In India as well as in Europe, there are ongoing debates between scholars regarding the original settlers in the respective lands. What ethnic group is indigenous to a particular country and who arrived later and when did the historical event occur; this is being re-examined in the light of new discoveries. Scholars have formulated many theories, based on archaeological finds, historical records and linguistic hypotheses in an attempt to explain the presence of various languages and ethnic groups in particular countries. Now, scientists are applying another scientific tool--genetics-- which is currently used to help the researchers in their quests for knowledge about the historical past.
In Slovenia, there is a debate whether the Slovenians are indigenous to the country or, whether, they arrived 1500 years ago (Savli, 1996). Similarly, on the Indian sub-continent, there is a question whether the Aryans (Indo-European speakers) are autochthonous (Rajaram & Frawley, 1997) (Ghosh, 1988), or whether they arrived after the Dravidian speakers, just 3,500 years ago (Chatterji, 1988) or even much earlier, possibly 10,000 years ago (Kivisild, 1999). There are reasonable arguments to support the debate (Ghosh, 1988). However, in such debates the scholars do not consider the close linguistic relationship between Sanskrit, the language of the Aryans and the Slavic languages of Europe and also of the present day genetic relationship of Aryans on the Indian sub-continent and the Slavs of Europe. This applies particularly to the Slovenian which is relatively little known, but along with Czech, is the most westerly Slavic language.
The main feature of Indian society is caste and scholars speculate that something very like castes were in India even before the Aryan speakers entered India (Majumder 2001). Now, Geneticists have discovered that the upper castes are more similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans, whereas lower castes are more similar to Asians. The higher the caste, the closer they are to East Europeans (Bamshad et. al., 2001).
In this paper, we will demonstrate the linguistic and genetic relationship between Aryans of the Indian sub-continent and Slavs of Europe.
Well known Indian scholar Navaratna S. Rajaram, has noted that there is evidence in the Indian epic literature pointing to connections between Vedic and Puranic records on the one hand, and the languages and mythologies of prehistoric Europe on the other. This suggests linkages between Vedic India and prehistoric Europe, that have long been suspected, but insufficiently explored (Rajaram & Frawley, 1997).
It is for this reason that an attempt will be made to explore the linguistic and the genetic linkages between Slavs in Europe and the Aryans (Indo-European speakers) on the Indian sub-continent and to determine when in history the separation between Slavs and Aryans occurred.
S. Srikanta Sastri has noted that a number of scholars have advocated a theory that the Aryans are indigenous to the Indian sub-continent and that the expansion or migration of the Aryans started from the Indian sub-continent. Some of the arguments to support this theory are as follows:
--There is no evidence to show that the Vedic Aryans were foreigners or that they migrated into India within traditional memory. There are literary materials available to indicate that they regarded Sapta-Sindhu as their original home. The Vedic Aryans, if at all they came from outside, must have lived in Sapta-Sindhu so many centuries before the Vedic period that they had lost all memory of the original home.
--The linguistic affinities are not positive proofs of Aryan immigration. Other Aryan languages may have come into existence as a result of the contact between migrating Aryans and non-Aryans outside India and Persia.
--Aryans migrated from India, but they were superfluous population of roving tribes and did not leave literary records (Ghosh, 1988).
Rajaram cites Shrikant Talagari who proposed that the presence of Indo-European speakers from India to Ireland going back to prehistoric times may be ascribed to a combination of political and ecological disturbances in the Rigvedic heartland that seem to have taken place in the fifth millennium B.C. (Rajaram & Frawley, 1997).
The Roma (Gypsies) are an example of the out of India immigration. Linguistic evidence suggests, that they are of diverse Indian origin. They became one of the peoples of Europe, when they arrived in the Byzantine Empire 900-1,100 years ago (Gresham et. al., 2001).
Prof. B. K. Ghosh, on the other hand, presents arguments, which indicate that India was not the original home of the Aryans:
--The fact that the whole of South India and some parts of North India too are to this day non-Aryan in speech is the strongest single argument against the Indian-home hypothesis, especially as the existence of a Dravidian speech-pocket in Baluchistan suggests, that the whole or at least a considerable part of India was non-Aryan in speech. It may reasonably be argued, that had India been the original home of the Aryans, they would have certainly tried to Aryanize the whole of the sub-continent, before crossing the frontier barriers in quest of adventure.
--The cerebral sounds of Sanskrit which sharply distinguishes it from all other Indo-European speech-families including Iranian, are best explained as the result of Austric and Dravidian influences on the language of the incoming Aryans.
--Some scholars have assumed that blond hair was chief characteristic of the Indo-Europeans. Blond hair was also known in India. The grammarian Patanjali declared blond hair to be one of the essential qualities in a Brahmana. True Brahmanas, therefore should have been blondes in the pre-Christian era (Ghosh, 1988).
Within the known historical times, the riches of India have been like a magnet that attracted numerous armies to the sub-continent to plunder the wealth, beginning with the Persians. Herodotus wrote almost 2 500 years ago, that the Indians are more numerous than any other nation and they paid to the Persian king Darius, a tribute exceeding that of every other people (Herodotus). The Persians, were followed by the invasion of the Alexander the Great with his Macedonian and Greek army, then by Mongols and last by the British. This underlines the fact, that India was the goal of many and shows the usual path taken by the plundering armies.
Caste and Indian Society:
The main feature of Indian society, seen at its strongest in the rural areas, is caste. A caste is a collection of people who share similar cultural and religious values and practices. Members within a caste generally marry among themselves; inter-caste marriages are a cultural taboo (Majumder, 2001).
Contemporary India is a land of enormous human genetic, cultural and linguistic diversity. The social structure of the Indian population is dominated by the Hindu caste system. Most of the population is hierarchically arranged into four main caste classes: Brahmin (priestly class), Kshatriya (warrior class), Vysya (business class) and Sudra (menial labour class). Indian culture and society are also known to have been affected, by multiple waves of migration, that took place in historic and prehistoric times.....The contemporary tribal population are largely Dravidian or Austro-Asiatic speakers....In view of the persistent survival of Dravidian languages in the pockets of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan, some linguists believe that Dravidian speakers came from outside. Others, however, believe that since Dravidian speakers are largely restricted to India, these languages may have developed within India (Roychoudhury et. al., 2000).
The Aryan world comprised three classes (varnas): priests, nobles and commoners. Aryans placed their three classes on the indigenous Indian society. The varna organization is hierarchical. Initially, the system had names for two ranks, Brahma and Kshatra, Brahmin being socially higher rank than Kshatriya. The third rank was made of Vis, that is, all the subjects. To this society, a fourth rank was added: Shudra, who had no right to Aryan ritual. In southern India, the menial workers, the so-called “untouchables” were placed in a new varna, Panchama (fifth) (Majumder, 2001).
The recognition of new Y-chromosome markers represents a major leap in the investigation of human genetic diversity (in male lineages, complementing the information from female lineages derived from mitochondrial DNA). The resulting phylogeny supports out-of-Africa origins of our species and opens the way to further insights into prehistoric demography and world prehistory (Renfrew, 2000). Applying molecular genetics to questions of early human population history, and hence to major issues in prehistoric archaeology, is becoming so fruitful an enterprise that a new discipline—archaeogenetics—has recently come into being. That many of its applications have so far related to prehistoric Europe is due in part to the detailed archaeological attention devoted to Europe by a series of 19th and 20th century scholars. It is also due in part to the early application of a specific demographic model, the “wave of advance” to explain the chronological patterning that emerged as farming spread across Europe at the onset of the Neolithic period (Renfrew, 2001).
Based on the genetic information compiled by Semino and 16 co-authors, they suggest that the present European population arose from the merging of local Paleolithic groups and Neolithic farmers arriving from the Near East after the invention of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent. Two lineages, those characterized by M170 and M173 appear to have been present in Europe since Paleolithic times (Semino et. al., 2000).
M173 Lineage—Distribution and Age:
Semino proposes that M173 is an ancient Eurasiatic marker that was brought by or arose in the group of Homo sapiens sapiens who entered Europe and it diffused from east to west 40,000 to 35,000 years ago spreading the Aurignac culture. M 173 lineage is shared by haplotypes Eu18 and Eu19, which characterize about 50% of the European Y chromosomes (Semino et. al., 2000).
The frequency of Eu18 is at its highest in the Basques at 90%, 81% in the Irish ( Rosser, 2000) and decreases from west to east. On the Indian sub-continent it is present at 11% and 12% in Pathan and Sindhi ethnic groups speaking Indo-European languages (Semino et. al., 2000, Qamar et. al., 2002).
In contrast, haplotype Eu19, which is also derived from M173 and is distinguished by M17 mutation, is virtually absent from Western Europe. Its frequency increases eastward and reaches 54% Ukraine, where Eu18 is virtually absent (Semino et. al., 2000). Haplotype Eu19 is also found on the Indian sub-continent at 45% and 49% in Pathan and Sindhi language groups (Qamar et. al., 2002).
Semino interprets the differentiation and the distribution of haplotypes Eu18 and Eu19 as signature of expansion from isolated population nuclei in the Iberian peninsula for Eu18 and the present Ukraine for Eu19, following the Last Glacial Maximum. In fact, during this glacial period 20,000 to 13,000 years ago, human groups were forced to vacate Central Europe, with the exception of a refuge in northern Balkans (Semino et. al., 2000).
In the study by Rosser and 61 co-authors, HG1 which is analogous to Eu18, is found at ~80% in the Celtic speakers (not tested by Semino), confirming that the trend is similar, decreasing from west to east. Haplogroup HG3 which is analogous to Eu19 is not unique to Eastern Europe but is also found in northern Sweden at 19% and in Norway at 31% (Rosser et. al., 2000).
Genetic research and studies of the peoples of India show, that when the whole Indian sub-continent is considered, Indians show considerably more genetic similarities with the Caucasoids than with the Negroids (Majumder, 1998). To be more precise, a number of researchers have found that Indians share many genetic similarities with the Europeans. Underhill has noted that haplogroups derived from M170 and M173 lineages are found mostly in Europe and the Indus Valley (Underhill et. al., 2000). Semino observes that haplogroup Eu19, which appears at the highest concentration in Eastern Europe at between 29%-60%, is also present at substantial frequency in northern India and Pakistan (Semino, 2000); calculated at 32% (from information provided in Table 1, Underhill, 2000). Some geneticists interpret this as marking the movement of the Kurgan people, from north of the Caspian Sea, dated to ~7,000 years ago (Rosser et. al., 2000).
Semino estimates the age of M173 to be ~30,000 years, which appears consistent with the hypothesis that M173 marks the Aurignac settlement in Europe or, at least, predates the Last Glacial Maximum (Semino et. al., 2000).
M170 Lineage—Distribution and Age:
Semino proposes that M170 originated in Europe in descendants of men that arrived from the Middle East 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, who have been associated with the Gravettian culture. It has been suggested that Gravettian and Aurignac coexisted for a few thousand years. When human groups were forced to vacate Central Europe, during the Last Glacial Maximum with the exception of a refuge in the northern Balkans, Western Europe was isolated from Central Europe. However, an Epi-Gravettian culture persisted in the area of present-day Austria, the Czech Republic and the northern Balkans. After climatic improvement, this culture spread north and east (Semino et. al., 2000).
Semino proposes that the polymorphism M170 from which haplotype Eu7 is derived represents another putative Paleolithic mutation whose age has been estimated to be ~22,000 years. The mutation is most frequent in central Eastern Europe, at 45 % in Croats and 49% in Yugoslavs (Rosser et. al., 2000) and also occurs in the Basques that have accumulated a subsequent mutation (M26) that distinguishes Eu8 (Semino et. al., 2000). It is also present on the Indian sub-continent; Pathan and Sindhi in Pakistan show a frequency of 16% and 9% (Qamar et. al., 2002).
Indo-Aryan and European Genetic Affinity:
Indian culture and society are known to have been affected by multiple waves of migration that took place in historic and prehistoric times. A section of Aryan speakers are believed to have migrated first to Iran and from there to north-west of India where they encountered the indigenous people who spoke non-Aryan languages (Roychoudhury et. al., 2000).
It is conceivable that the Aryan speakers had greater contact, including genetic admixture, with the Brahmins, who were professionally the torchbearers and promoters of Aryan rituals. The Aryan contact should have been progressively less as one descended the varna ladder. The genetic expectation, therefore, is that the proportion of those genes (or genomic features, such as haplotypes or haplogroups), that “characterized” the Aryan speakers should progressively decline from the highest varna to the lowest and a reverse trend should be observed with respect to those genes that “characterized” the indigenous Indians (Majumder, 2001).
From the historically prevalent social structure of Indian populations, it may be predicted, that there has been very little male gene flow across ethnic boundaries. The analysis of DNA samples indicates that there has been virtually no male gene flow among ethnic groups, whereas, there is considerably more female gene flow. The upper castes, while sharing haplotypes with the middle and lower castes, do not share any haplotypes with the tribes (Bhattacharyya et. al., 1999).
A close affinity, based on Y chromosome, has been reported between Hindi speaking (Aryan) Indians and Europeans (Quintana-Murci et. al., 1999). Bamshad has gone a step further and compared the affinities between the castes and also between the Europeans. He has found that the affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank; the upper castes being most similar to Europeans particularly East Europeans. These findings are consistent with greater West Eurasian male admixture with castes of higher rank. The lower castes, on the other hand, are more similar to Asians. For this comparison, Eastern European samples from Russia and Romania were used (Bamshad et. al., 2001).
The well known geneticist Barbujani observes that humans do not tend to easily cross language boundaries when choosing a partner. This gives languages a great evolutionary significance, because linguistic affinities are also clues to population history. He cites Sokal who has noted that a common language frequently reflects a common origin, and a related language indicates a common origin too, but farther back in time. He was also one of the first to make an intriguing observation that the partial correlations with the language are stronger for the Y chromosome than for mtDNA and suggests that when women were incorporated into a group speaking a different language, they passed to the future generations, their husbands’ language (Barbujani, 2000).
|Words associated with water, moisture and other liquids||* SED = Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Sir Monier Monier-Williams.|
|cloud||mgla (gloom)||mlha (fog)||megla||831||megha||megh||megh|
|to sprinkle, pour out||marasit'||mžiti||mrščati||831||mrish, marshati||x||x|
|to quaff, drink intox. liquors||zapit’||popijeti||popivati||612||pa, papiyat||pi: da:lana:|
|cause to drink||poit'||(na)pájeti||pojiti||612||pa, payayati||pilana:||pilana:|
|to drink,, swallow||pit'||píti||piti||612||pa, pibati||pina:||pina:|
|foam, froth, saliva||pena||pěna||pena||718||phena||x||x|
|to swim||plavat'||plavati||plavati||715||plu, plavate||x||x|
|moisture, humidity, any liquid||rosa (dew)||rosa||rosa (dew)||869 / 870||rasa||ras||ras|
|provided with water||zalityy||zalívan||zalivan||1189||salilavat||x||x|
|a lake, pond||ozero||jezero||jezero||1182||sarasa||saras||ras|
|to bathe, wash, cleanse||x||x||snažiti||1266||sna, snasyati||sna:n (bath)||sna:n|
|moist||x||vodní||voden||1028 / 18||voda, udanya||x||x|
|to rain, shower down||marasit'||pršeti||pršiti||1011 / 71||varsh & prush-noti||barasna:||x|
|to inundate, to submerge||zaplaviti||poplaviti||715||apuplavat||aplavit karana|
|Words associated with fire|
|relating to fire||ogneniy||ohen’í||ognjen||130||agneya||x||x|
|to be burnt||x||opéci||opeči||575||apaci||x||x|
|to burn, to shine||goret'||hořeti||goreti, žareti||379||ghri, gharnoti||x||x|
|fire||x||ohnivi (fiery)||žgan (fiery)||408||jaganu||yagana||yagana|
|crackle as fire||zharet'||žár (glow)||žareti (to glow)||424||jri=gri, jarate||x||x|
|fire||x||křesati (strike fire)||kres (June fire)||306||kris'anu||x||x|
|N. of Agni||x||x||Kresnik?||306||kris’anu||krishanu||x|
|to cook, bake, roast, boil||pech'||péci||peči||575||pac-ati||paka:na||paka:na|
|fire-pit, fireplace,any wall||pech||pec||peč; pečina||573||paksha||x||x|
|to puff, blow into||pokurit'||podkouřiti||podkuriti||718||phutkri,-karoti||phu:nk||phu:nk|
|Words associated with food, food preparation and consumption:|
|to eat||yest'||jísti||jesti||17||ad, atsyati||x||x|
|to be eaten, what may be eaten||s'ieden||jídlo||jeden||17||adaniya||x||x|
|to suck||sosat'?||cucati||cuzati, sesati||401||c'ush,-ati||chu:sana||chu:sana|
|to give suck, nourish||doit'||dojiti (animal)||dojiti||520||dhe, dhayati||x||x|
|coming from cattle||goviadina||hovadina||goveje||351||gavyaya||x||x|
|beef soup||goviazhia yushka||x||goveja juha||856||gavyaya yusha||x||x|
|to consume or devour, eat||x||pásti se (graze)?||gostiti se, kositi||377||ghas,-ati||x||x|
|food, meadow or pasture grass||kosení||koša||377||ghasa||gha:s|
|be thirsty; to open the mouth||zhazhdat'; zevat||žíznit||žejati; zehati, zevati||424||jeh, jehate||jamhai||jamhai|
|vessel, box, bucket, store-room||kovsh||koš||koš, košara||314||kos'a, kosha||karchchhi||karchchhi|
|milk, thickened milk||syr (cheese)||syr||sir (cheese)||329||kshira||khi:r||khi|
|to gnaw, nibble; to test||kushat'; x||pokoštovati:skoušet skoušet||(po)kušati; skušati||297||kush,-ati; kush,-nati|
|flesh, meat; month||miaso; miesiats||maso: mesíc||meso; mesec||814||mas||mans||mas|
|stick or spoon for stirring||meshalka||méchačka||mešalka||831||mekshana||x||x|
|to stir up, mix, mingle||meshat'||míchatí||mešati||815||miksh, mekshayati||missa||missa|
|to drink||pit'||pítí||piti||612||pa, pibati/papiyat||pina:||pina:|
|one who bakes or roasts||pekar'||pekař||pek||575||paktri||x||x|
|to cook very much, burn||popech'||přepéci||popeči||575||papac'yate||paka:na:||paka:na:|
|mutual or reciprocal drinking||x||popíjení||popivanje||612||papiti||x||x|
|saturated, filled with||napitan||x||pitan||629||pita||x||x|
|filled, full, abundant||polon, polnyi||plny||poln||642||purna||purna||puran|
|Verb “to be”|
|I am||X; yesm (archaic)||jsem||sem||asmi||x (hu:n)||x|
|you are||X; yesi (archaic)||jsi||si||asi||x (hain)||x|
|he, she, it is||yest||x (je)||x (je)||asti||x (hai)||x (hastiti-existence)|
|x [dual form: we two]||X||x||sva||svah||X||x|
|x [dual form: you two]||X||x||sta||sthah||X||X|
|x [dual form: those two]||X||x||sta||stah||x||X|
|we are||X; (yest)||jsme||smo||smah||x (hain)||x|
|you are||X; (yest)||jste||ste||stha||x (hain)||x|
|they are||X; (yest)||x (jsou)||x (so)||santi||x (hain)||x|
|five------------5||piat'||pét||pet||panc' (peta-open hand)||pa:nch||pa:nja|
|hundred-----100||sut', sto||sto||sto||s'ata||sau, shat||so|
|Russian transliteration follows The Random House College Dictionary guidelines|
|Czech č is pronounced as CH, š as SH, ž as ZH, ě as YE, c as TS|
|Slovenian pronunciation is similar to Russian; č is pronounced as CH; j as Y; š as SH and ž as ZH, c as TS|
|Sanskrit transliteration follows A Sanskrit-English Dictionary compiled by Sir Monier Monier-Williams, where English is used as a base and C' is pronounced as CH; S' as SH and sometimes as S. For the purposes of this comparison, long vowels are not indicated, nor is a distinction made between dentals and cerebrals. This is the reason why SED page number is shown.|
|Hindi and Punjabi use English transliteration; long vowels are indicated by-:-but no distinction is made between dentals and cerebrals.|
|X indicates that there is no corresponding word with similar sound and meaning|
DATING THE SETTLEMENTS OF PEOPLES:
Dating of the Separation of Europeans and Indians: Barbujani & Bertorelle propose that in the Upper Paleolithic, around 40,000 years ago, Neanderthal people were replaced by anatomically modern humans, who moved in from Levant, and settled in many areas of the continent. At the latest Glacial Maximum, some 18,000 years ago, Northern and Central Europe were largely covered with glaciers. Human presence then seems restricted to the warmest regions or refugia, and only later reappears more to the North, accompanying the retreat of the ice sheet (Barbujani & Bertorelle, 2001).
Adams and Otte propose that the climatic instability led to the language spread. They postulate that any one population group that acquired both the general cultural traits that caused it to spread rapidly out of a refugium and the technology to enable it to do so, would have experienced a rapid population growth. There is a possibility that the population increase causing the spread of Indo-European languages occurred at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum about 14,500 years ago. However, another event that might have affected the spread was the widespread cold, dry event that occurred 8,200 years ago (Adams & Otte, 1999).
Roychoudhury et al. have found, that on the basis of the analyses of mtDNA of the ethnic populations of India, a higher Caucasoid admixture in the northern Indian populations and that there is evidence that western Eurasian specific haplogroups and subclusters were introduced into India with the entry of Aryan speakers from western and central Asia (Roychoudhury, 2001).
Based on genetic data Kivisild disagrees with a commonly held hypothesis which suggests a massive Indo-Aryan invasion into India some 4,000 years ago. Based on the investigations of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA, he estimates that the divergence between Europeans and Indians took place some of 9,300+/- 3,000 years ago. However, the investigation is not able distinguish whether there were one or many migration waves, or whether there was a continuous long lasting gradual admixture. The results, nevertheless, do not support a recent massive Aryan invasion into India, nor do the results support Indian penetration into western Eurasia (Kivisild, 1999).
Richards et. al. estimate that based on mtDNA results over 90% of the present European populations were in their present locations prior to the Bronze Age. Only 7% of the population came to the Alps and 8% to Southeastern Europe since the Bronze Age. Most of the populations were present in their present locations in Europe since the Lower Upper Paleolithic ~14,000 years ago. About10% of the lineages, date to the first colonization of Europe, by anatomically modern humans during the Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) (Richards, 2000).
About 20% of the lineages arrived during the Neolithic. Most of the other lineages seem most likely to have arrived during the Middle Upper Paleolithic (MUP) and to have re-expanded during the Lower Upper Paleolithic (LUP) (Richards, 2000).
Despite numerous similarities between Sanskrit and Slovenian, there is no common recognizable terminology for metals. The discovery and dating of the “Ice Man” in the South Tyrol with his copper axe, indicates that metals were known 5,200 years ago. This could also be construed as an indication that the Slavic and Aryan languages separated before metallurgy was discovered.
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:
There is a significant correlation between linguistics and genetics in the Slavs and the Aryans on the Indian sub-continent. This is particularly true when the genetic comparison is made on the basis of paternally inherited DNA haplogroups on the Y chromosome. The genetic profiles of the Slavic speakers resemble rather closely those of the Aryan speakers. There is also a notable linguistic similarity between the Slavic languages and the Aryan languages such as Hindi and Punjabi, despite the fact that Aryan languages have been profoundly influenced by Dravidian neighbors and the invaders that have come to India over the millennia.
Slavic languages preserve many grammatical and lexical similarities that they share with Sanskrit that are no longer found in modern Indian languages such as Hindi and Punjabi. Slovenian in particular appears to be very archaic, because it still preserves a number of grammatical and lexical forms that are no longer present in some other Slavic languages nor in the Aryan languages.
Slovenian and Sanskrit have more grammatical and lexical similarities than, say, Slovenian and Germanic languages, despite the geographic proximity. Approximately 20% of Slovenian vocabulary corresponds to the ancient Vedic Sanskrit in sound and meaning and 10% to Classical Sanskrit, but considerably less in Hindi and Punjabi. This indicates that the older the language, the greater is the similarity. This would also indicate that there has been little linguistic interaction since the Vedas have been written between the Slavs and the Aryans.
The linguistic similarity of about 20% between Slovenian and Vedic Sanskrit is significant, because the present day similarity between Slovenian language and the neighboring German is only about 6%. On the other hand, Slovenian has about 80% of the vocabulary that is similar to Russian, in sound and meaning, despite much greater geographical separation.
Populations with genetic similarities as defined by haplotypes Eu7 and Eu19 show a greater linguistic similarity, even when geographically separated, than the neighbors with lesser genetic correlation.
Genetics does not support any massive population changes during the last 3,000 years. The bulk of the population both in Europe and on the Indian sub-continent can be considered to be indigenous to the lands they now occupy, despite some language replacements.
Adams, J., Otte M. (1999). Did Indo-European Languages spread before farming? Current Anthropology 40: 73-77.
Bamshad, M., Kivisild, T., Watkins, W.S., et. al., (2001). Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations. Genome Research Vol. 11, 6: 994-1004.
Barbujani, G. (1997). DNA Variation and Language Affinities. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 61:1011-1014.
Barbujani, G., Bertorelle, G. (2001). Genetics and the population history of Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 23-25.
Bhattacharyya, N. P. (1999). Negligible Male Gene Flow Across Ethnic Boundaries in India, Revealed by Analysis of Z-Chromosomal DNA Polymorphisms. Genome Research Vol. 9, Issue 8, 711-719.
Chatterji, S. K. (1988).”Race Movements and Prehistoric Culture,” in The Vedic Age: The History and Culture of the Indian People, ed. Majumdar R. C., Bombay. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, p 143-171.
Ghosh, B. K. (1988).”The Aryan Problem,” in The Vedic Age: The History and Culture of the Indian People, ed. Majumdar, R. C., Bombay. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, p.205-221.
Gresham, D., Morar, B., Underhill, P. A., et. al. (2001). Origins and Divergence of the Roma (Gypsies). Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:1314-1331.
Herodotus, The Persian Wars, trans. George Rawlinson (Toronto: Random House Inc.1942), p.259.
Kivisild, T., Bamshad, M. J., Kaldma, K., et. al. (1999). Deep common ancestry of Indian and western Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages. Current Biology 9:1331-1334.
Majumder, P.P. (1998). People of India: Biological diversity and affinities. Evol.Anthropol. 6: 100-110.
Majumder, P.P. (2001). Indian Caste Origins: Genomic Insights and Future Outlook. Genome Research 11:931-932.
Qamar, R., Ayub, Q., Mohyuddin, A., et. al. (2002). Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70:1107-1124.
Quintana-Murci, L., Semino, O., Poloni, E.S., et. al. (1999). Y-Chromosome specific YCAII, DYS19 and YAP polymorphisms in human populations: A comparative study. Am. Hum. Genet. 63: 153-166.
Rajaram, S.R., Frawley, D. (1997). Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization. New Delhi. Voice of India. ISBN 81 85990 36 0
Renfrew, C., Forster, P., Hurles, M. (2000). The past is within us. Nature Genetics-volume 26-November: 253-254.
Renfrew, C.(2001). From molecular genetics to archaeogenetics. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences. April 24, vol. 98, no. 9: 4830-4832.
Rosser, Z.H., Zerjal, T., Hurles, M.E., et al. (2000). Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67:1526-1543.
Roychoudhury, S., Roy, S., Dey, B., et al. (2000). Fundamental genomic unity of ethnic India is revealed by analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Current Science Vol. 79, No.9, 10. November: 1182-1192.
Roychoudhury, S., Roy, S., Basu, A., et al. (2001). Genomic structures and population histories of linguistically distinct tribal groups of India. Hum. Genet. 109: 339-350.
Savli, J., Bor, M., Tomazic, I., trans. Skerbinc, A.(1996). Veneti: First builders of European community- Tracing the history and language of early ancestors of Slovenes. Wien. Boswell: Editiones Veneti. ISBN 0 9681 236 0 0
Semino, O., Passarino, G., Oefner, P., et al. (2000). The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective. Science Vol. 290, 10. November: 1155-1159.
Underhill, P.A., Shen, P., Lin, A.A., et al. (2000). Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations. Nature Genetics volume 26, November, 2000.
[square brackets indicate transcriber's notes]
Page Created: July 18, 2003
Last Updated: July 26, 2003
©Copyright 2003 Gary L. Gorsha
ℼⴭ∧⼼楴汴㹥猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴挠ⵦ獡湹㵣昢污敳㸢慶敟慺ⁱ‽≻扡瑟獥彴摩㨢洢摯∹∬扡瑟獥彴慶≬∺Ⱒ愢杤潲灵牟湡彫摩㨢ㄭ∬潣湵牴≹∺单Ⱒ搢癥捩彥敨杩瑨㨢㈵ⰸ搢癥捩彥楷瑤≨ㄺ㠲ⰰ搢浯楡彮摩㨢㐲㘸ⰴ昢牯湥楳影捳牯≥ⴺⰱ昢牯彭慦瑣牯楟≤ㄺ∬灩㨢㔢⸴㈲⸴㘱⸰㈴Ⱒ氢湡楤杮灟条彥牵≬∺瑨灴⼺眯睷愮杮汥楦敲挮浯振畯瑮祲瘯湥瑥⽩歓汵剪汥瑡潩獮楨瑨汭Ⱒ瀢条彥楶睥楟≤∺昱㐰㈶㤸㘭扦ⴷ㤴晤㐭捡ⴳ㙥㠰挲㔴晢㝣Ⱒ瀢彶癥湥彴潣湵≴〺∬敲敦牲牥楟≤〺∬敲楧湯㨢產慥瑳ㄭⰢ猢牥敶楲≤∺㐵ㄮ㜵ㄮ㤲ㄮ㐶㠺㤵∰∬彴灥捯≨ㄺ㜴〲㔷㈵ⰳ琢浥汰瑡彥摩㨢ⰰ產汲㨢栢瑴㩰⼯睷湡敧晬物潣⽭潣湵牴⽹敶敮楴匯畫橬敒慬楴湯桳灩栮浴≬∬獵牥慟敧瑮㨢䌢䉃瑯㈯〮⠠瑨灴⼺振浯潭据慲汷漮杲是煡⤯Ⱒ產敳彲摩㨢㔷㌶㐱ㄲⰳ瘢獩瑩楟≤ㄺ㜴㌲㜹㔴ⰱ瘢獩瑩畟極≤∺昲㐸㘵㕣㠭㐹ⴰ挴搷㜭㙣ⴵ㠲摡愲戶㈶〸索瘻牡张穥硅牴兡敵楲獥㴠∠攦彺牯杩ㄽ㬢⼼捳楲瑰㰾捳楲瑰搠瑡ⵡ晣獡湹㵣昧污敳‧祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴猠捲∽支潺捩椯灭⸲獪挿㵢㈱ⴳ☰㵶∱㰾猯牣灩㹴氼湩敲㵬挧湡湯捩污‧牨晥✽瑨灴⼺眯睷愮杮汥楦敲挮浯振畯瑮祲瘯湥瑥⽩歓汵剪汥瑡潩獮楨瑨汭‧㸯㰊捳楲瑰搠瑡ⵡ晣獡湹㵣昢污敳•祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴眾湩潤潧杯敬慟慮祬楴獣畟捡瑣㴠∠䅕㠭㔰㤹㔸ⴱ㘳㬢⼼捳楲瑰ਾ猼牣灩⁴慤慴挭慦祳据∽慦獬≥琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢瘊牡张慧ⁱ‽束煡簠⁼嵛束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥捁潣湵❴唧ⵁ〸㤵㠹ㄵ㌭✶⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥捁潣湵❴唧ⵁ㠳㌳〹㔰ㄭ崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨攧弮敳䑴浯楡乮浡❥愧杮汥楦敲挮浯崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨昧弮敳䑴浯楡乮浡❥愧杮汥楦敲挮浯崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨攧弮敳䍴獵潴噭牡Ⱗⰱ琧浥汰瑡❥✬汯彤楳整束❣㌬⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥畃瑳浯慖❲㈬✬❴✬㈱✶㌬⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥畃瑳浯慖❲㌬✬楲❤✬✰㈬⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥畃瑳浯慖❲㐬✬牢❡✬潭㥤Ⱗ崳㬩弊慧異桳嬨攧弮敳䅴汬睯湁档牯Ⱗ牴敵⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥楓整灓敥卤浡汰剥瑡❥〱⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥畃瑳浯慖❲ㄬ✬整灭慬整Ⱗ漧摬獟瑩彥捧Ⱗ崳㬩弊慧異桳嬨昧弮敳䍴獵潴噭牡Ⱗⰲ搧浯楡❮✬湡敧晬物潣❭㌬⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥楓整灓敥卤浡汰剥瑡❥〲⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛瑟慲正慐敧楶睥崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨昧弮牴捡偫条癥敩❷⥝ਊ昨湵瑣潩⡮ 瘠牡朠‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧※慧琮灹‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧朠獡湹‽牴敵朠牳‽✨瑨灴㩳‧㴽搠捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣‿栧瑴獰⼺猯汳‧›栧瑴㩰⼯睷❷ ⸧潧杯敬愭慮祬楴獣挮浯术獪㬧 慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰※慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥慧⥳⥽⤨瘊牡攠彺潴彳牴捡彫潣湵⁴‽㬰瘊牡攠彺慬瑳慟瑣癩瑩役潣湵⁴‽㬰⠊畦据楴湯⠠彟穥瑟獯 †楷摮睯献瑥湉整癲污昨湵瑣潩⤨笠 †张敟彺潴‽昨湵瑣潩琨 †††敲畴湲琠せ⁝㴽㐠‵‿瀨牡敳湉⡴孴崱 ⤱⬠✠〺✰㨠⠠孴崱簠⁼〧⤧⬠✠✺⬠⠠慰獲䥥瑮琨せ⥝⬠ㄠ⤵††⥽弨敟彺潴灳楬⡴㨧⤧爮癥牥敳⤨㬩ਊ††穥瑟獯瑟慲正损畯瑮⬫††晩攨彺潴彳牴捡彫潣湵⁴‾‱☦攠彺潴彳牴捡彫潣湵⁴‼攨彺慬瑳慟瑣癩瑩役潣湵⁴⤴☠…穥瑟獯瑟慲正损畯瑮㰠㈠〴††††††晩眨湩潤慰敧牔捡敫⥲ †††笠 †††††瀠条呥慲正牥弮牴捡䕫敶瑮✨楔敭Ⱗ✠潌❧彟穥瑟獯㬩ऊउ †††素 †††攠獬†††††††††张慧異桳嬨攧弮牴捡䕫敶瑮Ⱗ✠楔敭Ⱗ✠潌❧彟穥瑟獯⥝†††††张慧異桳嬨昧弮牴捡䕫敶瑮Ⱗ✠楔敭Ⱗ✠潌❧彟穥瑟獯⥝उ†ਠ††††उऊ椉⡦祴数景弨慰⥱℠‽甧摮晥湩摥⤧ †††笠 †††††张慰異桳嬨琧慲正癅湥❴吧浩❥彟穥瑟獯吧浩佥偮条❥⥝†††† †素 素㔱〰⤰⥽✨〰⤧㰊猯牣灩㹴㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢慶穥畯摩㴠∠㔷㌶㐱ㄲ∳㰻猯牣灩㹴戼獡牨晥∽瑨灴⼺眯睷愮杮汥楦敲挮浯振畯瑮祲瘯湥瑥⽩歓汵剪汥瑡潩獮楨瑨汭㸢ℼⴭ楛瑬䤠⁅崹ਾ††猼牣灩⁴牳㵣⼢愯慪潧杯敬灡獩挮浯愯慪⽸楬獢樯畱牥⽹⸱〱㈮樯畱牥業獪㸢⼼捳楲瑰ਾℼ敛摮晩ⵝ㸭㰊ⴡ嬭晩⠠瑧䕉㤠 ⁼ℨ䕉崩㰾ⴡ㸭 †㰠捳楲瑰猠捲∽⼯橡硡朮潯汧慥楰潣⽭橡硡氯扩⽳煪敵祲㈯〮㌮樯畱牥業獪㸢⼼捳楲瑰ਾℼⴭℼ敛摮晩ⵝ㸭猼牣灩⁴祴数✽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴ਾ慶穥呯浥汰瑡‽漧摬獟瑩彥捧㬧椊⡦祴数景攠潺極㴽✠湵敤楦敮❤††慶穥畯摩㴠✠潮敮㬧紊瘊牡攠潺潆浲慦瑣牯㴠✠✱慶穥彯汥浥湥獴瑟彯档捥‽牁慲⡹㬩㰊猯牣灩㹴ਊ猼牣灩㹴瘊牡漠摬機畱牥⁹‽畮汬慶汯彤煪敵祲獟杩‽畮汬畦据楴湯漠数彮煪敵祲睟慲灰牥⤨笊 †椠⡦祴数景␠穥兊敵祲℠‽甧摮晥湩摥⤧ †笠 †††漠摬機畱牥⁹‽兪敵祲††††汯彤煪敵祲獟杩‽㬤 †††␠㴠␠穥兊敵祲††††兪敵祲㴠␠穥兊敵祲††畦据楴湯挠潬敳機畱牥役牷灡数⡲††晩琨灹潥攤䩺畑牥⁹㴡✠湵敤楦敮❤††††††․‽汯彤煪敵祲獟杩㭮 †††樠畑牥⁹‽汯彤煪敵祲††⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊ⴡ呓剁⁔婅䕈䑁ⴠ㸭㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸧瘊牡猠捯慟灰楟‽〧㬧瘊牡搠摩㴠㈠㠴㐶慶穥潤慭湩㴠✠湡敧晬物潣❭慶穥楯卣慥捲慨汢‽㬱㰊猯牣灩㹴㰊ⴡⴭ㸭ℼⴭ䔠䑎䔠䡚䅅⁄ⴭਾ猼牣灩⁴牳㵣⼢眯睷愮杮汥楦敲挮浯甯楴捬癡彥潣⽭整灭慬整⽳獪支橺畱牥潮潣普楬瑣樮≳㰾猯牣灩㹴⼼敨摡ⴾ㸭ਊ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴ਾ⼯睏敮䥲ੑ慶彟楯影捰⁴‽〵晩 彟楯影捰㹴ㄽ〰簠⁼慍桴昮潬牯䴨瑡慲摮浯⤨ㄪ〰⠯〱ⴰ彟楯影捰⥴ ‾‰ 慶潟煩ⁱ‽潟煩ⁱ籼嬠㭝弊楯煱瀮獵⡨❛楯影摡偤条䉥慲摮Ⱗ䰧捹獯崧㬩弊楯煱瀮獵⡨❛楯影摡偤条䍥瑡Ⱗ䤧瑮牥敮⁴‾敗獢瑩獥崧㬩弊楯煱瀮獵⡨❛楯影摡偤条䱥晩捥捹敬Ⱗ䤧瑮湥❤⥝潟煩異桳嬨漧煩摟呯条崧㬩⠊畦据楴湯⤨笠瘊牡漠煩㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴㬩漠煩琮灹‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧漠煩愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥漊煩献捲㴠搠捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣⼧瀯睯敮楲敮⽴瑳獡猯氯捹獯獪㬧瘊牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨捳楲瑰⤧せ㭝猠瀮牡湥乴摯湩敳瑲敂潦敲漨煩⥳⥽⤨⼊⼯⼯⼯䜠潯汧湁污瑹捩ੳ慶束煡㴠张慧ⁱ籼嬠㭝弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䅴捣畯瑮Ⱗ✠䅕㈭㐱㈰㤶ⴵㄲ崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䑴浯楡乮浡❥愧杮汥楦敲挮浯崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䍴獵潴噭牡Ⱗㄠ洧浥敢彲慮敭Ⱗ✠潣湵牴⽹敶敮楴Ⱗ㌠⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛瑟慲正慐敧楶睥崧㬩⠊畦据楴湯⤨笠 瘠牡朠‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧※慧琮灹‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧朠獡湹‽牴敵†慧献捲㴠⠠栧瑴獰✺㴠‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩牰瑯捯汯㼠✠瑨灴㩳⼯獳❬㨠✠瑨灴⼺眯睷⤧⬠✠朮潯汧ⵥ湡污瑹捩潣⽭慧樮❳†慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰※慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥慧⥳⥽⤨⼊⼯⼯ 祌潣湉瑩慩楬慺楴湯⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯瘊牡氠捹獯慟‽牁慲⡹㬩瘊牡氠捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⁹‽∢慶祬潣彳湯潬摡瑟浩牥瘊牡挠彭潲敬㴠∠楬敶㬢瘊牡挠彭潨瑳㴠∠湡敧晬物祬潣潣≭慶浣瑟硡摩㴠∠洯浥敢敲扭摥敤≤慶湡敧晬物彥敭扭牥湟浡‽挢畯瑮祲瘯湥瑥≩慶湡敧晬物彥敭扭牥灟条‽挢畯瑮祲瘯湥瑥⽩歓汵剪汥瑡潩獮楨瑨汭㬢瘊牡愠杮汥楦敲牟瑡湩獧桟獡‽ㄢ㜴〲㔷㔴㨶㔱摢㑣㙡㘲昵㤷扢㠶㙣㌴㈳扦㠳㐶㕣㬢ਊ慶祬潣彳摡损瑡来牯⁹‽≻浤穯㨢猢捯敩祴⽜敧敮污杯≹∬湯慴杲瑥㨢☢䅃㵔慦業祬㈥愰摮㈥氰晩獥祴敬≳∬楦摮睟慨≴∺畂汩潹牵圠扥楳整索瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤敲潭整慟摤‽㔢⸴㔱⸷㈱⸹㘱∴慶祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶‽眢睷愮杮汥楦敲氮捹獯挮浯㬢瘊牡攠楤彴楳整畟汲㴠∠睷湡敧晬物祬潣潣⽭慬摮湩⽧慬摮湩浴汰甿浴獟畯捲㵥潨獵♥瑵彭敭楤浵氽湡楤杮慰敧甦浴损浡慰杩㵮潴汯慢汲湩≫㰊猯牣灩㹴㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰•牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯捳楲瑰祬潣潣⽭慣浴湡椯楮獪㸢⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸧 慶潧杯敬慴‽潧杯敬慴籼笠㭽 潧杯敬慴浣‽潧杯敬慴浣籼嬠㭝 昨湵瑣潩⡮ †瘠牡朠摡‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧†朠摡獡湹‽牴敵†朠摡祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴†瘠牡甠敳卓⁌‽栧瑴獰✺㴠‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩牰瑯捯汯†朠摡牳‽用敳卓⁌‿栧瑴獰✺㨠✠瑨灴✺ ਫ††✠⼯睷潧杯敬慴獧牥楶散潣⽭慴⽧獪术瑰樮❳†瘠牡渠摯‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰†渠摯慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥慧獤潮敤㬩 ⥽⤨⼼捳楲瑰ਾਊ猼牣灩⁴祴数✽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴ਾ朠潯汧瑥条挮摭瀮獵⡨畦据楴湯⤨笠 †潧杯敬慴敤楦敮汓瑯✨㤯㤵㌶㤵⼶乁彇〳砰㔲弰晤❰㍛〰㔲崰搧癩札瑰愭ⵤ㐱〵〲㐷㐸㜰ⴰ✰⸩摡卤牥楶散木潯汧瑥条瀮扵摡⡳⤩†朠潯汧瑥条攮慮汢卥牥楶散⡳㬩 ⥽⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸧 潧杯敬慴浣異桳昨湵瑣潩⡮ †朠潯汧瑥条搮晥湩卥潬⡴⼧㔹㘹㔳㘹䄯䝎慟潢敶㝟㠲㥸弰晤❰㝛㠲〹ⱝ✠楤灧摡ㄭ㔴㈰㜰㠴〴〷ㄭ⤧愮摤敓癲捩⡥潧杯敬慴異慢獤⤨㬩 †潧杯敬慴湥扡敬敓癲捩獥⤨素㬩㰊猯牣灩㹴ਊ猼牣灩⁴祴数✽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴ਾ朠潯汧瑥条挮摭瀮獵⡨畦据楴湯⤨笠 †潧杯敬慴敤楦敮汓瑯✨㤯㤵㌶㤵⼶乁彇敢潬彷㈷堸〹摟灦Ⱗ嬠㈷ⰸ㤠崰搧癩札瑰愭ⵤ㐱〵〲㐷㐸㜰ⴰ✲⸩摡卤牥楶散木潯汧瑥条瀮扵摡⡳⤩†朠潯汧瑥条攮慮汢卥牥楶散⡳㬩 ⥽⼼捳楲瑰ਾਊ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴ਾ昨湵瑣潩⡮獩⥖笠 †椠ℨ獩⥖笠 †††爠瑥牵㭮 †素ਊ††⼯桴獩氮捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⁹‽祬潣彳敧彴敳牡档牟晥牥敲⡲㬩 †瘠牡愠䵤牧㴠渠睥䄠䵤湡条牥⤨††慶祬潣彳牰摯獟瑥㴠愠䵤牧挮潨獯健潲畤瑣敓⡴㬩 †瘠牡猠潬獴㴠嬠氢慥敤扲慯摲Ⱒ∠敬摡牥潢牡㉤Ⱒ∠潴汯慢彲浩条≥琢潯扬牡瑟硥≴猢慭汬潢≸琢灯灟潲潭Ⱒ∠潦瑯牥∲∬汳摩牥崢††慶摡慃⁴‽桴獩氮捹獯慟彤慣整潧祲††摡杍敳䙴牯散偤牡浡✨慰敧Ⱗ⠠摡慃⁴☦愠䍤瑡搮潭⥺㼠愠䍤瑡搮潭⁺›洧浥敢❲㬩ਊ††晩⠠桴獩氮捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⥹笠 †††愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭欢祥潷摲Ⱒ琠楨祬潣彳敳牡档煟敵祲㬩 †素ਠ††汥敳椠愨䍤瑡☠…摡慃楦摮睟慨⥴笠 †††愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭欧祥潷摲Ⱗ愠䍤瑡昮湩彤桷瑡㬩 †素ਊ††潦瘨牡猠椠汳瑯⥳笠 †††瘠牡猠潬⁴‽汳瑯孳嵳††††晩⠠摡杍獩汓瑯癁楡慬汢⡥汳瑯⤩笠 †††††琠楨祬潣彳摡獛潬嵴㴠愠䵤牧朮瑥汓瑯猨潬⥴††††††ਊ††摡杍敲摮牥效摡牥⤨††摡杍敲摮牥潆瑯牥⤨⡽昨湵瑣潩⡮ ††慶⁷‽ⰰ栠㴠〠業楮畭呭牨獥潨摬㴠㌠〰††晩⠠潴⁰㴽猠汥⥦笠 †††爠瑥牵牴敵†† †椠琨灹潥⡦楷摮睯椮湮牥楗瑤⥨㴠‽渧浵敢❲⤠笠 †††眠㴠眠湩潤湩敮坲摩桴††††‽楷摮睯椮湮牥效杩瑨††††汥敳椠搨捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥⁴☦⠠潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥坴摩桴簠⁼潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥䡴楥桧⥴ ††††⁷‽潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥坴摩桴††††‽潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥䡴楥桧㭴 †素 †攠獬晩⠠潤畣敭瑮戮摯⁹☦⠠潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮楗瑤籼搠捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥䡴楥桧⥴ ††††⁷‽潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮楗瑤㭨 †††栠㴠搠捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥䡴楥桧㭴 †素ਊ††敲畴湲⠠眨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤☠…栨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤㬩紊⤨⤩㬩ਊਊ楷摮睯漮汮慯‽畦据楴湯⤨笠 †瘠牡映㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮祂摉∨祬潣䙳潯整䅲≤㬩 †瘠牡戠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭∨潢祤⤢せ㭝 †戠愮灰湥䍤楨摬昨㬩 †映献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠∠汢捯≫††潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥䉴䥹⡤氧捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭⤧献捲㴠✠愯浤愯⽤潦瑯牥摁椮牦浡瑨汭㬧ਊ††⼯匠楬敤湉敪瑣潩੮††昨湵瑣潩⡮ ††††慶‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨晩慲敭⤧††††瑳汹潢摲牥㴠✠✰††††瑳汹慭杲湩㴠〠††††瑳汹楤灳慬⁹‽戧潬正㬧 †††攠献祴敬挮獳汆慯⁴‽爧杩瑨㬧 †††攠献祴敬栮楥桧⁴‽㈧㐵硰㬧 †††攠献祴敬漮敶晲潬⁷‽栧摩敤❮††††瑳汹慰摤湩‽㬰 †††攠献祴敬眮摩桴㴠✠〳瀰❸††⥽⤨ਊ††⼯䈠瑯潴摁䤠橮捥楴湯 †⠠映湵瑣潩⡮ ††††慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥戢摯≹嬩崰 †††瘠牡椠晩㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴椧牦浡❥㬩 †††椠晩献祴敬戮牯敤‽〧㬧 †††椠晩献祴敬洮牡楧‽㬰 †††椠晩献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠✠汢捯❫††††楩瑳汹獣䙳潬瑡㴠✠楲桧❴††††楩瑳汹敨杩瑨㴠✠㔲瀴❸††††楩瑳汹癯牥汦睯㴠✠楨摤湥㬧 †††椠晩献祴敬瀮摡楤杮㴠〠††††楩瑳汹楷瑤‽㌧〰硰㬧 †††椠晩献捲㴠✠愯浤愯⽤湩敪瑣摁椮牦浡瑨汭㬧 †††ਠ††††慶摣癩㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴搧癩⤧††††摣癩献祴敬㴠∠楷瑤㩨〳瀰㭸慭杲湩ㄺ瀰⁸畡潴∻††††摣癩愮灰湥䍤楨摬 楩㬩 †††椠⡦戠⤠ †††笠 †††††戠椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥摣癩慬瑳桃汩⥤††††††⥽⤨紊ਊ㰊猯牣灩㹴ਊ猼祴敬ਾ⌉潢祤⸠摡敃瑮牥汃獡筳慭杲湩〺愠瑵絯㰊猯祴敬ਾ㰊楤⁶瑳汹㵥戢捡杫潲湵㩤愣敢昶㬶戠牯敤潢瑴浯ㄺ硰猠汯摩⌠〵愷㜸※潰楳楴湯爺汥瑡癩㭥稠椭摮硥㤺㤹㤹㤹㸢 †㰠ⴡ敓牡档䈠硯ⴠ㸭㰊ⴡ㰭潦浲渠浡㵥猢慥捲≨漠卮扵業㵴爢瑥牵敳牡档瑩⤨•摩✽敨摡牥獟慥捲❨㸠 †††††㰠湩異⁴祴数∽整瑸•汰捡桥汯敤㵲匢慥捲≨猠穩㵥〳渠浡㵥猢慥捲㉨•慶畬㵥∢ਾ††††††椼灮瑵琠灹㵥戢瑵潴≮瘠污敵∽潇∡漠䍮楬正∽敳牡档瑩⤨㸢 †††††㰠是牯㹭 †††††㰠瑳汹㹥 †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲††††††††楷瑤㩨㤠㘱硰††††††††慭杲湩›‰畡潴㠠硰††††††††潰楳楴湯›敲慬楴敶††††††ਊ††††††潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵笠 †††††††栠楥桧㩴㐠瀰㭸 †††††††映湯楳敺›㐱硰††††††††楬敮栭楥桧㩴㐠瀰㭸 †††††††瀠摡楤杮›‰瀸㭸 †††††††戠硯猭穩湩㩧戠牯敤潢㭸 †††††††戠捡杫潲湵㩤⌠㑆㉆㥅††††††††潢摲牥›瀱⁸潳楬䈣䉂䈸㬸 †††††††琠慲獮瑩潩㩮戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬〳洰慥敳漭瑵ਬ††††††††††††††潣潬〳洰慥敳†††††† †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢笠 †††††††眠摩桴›〱┰††††††††††††潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥琢硥≴㩝潦畣††††††††潢摲牥挭汯牯›䄣䐲㔰㬴 †††††††戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬㩲⌠晦㭦 †††††††戠硯猭慨潤㩷〠〠硰ㄠ瀲⁸㐭硰⌠㉁い㐵††††††ਊ †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽畢瑴湯崢笠 †††††††瀠獯瑩潩㩮愠獢汯瑵㭥 †††††††琠灯›瀱㭸 †††††††爠杩瑨›瀱㭸 †††††††漠慰楣祴›㬱 †††††††戠捡杫潲湵㩤⌠䙄䍄䙃††††††††潣潬㩲⌠㘴㜳㐳††††††††楷瑤㩨ㄠ㔲硰††††††††畣獲牯›潰湩整㭲 †††††††栠楥桧㩴㌠瀸㭸 †††††††戠牯敤㩲渠湯㭥 †††††素 †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢昺捯獵縠椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戧瑵潴❮㩝潨敶Ⱳ †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数✽畢瑴湯崧栺癯牥笠 †††††††戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬㩲⌠㕁䕃㘵††††††††潣潬㩲⌠晦㭦 †††††素 †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢昺捯獵縠椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戧瑵潴❮⁝††††††††慢正牧畯摮挭汯牯›㔣䄲䑅㭆 †††††††挠汯牯›昣晦†††††† †††††㰠猯祴敬ਾ †††††㰠捳楲瑰ਾ††††††畦据楴湯猠慥捲楨⡴笩 †††††††ਠ††††††††⼯搠瑥牥業敮攠癮物湯敭瑮ਠ††††††††慶敳牡档敟癮ਠ††††††††晩⠠祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶湩敤佸⡦⸢摰∮ ‾ㄭ †††††††††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档㈵瀮祬潣潣⽭⽡㬧 †††††††素攠獬晩⠠祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶湩敤佸⡦⸢慱∮ ‾ㄭ †††††††††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档㈵焮祬潣潣⽭⽡㬧 †††††††素攠獬†††††††††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档㈵氮捹獯挮浯愯✯†††††††† †††††瘠牡猠慥捲彨整浲㴠攠据摯啥䥒潃灭湯湥⡴潤畣敭瑮献慥捲敳牡档⸲慶畬⥥ †††††瘠牡猠慥捲彨牵‽敳牡档敟癮猫慥捲彨整浲††††††楷摮睯漮数⡮敳牡档畟汲㬩ਊ††††††敲畴湲映污敳 †††††素 †††††㰠猯牣灩㸭 †††㰠ⴡ攭摮猠慥捲潢⁸ⴭਾਊ††搼癩挠慬獳∽摡敃瑮牥汃獡≳猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※楷瑤㩨ㄹ瀶㭸㸢 †††㰠牨晥∽瑨灴⼺眯睷愮杮汥楦敲氮捹獯挮浯∯琠瑩敬∽湁敧晬物潣㩭戠極摬礠畯牦敥眠扥楳整琠摯祡∡猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫映潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰※潢摲牥〺㸢 †††㰠浩牳㵣⼢摡⽭摡愯杮汥楦敲昭敲䅥灪≧愠瑬∽楓整栠獯整祢䄠杮汥楦敲挮浯›畂汩潹牵映敲敷獢瑩潴慤ⅹ•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正※潢摲牥〺•㸯 †††㰠愯ਾ††††搼癩椠㵤愢彤潣瑮楡敮≲猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴映潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴㜺㠲硰∠ਾ††††††猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴搾捯浵湥牷瑩⡥祬潣彳摡❛敬摡牥潢牡❤⥝㰻猯牣灩㹴 †††㰠搯癩ਾ††⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ㰊ⴡ⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯ ⴭਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴搾捯浵湥牷瑩⡥祬潣彳摡❛汳摩牥崧㬩⼼捳楲瑰ਾਊ搼癩椠㵤氢捹獯潆瑯牥摁•瑳汹㵥戢捡杫潲湵㩤愣敢昶㬶戠牯敤潴㩰瀱⁸潳楬㔣㜰㡡㬷挠敬牡戺瑯㭨搠獩汰祡渺湯㭥瀠獯瑩潩㩮敲慬楴敶※湩敤㩸㤹㤹㤹∹ਾ搼癩挠慬獳∽摡敃瑮牥汃獡≳猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※楷瑤㩨㌹瀶㭸㸢ऊ搼癩椠㵤愢汦湩獫潨摬牥•瑳汹㵥昢潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰∻ਾ††††愼栠敲㵦栢瑴㩰⼯睷湡敧晬物祬潣潣⽭•楴汴㵥䄢杮汥楦敲挮浯›畢汩潹牵映敲敷獢瑩潴慤ⅹ•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正※潢摲牥〺㸢 †††††㰠浩牳㵣⼢摡⽭摡愯杮汥楦敲昭敲䅥㉤樮杰•污㵴匢瑩潨瑳摥戠⁹湁敧晬物潣㩭䈠極摬礠畯牦敥眠扥楳整琠摯祡∡猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫戠牯敤㩲∰⼠ਾ††††⼼㹡 †㰠搯癩ਾ††椼牦浡摩∽祬潣䙳潯整䅲楤牆浡≥猠祴敬∽潢摲牥〺※楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫映潬瑡氺晥㭴栠楥桧㩴㘹硰※癯牥汦睯栺摩敤㭮瀠摡楤杮〺※楷瑤㩨㔷瀰≸㰾椯牦浡㹥㰊搯癩ਾ⼼楤㹶ਊਊ