian, and the second is of unknown ethnic background, but is probably also Khawarezmian. You can find this kind of historical appropriation with every nationalistic movement (Turks claim Sumerians were Turkic lol), it's not just a Tajik thing.

Al Khwarezmi was from Khwarezmi, but they are extinct now as a prople (either Mongols killed off their population or they mixed with them or the later Turks), do you want Turkmen or Kazakhs to claim him? Pretty sure the man either spoke Farsi or Arabic. Regardless he was a contributor to Persio-Islamic society.

[Toramana]

This is a news about a meeting of Tajak community in Dir region.

[Nekrofrost]

Yall should check out this akhundzada guys newer posts. Dude claims sher shah suri was a tajik as well now...

[jahan2]

Tajiks of Tajikistan are more mongoloid than those of afghanistan.

Dont see the relevance of this in this thread.

Their mongoloid admix % is insignificntly low btw. Not that it matters.

[Kakar-Wardak]

Dont see the relevance of this in this thread.

Their mongoloid admix % is insignificntly low btw. Not that it matters.

You can see it in their appearance.