Thread by @blog_supplement

@omarali50 I think I agree with the broad thrust of Dr. Khan's presentation but disagree with 2 specifics: 1) indra was not a BMAC deity acquired by IA (long story but that claim can be falsified in more than one way). 2)The veda-s (my own side sometimes sees it that way) are not a monolith

@omarali50 from a historical perspective. In my reconstruction the later parts were composed after the Arya-s had conquered & settled in northern India. At that time they definitely encountered peoples who were more melanized than them :e.g. nishAda & kirAta & probably the original shUdra

@omarali50 who were perhaps an antagonistic fraction of the Harappan/Harappan periphery people (in the old context not what the term meant later as a hold all 4th varNa). However, contrary to occidental indologists whom he's evidently following, I have strong reasons to argue that the

@omarali50 earlier layers of the veda were not composed in India but on the steppes. Even in those layers we find references to dark skin in an inimical sense e.g. manave shAsad avratAn tvachaM kR^iShNAm arandhayat |
For manu [indra] smote the non-ritualist & rent the black-skinned. But we

@omarali50 should be careful to jump to the conclusion that this necessarily reflected the melanization of opponent of the Arya-s because: 1) In similar contexts the Arya-s are associated with jyotis (light) and the dAsa with darkness. So it could simply be a light vs darkness metaphor. 2)

@omarali50 the blackness is attributed to dAsa/dasyu who from ethnonym evidence and positive usage on Iranian side was likely an Iranic tribe who was hence similarly colored as the Arya. 3) In the context of the dAsa the term black might be applied to the womb as black-wombed beyond black

@omarali50 skinned. Hence, it is conceivable that it was indeed merely a negative color metaphor. 4) Among indo-europeans more broadly we have ideas like the thrall being black in color and the jarl being white in the Germanic world. Hence, it is conceivable that it was deeper negative

@omarali50 epithet that need not have strongly aligned with melanization albeit having some alignment -- as humans are visual like other primates and use color in distinguishing the other. Finally coming to snub-nose Max Mueller interpreted the term anAs as a-nAs - without nose or subnose.

@omarali50 While that is plausible it is not aligned with usual grammatical formation in Sanskrit and the traditional interpretation as an-as = without mouth. While that looks equally anatomically strange, it is entirely aligned with the more common term mR^idhravach (slurred speech) used

@omarali50 for the enemies of the Arya-s. Hence, the idea that subnosed people were referred to is at best dubious. Putting these together. IEans like other primates being were probably prone to making visual distinctions of self &other based on color but that the references to black skin

@omarali50 in the earliest vedic texts was a reference to the hypermelanized pre-Aryan populations of India should be treated at best with caution and probably not at all. But it could have referred to other non Aryan people outside or on the fringes of India.