Talk:Kalash people

I uploaded and added a thumbnailed image to the article showing the colorful costume. AFAIK, the image is not copyrighted. --Jinniya 1 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

Very Cold?

Sorry, coming from Ottawa, Canada, this made me laugh a bit -> Winters, on the other hand, can be very cold, with average minimum temperatures between 2° and 1°C. I don't think above freezing counts as very cold!

Text from Kalash

I changed the text of the disambiguation page Kalash so that it has a link here from the line that it should, and removed some text that was at the bottom of the disambig page to here. Some of this stuff may be encyclopedic, but will need some rewording, the rest of it is poorly-worded and not particularly noteworthy.

Kalash is a word used by some Pakistanis to refer to the Kalasha, who are an ethnic/religious group in northern Pakistan. They are considered by many as the descendents of Alexander the Great's army. They are like the Nuristani over the border in Afghanistan, except they have kept their animist faith. They live in deep valleys, growing wheat, and have lush green trees. They wear coats and shirts and waistcoats and caps, and shawls, and dresses. They have a strong claim of being descended from the Greek emperor's warriors. The Kalash live by rapid laden rivers, and great scenery. Recently they have been trading more with the surrounding muslim communities, and have seen mosques built on their land.

Tomer ^TALK 13:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I just read an old article about these people in National Geographic from 1981, I came here hoping to see what has become of them. There isn't really any information about how their population and culture has been fairing in the last several decades. I don't feel knowledgable enough about them to make these additions, so I just want to add encouragement to anyone who might want to take it on.

What work still needs to be done for this article?

Okay, I've just added a new section "location, climate, & geography" (citing references), which anyone is welcome to add/edit it to make it more accurate. What else should be added to complete the Kalasha page? I was thinking we could expand the history portion. I will be working on a genetics pretty soon, so we have that covered. Should we make a full list of the festivals and place it under customs? Or better yet, we could start a new wikipedia page entitled something like "Kalash Festivals."

Note: My interest in the Kalasha people tends to lie with the genetics aspect and how they relate to other peoples around Eurasia. Any edits I make with the other sections are made with good intentions, but I don't have extensive knowledge in that area.

--Sean WI 08:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Kalash Festivals - i am very skeptical of this 'Festival of the Budulak'. I only found one online source for this,the webpage of an Ismail Sloan, a.k.a. Sam Sloan, which is frankly a bit rambling and delves into a few conspiracies (i.e. a christian cult and the FBI kidnapped his daughter.). Ha! when i tried to link to Sloan's page with the Budulak reference just now, it showed as blacklisted by wikipedia - it's www dot ishipress dot com slash dardic.htm, btw. So, I say that unless someone can come up with an independent source for this supposed festival, it be removed from the Article. I added a {fact} template to the paragraph.

Blueshifter 14:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sam Sloan, User:Sam Sloan, his homepage. All pertinent Google hits for "Budulak" seem to derive textually from this paragraph. But a search for "budalak" finds many sources, e.g. this article on JStor and this Telegraph article. What I find strange is, how would a prepubescent boy have sexual intercourse with women and engender children? Robert Lindsay makes him a teenage boy, which is quite something else. Sam Sloan says strong young boy.--87.162.33.234 (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Vlatkoto

Yes the The macedonians and the kalasha are two different nations butwhy are you affilateing greece in with the origin of the kalasha when there were two different nations with the macedonians as they still are.The Noavdays tolen politic history has to be revised in order of the truth not in the way of the purpose of the expansionism.The macedonians are still existing and then the macedonians settled there not the greeks

Macedonian Arguement (Let's try to settle this)

Vlatkoto, the website you used in the history page (www.historyofmacedonia.org) is a hypernationalistic load of tripe. I've seen most Macedonian-centric people use that website. The truth is, the ancient region of Macedonia falls mostly into modern day Greece (about 2/3), most who identify themselves as Greeks. The Kalasha page should use the words "ancient macedonians", but culturally, ethnically, and perhaps linguistically (I believe a Macedonian dialect is alive and well in Northern Greece) they could be compared to modern Greeks. I guess if I edit the page it's going to be changed anyway so I'll let other people worry about it. --Sean WI 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:VlatkotoThere is no legitimed proove that the ancient macedonians were greeks an sach one that the novadays macedonians and the ancient macedonians are from different ancestry.The main prooves that the ancient macedonians were not greeks come from the greeks them selfs.The wroten about macedonia and the macedonians by their philosophists,here I want to potentate that I do not refer to the page www.historyofmacedonia.org but to the writen by the greeks about my land and my people.I'll fight for my self as i don't feel as an intrudor but as one deeply wounded by the monstrous campain against my light ancestry and land.The kalasha don't identify them self as greeks,they are kalasha and their ancestry is macedonian in conection.even the genetic expercice prooved that as for them so and for us macedonians.I strongly want the greek to be removed from kalasha articles.

RESPECT

The Macedonians were northern Greek tribes who spoke a Greek dialect. During the time of the ancient Olympics, only greek-speaking peoples were allowed to participate...Macedonians were known to have been in the Olympics. Also, Bactria was an already Hellenized land before Alexander arrived, due to the policy of Persian Kings and Satraps to move the Ionian Greek discenters to the farthest ends of the Empire, and it's a fact that the region spoke Greek (not Macedonian) well past the birth of Jesus. I think I (and others) may be better at forming a NPOV because I am not Greek and don't sympathize with either side. I merely want to bring forth the facts. The Kalasha have no genetic similarities with Greeks OR Macedonians, and truly are a distinct people. You could read up on those two links at the bottom of the page that talk about the genetic studies. --Sean WI 18:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the precise linguistic affiliation of Ancient Macedonian is not fully known except for the fact that it was an Indo-European language. There really is not enough information on it (a few words attested), but most linguists seem to think it was an independent branch of Indo-European or that it may be in a branch which was close to Greek, but it wasn't a Greek dialect for sure. Although many Kalasha and Nuristani claim Greek or Macedonian descent, most of the Greeks would not have settled the more rural/mountainous remote areas during ancient times, but the larger cities as they had been the elite. More than likely, the Kalasha keep much the original appearance of the Indo-Aryans who settled the India and Pakistan. Imperial78

Most linguists certainly affiliate ancient Macedonian as a Helladic dialect. I think you mean modern Macedonia, which is viewed as a derivation of Bulgarian, at the least fully Slavic and not appearing in the Balkans until about 1,000 years after Alexander's death.

Sean also points correctly that the cental asian population sof European descent were Greek spaking and not Slavic speaking and trhe result of population transfers and colonizations of Greeks (again obviously not the Slavic peoples Vlatkoto is refering to).72.75.42.6 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that the Kalasha people are descended from Greeks is un-substantiated. There is no evidence to proove this. just because they `look' fair means nothing. Many modern day Greeks i've met do not look fair, nor could I even categorise them as being `White'!

Wow. Greeks ae certainly fair and a fully European population. they are in fact more European than the eastern and central Balkan Slavs, many of whom are decendents of Turkic tribes -- something modern genetics shows.72.75.42.6 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Many Kalash claim that they are the direct descendants of Macedonians se Macedonian Descents In Pakistan.AVI [1] and "Pakistani Kalasch Y-Chromosome Haplogroup Frequency" (related to Jugoslaiav Macedonian)" HUMAN RACES CALCULATOR [2].194.236.207.147 18:33, 17 Januari 2007.

Modern genetics does not show that Eastern Europeans or Balkan Slavs are descended from Turkic peoples, though there certainly was some influence. The peoples of the Balkans are nearly exact descendants of their distant ancestors. The only change is linguistic and cultural, brought from small ruling classes that had conquered them. For example, the Turks of Turkey are the direct descendants of ancient Anatolian people who merely adopted the Turkish language centuries ago. Many were perhaps full Greeks who had assimilated into the ruling class. --Sean WI 20:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Turks? Have you misinterpreted me? See the two enclosed links above and compare the Kalash and Jugoslav-Macedonian DNA. 194.236.207.147 18:37, 18 Januari 2007.

The people of FYROM are Slavs. The Slavs came in the area 1000 years later. Any attempt to establish a connection between them and the Kalasha, relying on partisan websites and trying to take advantage of the naming dispute is in vain. Hectorian 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to my post about Turks, I was referring to the previous poster when they said, "they are in fact more European than the eastern and central Balkan Slavs, many of whom are decendents of Turkic tribes -- something modern genetics shows," which was false. And yes, any Macedonian connection cannot be made unless one is referring to ancient Macedonia. Even then, the Seleucid dynasty actually moved Greek colonists to its eastern provinces, probably from the region of Ionia, which was populated by the descendants of those from southern Greece. --Sean WI 20:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone takes a look in the attempts to insert propagandistic material in this article, may understand why the Greeks insist so much in their position concerning FYROM's name... The people of that state are Slavs, as their former president, Gligorov, publicly said that they have no connection with the ancient Macedonians. The confusion some try to make between the ancient Macedonians and the people of FYROM, certainly has no place in Wikipedia. Maybe the Kalash are descendants of Dards, maybe they are descendants of the Greeks (from the Greek Doric tribe of the Macedonians, as themselves claim), or maybe the ancient Macedonians were not Greek (despite what they were saying and what all the historians of antiquity said about them)... But the people of FYROM cannot establish any connection between themselves and the Kalash, Alexander the Great or Cleopatra.... because, simply, the Slavs were far far away from the Balkans that time, and they came in the area one millenium later! partisan websites and pseudo-historic "evidence" is totally unacceptable. as far as i am concern, i will not allow such "sources" be inserted here; i will not present the Kalash as definately of Greek descent (despite what they say and the evidence that exists, since this is in dispute by some academics), but the people of FYROM have nothing to do with them, and the Kalash are not of Slavic descent. Sean WI did a really good job in this article. so, i would request any anon or not user to stop adding crap, cause the only thing he/she will succeed in is getting the article locked. Hectorian 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be best if we used the term "Greco-Macedonian," but still have it link to Ancient Greece. Of course it still has nothing to do with the inhabitants of today's slavo-Macedonia because it was still settled by Paionians who had not yet adopted the Greek language in full. --Sean WI 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "Greco-Macedonian" is used for a hypothesis in linguistics, holding that Macedonian was not Greek, but close to Greek. Thus, i think it would more complicate things than settle them down, even if we have a link to Ancient Greece... Maybe we could use Greek Macedonians (this way we would express the majority of scholarly opinion+the ancient sources+the Kalasha claims; also, we would be, IMO, accurate enough). i am not sure if others will agree, though... Hectorian 20:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But that seems too precise and may give the reader the opinion that the Greek settlers (that is, if there was any Hellenistic settlements in that specific region) came solely from the Macedonian region of modern day Greece. The Indo-Greek presence in Central Asia was populated by a wide variety of Greek peoples - whether it was from Ionia, Attica, Peloponnese, Thessaly, etc... --Sean WI 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

True. I suppose it would be better then to leave it as is; after all it is one among other theories that they descent from the Greeks, regardless from which Greek region of that time... it could be Macedonia, Ionia, or all the places u named together... Hectorian 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose “descendants of ancient Macedonian and Greek of Alexander the Great's army” 194.236.207.147 12:17, 20 Januari 2007.

But the problem is, most Kalash have allied with the Greek side - they are probably unaware of the current controversy between Greece/Macedonia and imagine modern Macedonia to be an extension of the ancient Hellenic peoples. Besides, like we've said before, much of the Greek colonization of Central Asia took place decades before and decades after Alexander's conquest. Using Chinese and Indian historical texts, we know that it was a partially Hellenized region, that is, it was populated by a Greek elite. One could make the argument that Macedonia at the time of Alexander was adopting the Greek language en masse (and are probably still Greek-speaking today). --Sean WI 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A. But still some Kalash are allied with the Macedonian side [3]. B. The Macedonian DNA dont lie[4]. C. And the mother language of the Antic Macedonian seems to be most related to the modern Macedonian. Se the deciphering of the middle text [5] , [6] of the Rosetta Stone [7] and DISCOVERIES ABOUT THE LITERACY, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE OF THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS[8].194.236.207.147 10:00, 20 Januari 2007.

The slav invasion theory are out of date. Se links - Paleolithic Continuity Theory - Mario Alinei and [9].194.236.207.147 10:35, 20 Januari 2007.

This is getting ridiculous! The Kalash today not only have allied with the Greek side and not only they have a school built by a Greek non-governmental organization, but also the travelers of the past (Marco Polo, etc), the Pakistani government (from even the time before Benazir Bhutto) and the world's media. There are links about genetics and DNA in the article; they do not show a clear Greek origin, but surely a Greek admixture. The Rosetta Stone is in Egyptian and Greek and the Slav invasion theory is not out of date at all! I do not know what the FYRO"M"ian government is doing to its own people, but we are not gonna alter the Greek, Egyptian, Pakistani history and the international scientific methods, just to fit in their ridiculous theories... Hectorian 12:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"FYRO"M"ian government"!! Don’t be rough. You won’t reverse your “official Greek history” . Despite of new scientific research, se the links 5-6-7-8 above. I’m still proposing “descendants of ancient Macedonian”. 194.236.207.147 13:04, 20 Januari 2007

Look, the links u call "new scientific research" are links from FYROM. The links in the references section are neutral enough (and if u have a close look at them, they are not even Greek). there is nothing u can do, unless u provide valid, credible and third party sources, supporting your POV. Hectorian 13:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhhhh.....these aren't Greek theories. They are accepted scientific and archaeological findings. In all fairness, I am quite impartial to the controversy (American w/ no Slavic or Greek admixture). In fact, I am fascinated by Bulgarian history and their migration into the Balkans - even their constant love/hate rivalry with the Byzantines. But you sir, cannot be touched...we cannot convince you of anything because you will not listen to reason and will choose to only believe the evidence that supports what you want to believe. --Sean WI 16:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In the words of a respected user, "it is human nature for one to believe whatever rubbish that is necessary to sustain one's own ideological viewpoint". :-) Khoikhoi 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK Hectorian your right the “new scientific research" are New.

Sean WI - some scientific and archaeological findings fore you “inscription from Kostur Lake in Macedonia” [10].

And Khoikhoi thanks! Hear are the different nationalistic “ideological viewpoints” about Macedonia and macedonians. ””In Athens, the arguments run as follows: (a) Ancient Macedonians were ethnic Greeks. (b) Medieval Slavs and Bulgars were culturally converted to Byzantine Hellenism and were ethnically assimilated. (c) Slav-speaking Macedonians were not necessarily Bulgars or Slavs. Considering their loyalty to the Patriarch and their active contribution to Greek 19th century irredentism, it is evident that they were ethnically Greeks beyond doubt.

In Sofia they are not concerned with ancient Macedonians but they argue that: (a) Medieval Slavs in Macedonia were absorbed by the Bulgarians, but the latter were not assimilated either by the Greeks or by the Serbs. (b) Despite allegiance to the Greek dominated Ecumenical Patriarchate, Slav-speaking Macedonian Bulgars were a separate ethnic group, which in the late 19th century inhabited most parts of Macedonia, but failed to be annexed by Bulgaria.

During the last quarter of the 19th century Serbs also developed their own theories about the identity of Macedonia's population. They sought to demonstrate that: (a) Medieval Macedonian Slavs were ethnic Serbs. In fact Serbs dominated Macedonia after the Bulgarians in the 14th century; thus, they could not have been assimilated by the latter who were swept out in the early 11th century. (b) They preserved a distinctive Serbian culture, a language akin to Serbian and were called `Serbs' for centuries. (c) Macedonian Slavs were not identified as Bulgarians until the mid 19th century.

Naturally after World War II Serbian views were abandoned.Serbs were replaced ever after by Yugoslav Macedonian historians who assimilated and further enhanced theories which in the past had been supported chiefly by the Communists. Their main task has been to show that: (a) Ancient Macedonians were not ethnic Greeks. (b) Medieval Slavs assimilated ancient non-Greek Macedonians, but were absorbed neither by the Bulgarians nor by the Serbs or Greeks. (c) In 19th century a dense and distinct Slav-speaking Macedonian ethnic group, overwhelmingly larger than the Greek one, became the vehicle of Macedonian nationalism, but ethnic Macedonia, having failed to get independence in 1903, was divided in 1913””. 194.236.207.147 12:36, 21 Januari 2007.

And again u present links from FYRO"M"... I challenge u to read the links in this article, as well as in the Ancient Macedonians... It is not the Greeks' fault that the majority of the world accepts their position. The case of the name of FYRO"M" is something else, having to do with geopolitics and Great Powers' interests in the area; but no historian who respects him/herself accepts the FYRO"M"ian position. not even the state's own first president did not accept this (u know what Gligorov had said, as I am sure u know that his sister self-identifies as Bulgarian-how can this be possible?they had the same parents, didn't they?LOL). The arguments of Greece are not exactly those u mentioned. In fact, it is just one: the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, and the people of FYRO"M" have nothing to do with them. The Bulgarian position is also clear: the people of the Republic are Bulgarians and the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks. The Serbian position is clear too: the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks and the people of the state are Serbs. The world's position is also simple: the people of FYRO"M" are a Slavic ethnic group and the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks. I acknowledge that there is a minority of historians and researchers who say that the Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, but they do not say that the Slavs of FYRO"M" have anything to do with them! Were can u base your theory that the Medieval Slavs assimilated ancient non-Greek Macedonians? do provide a credible link, id est not from FYRO"M". Even if the Anc. Mac. were not Greeks, they had been completely assimilated by them 1 millenium before the Slav invasions in the Balkans. when the slavs came in the area, the population was overwhelmingly Greek-speaking, Greek Orthodox, self-identifying with the Greek Empire (as the contemporaries referred to Byzantium). I can understand that FYRO"M" is a new state that has to built an ethnic identity, but while the state will be approaching the EU these ideas will have to change; the politicians cannot keep the population hostage with pseudo-historic theories. more and more people there question everyday if what they have learnt in school was just crap... Hectorian 13:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Don’t blame me, its not my theories, the text above, is only a citation from a geek resource.

2. Halleluiah! You acknowledge that some historians and researchers say that the Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks.

3. is the Slav invasion theory a dogma fore you? - HLA Genes in Macedonians and sub-Saharan Origin of Greeks [11] Sorry another link from Macedonia.

4. I read the link you mention and it’s better to discuss ancient Macedonians on Talk:Ancient_Macedonians .I won’t discuss it any more on the Kalash sight.

5. I only propose “descendants of ancient Macedonian and Greek of Alexander the Great's army” Bye.194.236.207.147 18:30, 21 Januari 2007

I am willing to discuss only if non-FYRO"M" links will be cited... Sorry... Bye Hectorian 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The ancient Macedonians were mostly Hellenized by the 4th century BC! If we are talking genetics here, Slavo-Macedonians and Greeks are extremely close. It's like comparing the genetics between a village in the German-speaking Rhine and a village in the French-speaking lower Rhine. They are probably so similar, only separated by culture and language. The slavs who migrated into the Balkans (or were always there, as you implied *rolls eyes*) never dislodged the original Greek-speaking inhabitants. They merely merged with them, imposing their language on the region. Genetically, they are probably 95% similar to the people who lived there two thousand years ago and nearly identical to the other peoples around them. --Sean WI 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's settle some matters. Vlatkoto and Hectorian, as much as your arguments are precedented, there is obvious bias coming from both sides on the matter. I believe user 194.236.207.147 and Sean WI have stronger discourse on the subject. The subject of Ancient Macedonia and its separate cultural, social, and literate identity from the modern Greeks may never be settled. However, I believe that some things, at least for the sake of this article, can be solved. The fact that the possible origin of the Kalash as "Greek" as being strict fact, rather than basic controversial matter, is obnoxious and possibly as overstated as that of the strictly "Macedonian" origin. The most "correct" evidence remains at the idea that the majority consider themselves of a "Ancient Macedonian" heritage, whether it be as closely related to "Greek" as "Slavic Macedonian". Remember, the discussion for this topic remains at the origin of the Kalash, not the origin of "Ancient Macedonians". As of, I believe it suitable and most agreeable to give both "Ancient Macedonians" and "Greeks" as possible ancestors. Jotsko 06:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

wtf, the Kalash are Dards, and neither Greeks nor Macedonians. The silly "Macedonians were [not] Greeks" dispute doesn't even enter into this. The Kalash may or may not have ancestors among Alexander's army, leave that to the geneticists to decide, but do not allow the sad and boring "Macedonia" dispute spill onto this perfectly unrelated article. dab (𒁳) 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the attempt to somehow force the connection between these people and Hellenistic migration is not valid. I don't even understand how this originated. Their unique genetic make-up in this isolated region is probably the most well preserved group of ancient Indo-Europeans inhabitants. This should be stressed. Koalorka (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

These people had a very close connection to the Bactrian Empire which by looking at their coins show a Greek connection, this can not possibly be falsified. In addition to this, if the link is from Macedonian times which scholars say it is, then the Greek wording on the coins and some of the ancient artifacts is proof of this connectionHellasforever (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)hellas foreverHellasforever (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Kalasha not equal to Kalasha

I already observe the articles Kalasha and Kalasha language quite a long time. Beside a few inconsistencies, I have found now an essential knowledge-gap / mistake.

In these articles is talking repeatedly about “Kalasha”, in fact this is completely imprecise and confusing. There must be made a clear difference between “Nuristani Kalasha” and “Chitral Kalasha” (or call it something similar).

I am not a professional in this topic, but everyone can read in the Wikipedia that nowadays every former Kafir people in Nuristan is Islamic and has a different Indo-Iranian ethnic origin. This show perfects the big difference to the “Chitral Kalasha”, which have kept their original religion, culture and ethnicity. The furthermore one, these tribes live today also in different countries. So, it’s absolutely not practicable to use the term “Kalasha” in association with such unlike tribes.--lorn10 17:53, 14. June 2006 (CEST)

My suggestion is to move the whole article to Kalasha of Chitral or Chitral Kalasha.--lorn10 13:05, 16. June 2006 (CEST)

Wait a moment, I'm not certain this is the right decision; also the Nuristani Kalasha have passed to Islam only in the late 19th century, when they were subjected by Afghanistan, while the Kalasha of Chitral did not only because they had already been conquered by the British. A different religion, assumed also recently, doesn't seem enough to treat them as different people, especially considering I've heard the Nuristanis have maintained many pre-islamic usages.--Aldux 17:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are partly right; there are a lot of similarities, and the Chitral Kalasha belongs also to the Hindukush Kafir people. But these and the (former) religion is not the question in this case. We are talking about the original ethnic aspect.

I have asked Richard Strand, he is the professional in this topic. He confirmed me that the ethnic background of these two tribes is much further back differently. It seems (for Richard Strand it’s near sure), that the Kalasha of Chitral are a Dardic people with very strong Nuristani influences. They are both, but different branches of the Indo-Iranians. This division goes probably back some 5,000 years. Therefore, they do not rank among the Nuristani.

Remember (and in this point the more preceding “ethnic aspect” is secondarily) there exists (also still) an other (very different) Kalasha tribe. So, that's why we need in any case an exact separation. The Kalasha of Nuristan are absolutely not equal to the Kalasha of Chital. Richard’s Strand’s map shows it clearly (orange vs. green color)

http://users.sedona.net/~strand/lngMap.html

I know, to define an ethnicity it’s always a very difficult thing. --lorn10 21:21, 21. June 2006 (CEST)

The time is running, if nobody says a clear logical fact / argument against the new description, I will move this page to Kalasha of Chitral. --lorn10 11:43, 29. June 2006 (CEST)

The migration to the new article name is now finished. --lorn10 12:33, 8. Juli 2006 (CEST)

Proposed move

I propose that this article be moved to Kalash or Kalash people. Two reasons: the most common meaning of the term "Kalash"/"Kalasha" is the Kalasha of Chitral, making a disambig. page at Kalasha unecessary. Also, we should use the most common term in English, at least that's our policy, which is applied throughout our encyclopedia for establishing the titles of the articles.

It's not hard to see that Kalash is a much more common form, when speaking about the ethnic group.

• Results 1 - 10 of about 608,000 for "Kalash"
• Results 1 - 10 of about 34,300 for "Kalasha"

Or, if you trust printed books more:

• Books 1 - 10 with 2460 pages on "Kalash"
• Books 1 - 10 with 1340 pages on "Kalasha".

Khoikhoi 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have for long time not checked this page; I see your fundamental change the first time…. I am unsure if the change to “Kalash” (without Chitral) is really a good idea. Okay, in one thing you have absolutely right, the more common description is “Kalash”, but I ask you, because of that it’s automatic the better, the more accurate one? Sorry, my simply answer is no.

Please consider, one of the main goals of the Wikipedia is not to repeat imprecise understandings, or to reflect 1:1 (often suppressed) official widely compatible information on the WWW. The Wikipedia must fully use its unique advantages, and sometimes, if necessary, also break with common imprecise meanings.

Ok, what I mean exactly here: According to Richard Strand, and not only to him, it is almost certainly, that the term Kalash(a) has its origin by the former Kafir people, of former Kafiristan. So, the Chitral Kalasha has overtaken this name, their original name was a different one, - they have this name only adopted.

Second important note, please don’t use and understand the term Nuristani as a homogeny ethnic group. It’s much more a collective term, a language family, but not a clean 100% purely ethnicity. Therefore it’s not right to describe the Nuristan Kalasha only as Nuristani; it is alike wrongly to explain the Chitral Kalasha just as Dards. Otherwise you will destroy or ignore the relation of these two ancient Indo-Aryan tribes.

If someone has arguments against my position, please let me them know. We will see what the future brings, and if we shift back to Chitral Kalash(a). --lorn10 15:40, 13. April 2007 (CET)

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). While I agree that we should use the most accurate terminology for titles on Wikipedia, that would mean we would also have to move sea cucumber to Holothurian. The Kalash of Chitral are normally referred to as simply "Kalash" (see Google Scholar). Although I would agree with you if the Kalash of Nuristan were as well known under this name, one has to admit that one is more common than the other, and that's how Wikipedia guidelines work. I have no problem with you changing the part about Nuristanis in the article, as long as you cite a reliable source. Regards, Khoikhoi 06:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have now more time remaining; let’s talk about the proposed article move. As I see, we have two logical possibilities:

• Kalash of Chitral

• Chitral Kalash

I am open for every (serious-meant) suggestions / opinions.

The next important point concerns the (lovely) “Naming conventions”. I agree absolutely with you, “reliable sources” are one of the determining points. But what, if (like in this special situation here) the most of "the sources" simply do not follow (like ethnologue) fundamental, fair, recent-time minimum standards. If there are clearly discriminating, detractive or depreciatory?

An example, Richard Strand mentioned at his Website, the most common Nuristani tribe names contains clear negative or pejorative elements. They are all not self-designations they are all foreign designations.

I know that’s quite unorthodox, but in our thematic here I support the use of the native (anglicised) self designations of the corresponding ethic group / Nuristani tribe.

--lorn10 14:12, 12. Mai 2007 (CET)

I moved it to the alternate proposal, Kalash people, to make way for the dab page. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Albanians

The link with Albanians has always be neglected !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.65.185.49 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

If there is a link between the Kalash and Albanian peoples, you are more than welcome to add it to the article. --Sean WI 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No link with the Albanians can be established. Even with the Illyrians a link can't be established. Not even a clear link between the Albanians and the Illyrians has been established (see Origin of Albanians)... So, any link between the Albanians and the Kalash would be an hypothesis of the hypothesis of an hypothesis! Lets be serious, please... Hectorian 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's healthy to encourage people to use proper scholarly sources, but yeah, there's nothing to even suggest an Illyrian link. --Sean WI 04:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

U are right:). Let them use academic sources; they will see themselves... Hectorian 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Music

Is there any information about the music of the Kalash anywhere? Some videos show them playing drums and pipes... I'd imagine that their musical traditions might also be quite distinct from those in the surrounding areas. Esn 12:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a very good sub-section under "culture." There are some academic articles on Kalash music from JSTOR (I believe), and I'll check my National Geographic issue to see if it mentions anything on their music. Other than that, we might be able to check Greek sources on the subject - which someone else would have to do. --Sean WI 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek nationalism

ok, there seems to be a lot of nonsense flying around in terms of "Kalash are Macedonians!!1" (search for 'Kalash' on youtube) Why the Greek nationalists should be so keen on the connection I don't know, but then these things seldom make sense. In any case, we have to look out for drive-by pov-pushing along these lines. The fact of the matter is rather pedestrian: Greek admixture has been proposed for the Kalash, which would not be all too spectacular seeing the Indo-Greek connection in Hellenistic times, but genetic evidence so far seems to be inconclusive. Everything further seems to be the usual mysticism diffused by the Greek nationalist crowd (poor Kalashas...). dab (𒁳) 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Genetic evidence is not inconclusive but confirms that the kalasha males Y-Haplogroup DNA is same as the surrounding populations of pakistan , thus proving that greek origin is a myth possibly created by foreigners over the centuries like britishers etc who are notorious for that act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.58.115.25 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What 141.58.115.25 writes is exactly the point ive been trying to make all along.-99.225.116.222 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It does definately not seem to me that greeks insist on a connection between greece and the kalash people. But what greeks insist on, is that IF there is a connection between the kalash and ancient Macedonians, it ABSOLUTELY does not result in a connection between the Kalash (or any other population hypothetically related to ancient Macedonia) and the FYROM state and its slavic-bulgarian people.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.238.118 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Girls, women, and marriage

How young do girls marry in Kalash? And do they still follow the Bride Price system to this day? Zachorious 02:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Girls marry according to their own choice, unlike the surrounding Muslims where the father of the girl decides whom the girl must marry and the girl is often not involved in the decision. Girls are usually married by age 16. The Kalash groom by custom gives presents to the parents of the girl, such as a cow, several goats, a rifle, or other possessions, but generally not money. After that, if the girl does not like her husband she will write letters to men she likes better offering to elope with and marry that man but informing him that ultimately he must pay double money, that is two cows if the original husband paid one cow. Also, the Kalash are not polygamous, unlike the surrounding Muslims, so a man cannot collect a bunch of wives and sell them off to the highest bidder. If a man looses his wife because another man paid two cows for her, he will probably use those two cows to get a new wife for himself. Yes, they still follow this system to this day. An interesting problem arises out of this. Sam Sloan 08:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

thats the most retard thing i've heard Sam, and muslim don't collect and sell wives. Dunkerya 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sam Sloan is unbelievably ignorant with regards the customs of both the Kalash and Muslims in the region. 92.12.71.86 (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

mythology

Please add a source for the "The Kalash pantheon is thus the last untouched, living representative of Indo-European mythology." claim. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems in a article

Hello I am coming to these website to see what is written about my peoples. I am Kalasha on my fathers family and I was very mad to see what is write about my peoples. We are from Makhedonia not a Bulgaria or a Greece. This is not correct information write in article. I show this to my family and they laughing. We are peoples from army of Alexander Macedonian we are not Greeks or Bulgarian!!! Please make changing to article it is INCORRECT. Khan bangledesh (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is generally good, based on solid reliable sources (see WP:RS). I suggest you provide a few reliable sources for your claims, bring them here for discussion and then we’ll see. Furthermore, your repeated statements like "We are from Makhedonia not a Bulgaria or a Greece", "army of Alexander Macedonian we are not Greeks or Bulgarian" etc. allow us to assume that either history is not your subject or you are a Slavmacedonian nationalist who tries to add imaginary pseudo-history in Wikipedia. See section Macedonian Arguement (Let's try to settle this) above. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello nice you answer me. I come from Kalasha-Bengali family. My father is Kalasha and my mother is Bengali. My father is always telling me that we are peoples from Alexander Makhedonian. We is never think we are a Bulgarian!! or a Greek!!. I visit my village first time last year and asking my relative about Alexander Makhedonian. They never saying Bulgarian!! or Greek!! Even the Greek is come and make office close to my village and telling peoples to come to Greece but the Raja is saying no. I ask my family again if we is Bulgarian they say no. I ask if we is Greece they say no. They say we are peoples of Alexander Makhedonian. Khan bangledesh (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is too good to miss :-) Of course we all believed you mate! --   Avg    15:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I think the general idea is that Alexander the Great (and his army) were, in fact, Greek. "Bulgarian" is silly, of course. dab (𒁳) 15:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC) I THINK THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT MACEDOONIAN WAS MACEDONIAN, NOT GREEK, NOR BULGARIAN.Rtgs (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Why do you keep on deleting this opinion, and you don't delete the other opinion from somebody dbacham, who thinks something wrong??? Are you afraid from the truth???Rtgs (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how Dbachmann thinking is more "relevant" than mine, so some greek user to leave it, and delete mine, because of "Reverting irrelevant unhistorical claim"???? Rtgs (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

this is not the page for discussing the nationality of Alexander or his army. The Kalash-Macedonian connection is very dubious indeed, but it can be mentioned because we have some studies to quote. That's it, really. Avoid WP:SYN by using "however", "although" and similar tricks to push the desired outcome. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rtgs, read Alexander the Great and Ancient Macedonians articles. Now lets stay on topic guys.The Cat and the Owl (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Future Sources

Just for future references to my self or anyone else, here are some sources:

• Telegraph Newspaper
• HKC Charity

--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.citizensugar.com/1641958 Not sure how stable the site is. 72.226.64.201 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Animists

Why are the Kalash called animists when their pantheon include the Vedic gods? Animals eg. cows, draught animals on special days, trees and objects - trucks, equipments, weapons are worshipped all over India, does that make all Indians animists? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Without making specific reference to the Kalash, this may say more about the pre-Vedic origins of the Vedic pantheon (and of Indo-European religions generally, see the article on Proto-Indo-European religion) than anything else. Animism in general describes a type of world view in which all things, whether animate or inanimate, are viewed as being imbued with some sort of soul. What is known of the earliest layer of Roman religious belief is consistent with animism, as all things were viewed as having a numen. Roman religion and Vedic religion (as well as Kalash religion) are developments of a Proto-Indo-European religion about which we have only the inferences we can draw from comparative linguistics and comparative mythology. In the historical period, the Romans developed a formal pantheon, typically by adopting the Greek pantheon under Latin names. Burkert notes that the Greeks also originally had an image-less form of worship, apparently without the well-known Greek pantheon of classical times. The Kalash religion as described in this article may be typical of Indo-European religions of the prehistoric early Bronze Age period (noting that Vedic and classical Greek religion dating from the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age).

-- Bob Bob99 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Kalash Origins Not Helpful

Based on the information contained in this article, especially the DNA analysis, there does not appear to be any reason to reach any conclusion about the origins of the Kalash. It appears they they are closely related to each other but not so much to other populations, though they have the most affinity with populations in Western Asia and Eastern Europe. All of this is consistent with most thinking about Indo-European origins and could support any of the hypotheses for Kalash origins which have been proposed. That means, it does not disprove any hypothesis. It is possible that they are an isolated remnant of an indigenous network of Indo-European populations which at one time probably extended from the Hindu Kush to what some Indo-Europeanists have termed the Pontic-Caspian interaction zone (encompassing the areas of the Black and Caspian Seas). It is also possible that the ancestors of the Kalash migrated from somewhere else. Since their language is not Greek, their DNA is not Greek, and their deity names appear to be Indo-Iranian rather than Greek, it is unlikely that they were Greeks. However, they could be descendant from an Indo-Iranian contigent of Alexander's army. The fact that there is limited information does not mean that people should argue based on emotion. It means that people should accept what objective information there is and admit that it is not enough for reaching a definitive conclusion. -- Bob Bob99 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A truly fascinating group. Looking at the results of the genetic studies coupled with the geographic isolation of the Kalash, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to conclude that they are one of the best preserved descendants of the prehistoric Indo-European nations thought to have originated in these regions. Koalorka (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Khoda - "islamic influence"

Wouldn't it be fairer to call it evidence of Pashto or Punjabi cultural influence?Domsta333 (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)