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∧⼼楴汴㹥⼼敨摡ⴾ㸭ਊ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴ਾ⼯⼯⼯䌠浯数整⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯弊损浯数整损摯‽㘧㜶㡦昹㘲㥤挶〳㥥㜹㠲敦愶〶㠸㐰❤昨湵瑣潩⤨笠 †瘠牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴Ⱙ †††搠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨敨摡⤧せ⁝籼 †††††搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨潢祤⤧せⱝ †††琠㴠✠瑨灴㩳‧㴽搠捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣‿ †††††✠瑨灴㩳⼯潣灭瑥潣⽭潢瑯瑳慲⽰‧› †††††✠瑨灴⼺振挮浯数整挮浯戯潯獴牴灡✯††牳‽⁴彟潣灭瑥彥潣敤⬠✠戯潯獴牴灡樮❳††祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴††獡湹‽愧祳据㬧ਠ††晩⠠⥤笠搠愮灰湥䍤楨摬猨㬩素⼊振湯潳敬氮杯∨㸾∾⠤搧癩愮䍤湥整䍲慬獳⤧朮瑥〨⤩⥽⤨ਊ⼯⼯⼯儠慵瑮慣瑳†⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯ਯ畦据楴湯挠慨湮慖楬慤潴⡲档湡⥮笠 †爠瑥牵琨灹潥⡦档湡⥮㴠‽猧牴湩❧☠…档湡㴡✠⤧昊湵瑣潩祬潣关慵瑮慣瑳⤨††慶扬㴠∠㬢 †椠⡦祴数景挨彭潨瑳 㴡‽甧摮晥湩摥‧☦挠慨湮慖楬慤潴⡲浣桟獯⥴笩 †††氠㴫挠彭潨瑳献汰瑩✨✮嬩崰⬠✠✮†† †椠⡦祴数景挨彭慴楸⥤℠㴽✠湵敤楦敮❤☠…档湡噮污摩瑡牯挨彭慴楸⥤笩 †††氠㴫挠彭慴楸㭤 †††氠‽扬爮灥慬散✨✯✬⤧††⁽汥敳笠 †††氠‽扬爮灥慬散✨✮✬⤧††††敲畴湲氠㭢紊ਊ慶煟癥湥獴㴠张敱敶瑮籼嬠㭝ਊ昨湵瑣潩⡮ ††慶汥浥㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴㬩 †攠敬牳‽搨捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣㴽∠瑨灴㩳•‿栢瑴獰⼺猯捥牵≥㨠栢瑴㩰⼯摥敧⤢⬠∠焮慵瑮敳癲潣⽭畱湡獪㬢 †攠敬獡湹‽牴敵††汥浥琮灹‽琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬢 †瘠牡猠灣⁴‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰††捳瑰瀮牡湥乴摯湩敳瑲敂潦敲攨敬Ɑ猠灣⥴⥽⤨弊敱敶瑮異桳笨 †焠捡瑣∺⵰收救敧湤㈶卢≯ਬ††慬敢獬氺捹獯畑湡捴獡⡴⥽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㌴㤵〲㐴㨱㕢㤴昴㙤捤搱戸扣昴㌲㘲慦搳㕢搰㙡㬢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⸴㘱⸷ㄲ⸳㈲㬢瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤睷彷敳癲牥㴠∠睷湡敧晬物祬潣潣≭慶摥瑩獟瑩彥牵‽眢睷愮杮汥楦敲氮捹獯挮浯氯湡楤杮氯湡楤杮琮灭㽬瑵彭潳牵散栽畯敳甦浴浟摥畩㵭慬摮湩灧条♥瑵彭慣灭楡湧琽潯扬牡楬歮㬢ਊ⼯⼯⼯䌠楲整⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯ਯ慶瑣彯潣普㴠笠愠琺畲ⱥ椠›㈢㐹Ⱒ挠∺浩≧睫›∢素㬠⠊畦据楴湯⠠笩 †瘠牡挠㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猢牣灩≴㬩挠琮灹‽琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬢挠愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥 †挠献捲㴠∠瑨灴⼺眯睷愮杮汥楦敲挮浯愯浤樯⽳慰瑲敮⽲牣瑩潥江彤睫樮≳††慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥戢摯≹嬩崰※灡数摮桃汩⡤⥣⥽⤨※ਊ⼼捳楲瑰ਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴猠捲∽瑨灴⼺猯牣灩獴氮捹獯挮浯振瑡慭⽮湩瑩樮≳㰾猯牣灩㹴㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢⠊畦据楴湯椨噳 ††晩⠠椡噳 ††††敲畴湲†† †⼠琯楨祬潣彳敳牡档煟敵祲㴠氠捹獯束瑥獟慥捲彨敲敦牲牥⤨††慶摡杍‽敮⁷摁慍慮敧⡲㬩 †瘠牡氠捹獯灟潲彤敳⁴‽摡杍档潯敳牐摯捵却瑥⤨††慶汳瑯‽≛敬摡牥潢牡≤氢慥敤扲慯摲∲琢潯扬牡楟慭敧Ⱒ∠潴汯慢彲整瑸Ⱒ∠浳污扬硯Ⱒ∠潴彰牰浯≯昢潯整㉲Ⱒ猢楬敤≲㭝 †瘠牡愠䍤瑡㴠琠楨祬潣彳摡损瑡来牯㭹 †愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭瀧条❥愨䍤瑡☠…摡慃浤穯 ‿摡慃浤穯㨠✠敭扭牥⤧ †椠琨楨祬潣彳敳牡档煟敵祲 ††††摡杍敳䙴牯散偤牡浡∨敫睹牯≤桴獩氮捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⥹††⁽ †攠獬晩⠠摡慃⁴☦愠䍤瑡昮湩彤桷瑡 ††††摡杍敳䙴牯散偤牡浡✨敫睹牯❤摡慃楦摮睟慨⥴†† †映牯⠠慶湩猠潬獴 ††††慶汳瑯㴠猠潬獴獛㭝 †††椠愨䵤牧椮即潬䅴慶汩扡敬猨潬⥴ ††††††桴獩氮捹獯慟孤汳瑯⁝‽摡杍敧却潬⡴汳瑯㬩 †††素 †素ਊ †愠䵤牧爮湥敤䡲慥敤⡲㬩 †愠䵤牧爮湥敤䙲潯整⡲㬩紊⠨畦据楴湯⤨笠 †瘠牡眠㴠〠‽ⰰ洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯‽〳㬰 †椠琨灯㴠‽敳晬 ††††敲畴湲琠畲㭥 †素ਊ††晩⠠祴数景眨湩潤湩敮坲摩桴 㴽✠畮扭牥‧ ††††⁷‽楷摮睯椮湮牥楗瑤㭨 †††栠㴠眠湩潤湩敮䡲楥桧㭴 †素 †攠獬晩⠠潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮☠…搨捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮楗瑤籼搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮效杩瑨⤩笠 †††眠㴠搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮楗瑤㭨 †††栠㴠搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮效杩瑨††††汥敳椠搨捯浵湥潢祤☠…搨捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥坴摩桴簠⁼潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮效杩瑨⤩笠 †††眠㴠搠捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥坴摩桴††††‽潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮效杩瑨†† †爠瑥牵⠨⁷‾業楮畭呭牨獥潨摬 ☦⠠‾業楮畭呭牨獥潨摬⤩⡽⤩⤩ਊ眊湩潤湯潬摡㴠映湵瑣潩⡮ ††慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥䉴䥹⡤氢捹獯潆瑯牥摁⤢††慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥戢摯≹嬩崰††灡数摮桃汩⡤⥦††瑳汹楤灳慬⁹‽戢潬正㬢 †搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮祂摉✨祬潣䙳潯整䅲楤牆浡❥⸩牳‽⼧摡⽭摡是潯整䅲晩慲敭栮浴❬ †⼠ 汓摩牥䤠橮捥楴湯 †⠠畦据楴湯⤨笠 †††瘠牡攠㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴椧牦浡❥㬩 †††攠献祴敬戮牯敤‽〧㬧 †††攠献祴敬洮牡楧‽㬰 †††攠献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠✠汢捯❫††††瑳汹獣䙳潬瑡㴠✠楲桧❴††††瑳汹敨杩瑨㴠✠㔲瀴❸††††瑳汹癯牥汦睯㴠✠楨摤湥㬧 †††攠献祴敬瀮摡楤杮㴠〠††††瑳汹楷瑤‽㌧〰硰㬧 †素⠩㬩ਊ †⼠ 潂瑴浯䄠湉敪瑣潩੮†† 畦据楴湯⤨笠 †††瘠牡戠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭∨潢祤⤢せ㭝ਊ††††慶楩‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨晩慲敭⤧††††楩瑳汹潢摲牥㴠✠✰††††楩瑳汹慭杲湩㴠〠††††楩瑳汹楤灳慬⁹‽戧潬正㬧 †††椠晩献祴敬挮獳汆慯⁴‽爧杩瑨㬧 †††椠晩献祴敬栮楥桧⁴‽㈧㐵硰㬧 †††椠晩献祴敬漮敶晲潬⁷‽栧摩敤❮††††楩瑳汹慰摤湩‽㬰 †††椠晩献祴敬眮摩桴㴠✠〳瀰❸††††楩牳‽⼧摡⽭摡椯橮捥䅴晩慲敭栮浴❬†††† †††瘠牡挠楤⁶‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨楤❶㬩 †††挠楤瑳汹‽眢摩桴㌺〰硰活牡楧㩮〱硰愠瑵㭯㬢 †††挠楤灡数摮桃汩⡤椠晩⤠††††晩 ††††††††††湩敳瑲敂潦敲挨楤ⱶ戠氮獡䍴楨摬㬩 †††素 †素⠩㬩ਊਊ⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊瑳汹㹥ऊ戣摯⁹愮䍤湥整䍲慬獳浻牡楧㩮‰畡潴⼼瑳汹㹥ਊ搼癩猠祴敬∽慢正牧畯摮⌺扡㙥㙦※潢摲牥戭瑯潴㩭瀱⁸潳楬㔣㜰㡡㬷瀠獯瑩潩㩮敲慬楴敶※湩敤㩸㤹㤹㤹∹ਾ††ℼⴭ匠慥捲潂⁸ⴭਾ††††††昼牯慮敭∽敳牡档•湯畓浢瑩∽敲畴湲猠慥捲楨⡴∩椠㵤栧慥敤彲敳牡档‧ਾ††††††椼灮瑵琠灹㵥琢硥≴瀠慬散潨摬牥∽敓牡档•楳敺㌽‰慮敭∽敳牡档∲瘠污敵∽㸢 †††††㰠湩異⁴祴数∽畢瑴湯•慶畬㵥䜢Ⅿ•湯汃捩㵫猢慥捲楨⡴∩ਾ††††††⼼潦浲ਾ††††††猼祴敬ਾ††††††潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档笠 †††††††眠摩桴›ㄹ瀶㭸 †††††††洠牡楧㩮〠愠瑵瀸㭸 †††††††瀠獯瑩潩㩮爠汥瑡癩㭥 †††††素ਊ †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異⁴††††††††敨杩瑨›〴硰††††††††潦瑮猭穩㩥ㄠ瀴㭸 †††††††氠湩ⵥ敨杩瑨›〴硰††††††††慰摤湩㩧〠㠠硰††††††††潢楳楺杮›潢摲牥戭硯††††††††慢正牧畯摮›䘣䘴䔲㬹 †††††††戠牯敤㩲ㄠ硰猠汯摩⌠䉂㡂㡂††††††††牴湡楳楴湯›慢正牧畯摮挭汯牯㌠〰獭攠獡ⵥ畯ⱴ †††††††††††††挠汯牯㌠〰獭攠獡㭥 †††††素ਊ††††††潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥琢硥≴⁝††††††††楷瑤㩨ㄠ〰㬥 †††††素 †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢昺捯獵笠 †††††††戠牯敤潣潬㩲⌠㉁い㐵††††††††慢正牧畯摮挭汯牯›昣晦††††††††潢桳摡睯›‰瀰⁸㈱硰ⴠ瀴⁸䄣䐲㔰㬴 †††††素ਊਊ††††††潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戢瑵潴≮⁝††††††††潰楳楴湯›扡潳畬整††††††††潴㩰ㄠ硰††††††††楲桧㩴ㄠ硰††††††††灯捡瑩㩹ㄠ††††††††慢正牧畯摮›䐣䑆䍃㭆 †††††††挠汯牯›㐣㌶㌷㬴 †††††††眠摩桴›㈱瀵㭸 †††††††挠牵潳㩲瀠楯瑮牥††††††††敨杩瑨›㠳硰††††††††潢摲牥›潮敮††††††††††††潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥琢硥≴㩝潦畣⁾湩異孴祴数✽畢瑴湯崧栺癯牥ਬ††††††潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戧瑵潴❮㩝潨敶††††††††慢正牧畯摮挭汯牯›䄣䌵㕅㬶 †††††††挠汯牯›昣晦††††††††††††潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥琢硥≴㩝潦畣⁾湩異孴祴数✽畢瑴湯崧笠 †††††††戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬㩲⌠㈵䕁䙄††††††††潣潬㩲⌠晦㭦 †††††素ਊ††††††⼼瑳汹㹥ਊ††††††猼牣灩㹴 †††††映湵瑣潩敳牡档瑩⤨†††††††† †††††††⼠ 敤整浲湩湥楶潲浮湥⁴ †††††††瘠牡猠慥捲彨湥⁶ †††††††椠氨捹獯慟彤睷彷敳癲牥椮摮硥晏∨瀮⤢㸠ⴠ⤱笠 †††††††††敳牡档敟癮㴠✠瑨灴⼺猯慥捲㕨⸲摰氮捹獯挮浯愯✯††††††††⁽汥敳椠氨捹獯慟彤睷彷敳癲牥椮摮硥晏∨焮⤢㸠ⴠ⤱笠 †††††††††敳牡档敟癮㴠✠瑨灴⼺猯慥捲㕨⸲慱氮捹獯挮浯愯✯††††††††⁽汥敳笠 †††††††††敳牡档敟癮㴠✠瑨灴⼺猯慥捲㕨⸲祬潣潣⽭⽡㬧 †††††††素ਊ††††††慶敳牡档瑟牥‽湥潣敤剕䍉浯潰敮瑮搨捯浵湥敳牡档献慥捲㉨瘮污敵††††††慶敳牡档畟汲㴠猠慥捲彨湥⭶敳牡档瑟牥㭭 †††††眠湩潤灯湥猨慥捲彨牵⥬ †††††爠瑥牵慦獬††††††††††††⼼捳楲瑰ਾ††††ℼⴭ湥敳牡档戠硯ⴠ㸭ਊ †㰠楤⁶汣獡㵳愢䍤湥整䍲慬獳•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正椡灭牯慴瑮※癯牥汦睯栺摩敤㭮眠摩桴㤺㘱硰∻ਾ††††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※汦慯㩴敬瑦※楷瑤㩨㠱瀶㭸戠牯敤㩲∰ਾ††††椼杭猠捲∽愯浤愯⽤湡敧晬物ⵥ牦敥摁樮杰•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 †††㰠捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢潤畣敭瑮眮楲整氨捹獯慟孤氧慥敤扲慯摲崧㬩⼼捳楲瑰ਾ††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 †††㰠楤⁶瑳汹㵥琢硥污杩㩮散瑮牥㸢 †††ठ猼慰瑳汹㵥挢汯牯⌺㤳㤳㤳椡灭牯慴瑮※潦瑮猭穩㩥㈱硰椡灭牯慴瑮※潰楳楴湯爺汥瑡癩㭥琠灯ⴺ瀶≸ਾ††††††匉潰獮牯摥戠††††††⼼灳湡ਾ†††††† †††††㰠牨晥∽瑨灴⼺眯睷氮獩整潣⽭楤瑳⽹湩敤獪㽰牦浯氽捹獯•慴杲瑥∽扟慬歮㸢 †††††††㰠浩牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯晡氮杹潣⽭⽤潴汯慢⽲灳湯潳獲爯慨獰摯役潬潧樮杰•污㵴猢潰獮牯氠杯≯琠瑩敬∽桒灡潳祤⼢ਾ††††††⼼㹡 †††㰠搯癩ਾ††⼼楤㹶 †㰠晩慲敭椠㵤氢捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭•瑳汹㵥戢牯敤㩲㬰搠獩汰祡戺潬正※汦慯㩴敬瑦※敨杩瑨㤺瀶㭸漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※慰摤湩㩧㬰眠摩桴㜺〵硰㸢⼼晩慲敭ਾ⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ㰊潮捳楲瑰ਾ椼杭猠捲∽瑨灴⼺眯睷愮杮汥楦敲挮浯搯捯椯慭敧⽳牴捡⽫瑯湟獯牣灩楧㽦慲摮㈽㜳㔶∳愠瑬∽•楷瑤㵨ㄢ•敨杩瑨∽∱⼠ਾℼⴭ䈠䝅义匠䅔䑎剁⁄䅔⁇㈷‸⁸〹ⴠ䰠捹獯ⴠ䄠杮汥楦敲䘠污瑬牨畯桧ⴠ䐠⁏低⁔位䥄奆ⴠ㸭㰊晩慲敭映慲敭潢摲牥∽∰洠牡楧睮摩桴∽∰洠牡楧桮楥桧㵴〢•捳潲汬湩㵧渢≯眠摩桴∽㈷∸栠楥桧㵴㤢∰猠捲∽瑨灴⼺愯楹汥浤湡条牥挮浯猯㽴摡瑟灹㵥晩慲敭愦灭愻彤楳敺㜽㠲㥸☰浡㭰敳瑣潩㵮㠲㌰㌰㸢⼼晩慲敭ਾℼⴭ䔠䑎吠䝁ⴠ㸭㰊港獯牣灩㹴ਊℼⴭ匠慴瑲夠牢湡⁴牴捡敫ⴭਾ椼杭猠捲∽瑨灴⼺愯楹汥浤湡条牥挮浯瀯硩汥椿㵤㤱〶☰㵴∲眠摩桴∽∱栠楥桧㵴ㄢ•㸯㰊ⴡ†湅扙慲瑮琠慲正牥ⴠ㸭ਊℼⴭ匠慴瑲䐠瑡湯捩ⴭਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴猠捲∽瑨灴⼺愯獤瀮潲洭牡敫敮⽴摡⽳捳楲瑰⽳楳整ㄭ㈳㠷⸳獪㸢⼼捳楲瑰ਾℼⴭ†䔠摮䐠瑡湯捩ⴭਾ㰊ⴡ瑓牡⁴桃湡潧ⴠ㸭㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢 †瘠牡张损潨彟㴠笠瀢摩㨢㘱㐹㭽 †⠠畦据楴湯⤨笠 †††瘠牡挠㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴㬩 †††挠琮灹‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧 †††挠愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥 †††挠献捲㴠搠捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣⼧振档湡潧挮浯猯慴楴⽣獪㬧 †††瘠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挨⥳††⥽⤨⼼捳楲瑰ਾℼⴭ†䔠摮䌠慨杮ⴭਾ