Ancestry Of Jats

[LETHALFORCE]

Ancient Aryan route to the subcontinent?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

http://www.jatland.com/home/Indo-Aryan_origin_of_Jats

Indo-Aryan origin of Jats

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Speculated migration of jats to and from india

 

[bennedose]

Why are they differentiating indo sythians and indo Aryans ? I always read that vast majority of North Indians , Pakistanis some afghans and Iranians were Aryans?

Note that the word "Arya" in the Rig Veda means "noble". There is no word called "Aryan". It has been made up to suit cooked up racist history which has been swallowed by us Indians. I will explain

This is basically a nonsense story that has racist European white supremacist origins. I have original references and actually started writing a now incomplete book but I will summarize. But you need to understand European history from the 1800s to 1900s
The Old Testament has the story of Noah (of Noah's Ark) who had 3 sons
1. Ham
2. Shem
3. Japheth

Ham was supposed to have seen his father naked, so Noah cursed him and said his descendants would be slaves. Africans and Blacks were "Ham's children" or Hamites. Shem's descendants became Shem-ites (Semites) - i.e Arabs and Jews. Japheth's descendants became white Christian Europeans. Hamites were inferior and Semites (jews) were hated.

A highly religious Christian Europe believed this story until so called "Assyriologists" discovered ruins from biblical times in Syria and Iraq. This caused great distress in Europe because the hated Semites had a history older than Europe. This taqleef continued till Europeans "discovered" Sanskrit and the Rig Veda as being older than any of these. Initially Sanskrit was thought to be a "mother language" of European languages, and fair skinned upper caste Indians were considered to be brothers of Europeans (which upper caste North Indians and other Indian Brahmins liked very much). This gave the Christian Europeans a history older than the hated Jews. Later the racist tendencies of Europe came to the fore. Aldous Huxley asked "How can the black Indian be our equal?" So the story was made up that the superior "Aryans" came from Europe to India taking their language with them and finally in India the people got "degraded" by mingling with black locals. Technically any Indian who believes this concocted story must accept that he is a "degraded mixed race Aryan" because he is a descendant of a mixture of pure ("Pakhi") Aryans with corrupt black people.

Indians need to open their eyes and discard this idiotic theory.

 

[bennedose]

Speculated migration of jats to and from india

It is pure speculation. It is an Indian internalization of a racist European story that was created to put Europeans as superior race. No matter how many Indians or Jats think they mey be from "there" they are only riding as uninvited ticketless passengers on a racist theory to put Europeans on top. No Indian will ever be included among the "fair Europeans". Only Indians like to do oneupmanship over other Indians in a mirror image adoption of what is a concocted racist European story.

I know people from Tamil Nadu who think they are descended from Greeks. I don;t know why Indians are so desperate to be associated with white man. I think it is a masive inferiority complex

 

[pmaitra]

Are you saying that the 1857 war of independence was fought by Indians because the kings of the soldiers who fought in that so called "rebellion" wanted their men to fight against the British and the men who supported the British had kings who wanted them to support the British?

This is totally wrong.

No. I said what I said.

The declaration of "martial races" came after the 1857 war when British Indian troops under the British monarch rebelled. That is they fought against their "king", and did not take his orders. The British wanted to retain the loyalty of the troops from Northwest India who helped them, as opposed to the "Politically active Bengalis and Eastern Indians". This set the stage for praising the loyal troops of the Northwest as "martial races" who were resistant to sexually transmitted diseases (amongst other laudable characteristics) while the Bengali was condemned as an unreliable coward. These nonsensical attitudes were absorbed and internalized by many Indians under the British.

Ok.


However, most Bengalis were never loyal to the British, and neither they have the quality of being a cohesive unit. Bengalis are culturally disparate and extremely individualistic. This has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice. Bengalis dominate the list of freedom fighters that is there at the Cellular Jail. I think there is a general lack of discipline that is required of a large number of people if they are to be trained to work together as one unit. Most Bengalis I know want to be the leader, but few want to be the follower. Even if you see today, Bengalis do not mind fighting for political reasons, as is evident from the decades of political violence and death toll, but there are relatively fewer Bengalis in the Armed Forces. It is one thing to be brave, i.e., not fearing death, and quite another being a cohesive fighting unit. The Anglo-Gurkha Wars is a good example. Despite being brave, The Gurkhas lost to superior technology and training.

If no 'migration' took place, then how/where/when, does one collect genetic evidence to falsify migration.

Genetic evidence, either way, will be difficult to find that will stand the test of statistical significance. There is no solid evidence to prove Aryan Migration/Invasion Theory. There is no solid evidence to prove ANI/ASI Theory. There are two facts that no one can deny:

1. Evidence from Linguistic Anthropology
2. Evidence from Diversity of Appearance

Yes there is diversity. Actually terrible diversity - we harbour all the recognizable morphologies found in other part of the world.

But is that because all the migrations converged upon India or is it because India seeded the rest of the world.

Now well that is a tough choice to make. Nahi kya?

Like we have people with distinctive features that are found say in China, Far East, South East Asia. So by your logic migration also took place from all/any of these places into India.

Also we seem to have lesser number of people with features matching the Africans, except probably Siddis. And by the same logic non of the Indian ancestors should have migrated from the Africas.

How probable do you think it would be that several waves of immigration from all China/Far East, South East Asia, Central Asia, Tibet, Sri Lanka and Mauritius, even Ache/Australia and Newzie Maories (but mind you-absolutely none from Africa), interacted with the pre-existing local populations.

And how pre-existing were these pre-existing local populations that absorbed these inward cultural/genetic migrations.

Accha does this logic apply to other forms of natural life. Like say a forest. Does the forest exist because all the different varieties located at different edges of it converge to form a forest. Or is it the other way round.

Would you find the diversity and more ancient forms inside the forest and more specialized forms towards the outside or would it be the other way round.

Does specialization take place to manage the new circumstances or do specializations take place just so that diversity can be maintained. Maintained because diversity is holy and constitutionally mandated/protected.

Would the same bulk and brane idea also apply to something like a fluid flow also where the turbulence, that arises on account of a special condition being fulfilled, is towards the edge while the settled flow lies towards the interiors. Can I say for example claim that the settled flow exists because a lot of turbulence converged to created one settled flow.

Yes, there is this subject called craniometry. Anthropological studies have actually given rise to lot of metrics that are widely used. I have had the opportunity to use the Mahalanobis distance in my work, which originated from Anthropological studies. The inventor was P. C. Mahalanobis, the founder of ISI.

No. Morphological diversity can occur because of difference in expression of genes, not necessarily because of genetic diversity. For that reason, morphological diversity does not match genetic diversity "nose for nose" or "gene for gene". What this means is that you can take gene samples from aUP Brahmin and a Bastar tribal from Orissa and you will only find out
1. They are human
2. They are different individuals
3. It is possible to say that both are from the Indian subcontinent
4. Nothing further can be said about their appearance, height, skin color, nose shape, head shape etc

On the other hand, take a blue eyed dark haired Kashmiri and a similar appearing person from Europe and check their genes you will find
1. They are human
2. They are different individuals
3. There are gene markers that indicate that they could be from different geographic regions
4. Nothing further can be said about their appearance, height, skin color, nose shape, head shape etc

Not necessarily, but possibly.

Genetic mutation is true, and so is genetic mixture. Humans from all over the world have, IIRC, at the least, 97% similarity. So, no test that I know of is statistically significant.

 

[pmaitra]

Actually yes. Genetics does explain why your nose is pasted onto your face. :biggrin2:

I know you are a medical student, but please, never argue genetics if you don't have a good grasp of statistics.

 

[pmaitra]

Why are they differentiating indo sythians and indo Aryans ? I always read that vast majority of North Indians , Pakistanis some afghans and Iranians were Aryans?

I miss @civfanatic in this discussion.

Yes, Iran is the land of Aryans, and Iranians are Aryans. There is also a place called Iran-Shahr in Iran. The words Iran and Aryan are ancient.

We must understand that Vedic and Zoroastrian societies existed as neighbours, and shared a lot in common, but also shared certain contradictions. It is not unimaginable to have one word used by two neighbouring societies, and have the meaning of the word morphed over in one place to eventually assume a different meaning.

Like the word "wedding" means a man and a woman getting married, but the real meaning is that a man pledges something (goats, cows), so that he can take a woman as his wife. Similarly, the word Aryan could have developed a new meaning in India. Sure, it means "noble," but that does not mean it does not mean "a person from Iran." Perhaps the people who migrated from Iran called themselves noble, and thus this attachment of a new meaning.

 

[bennedose]

There are two facts that no one can deny:

1. Evidence from Linguistic Anthropology
2. Evidence from Diversity of Appearance

Yes, there is this subject called craniometry. Anthropological studies have actually given rise to lot of metrics that are widely used. I have had the opportunity to use the Mahalanobis distance in my work, which originated from Anthropological studies. The inventor was P. C. Mahalanobis, the founder of ISI.
.

We are going to continue to disagree.

Race based on appearance is nonsense/non-science.

Linguistic anthropology has nothing to do with races or genetics but is a sociological method to study how language influences societies.

I have great respect for Mahalanobis as a mathematician, but craniometry continues to be nonsense and it was fashionable in his era to believe that there was science in there. There isn't. Craniometry and Phrenology were used to determine "criminality" among other things. If Mahalanobis has anything worthwhile to look at I would be happy to look at it - but Mahalanobis' name, well known in statistics, is not known in the racist study of cranial measurements.

I would like to be shown one scholarly university dept anywhere in the west, (whose "scientists" invented these nonsensical metrics) that now accepts any of these subjects as valid science.

 

[bennedose]

At the time of Darius - about 500 BC, Iran was called themselves "Persia" (Parsyayi) - here is a translation from the 500 BC Behistun inscription of Iran
http://www.livius.org/be-bm/behistun/behistun-t01.html
Darius says that he is the Kshatriya (king) of Persia in old Persian language which is like Sanskrit

The name "Aria" comes as follows:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aria-region-in-the-eastern-part-of-the-persian-empire

ARIA, name of a region in the eastern part of the Persian empire, several times confused with Ariane

1. Aria (Greek Areia/Aria, Latin Arīa, representing Old Pers. Haraiva, Avestan Haraēuua), Old Persian satrapy, which enclosed chiefly the valley of the river Harī Rūd (Greek Areios, this being eponymous to the whole land according to Arrian (Anabasis 4.6.6) and which in antiquity was considered as particularly fertile and, above all, rich in wine; its capital was Alexandria (probably since 330 B.C.), the modern Herāt (northwest Afghanistan).

 

[bennedose]

Why should tall, fair skinned and supposedly "martial" people in North West India have originated in Europe? They could well have originated from the wide region northwest of India that includes Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.

It is only because of European white supremacist "science" fed to us as "education" that Indians believe that superior, white, martial Aryans came from Europe. The Aryan Migration theory has all these components "White, tall, martial, victorious and wise". So why should any Indian believe this to be true? It is so obviously a plant

The biggest problem is that about 15000 to 10000 years ago Europe was almost completely depopulated because of the Ice Age. India was not depopulated. Repopulation of Europe started again about 10,000 years ago. Indian populations date as far back as 70,000 years

Why do we believe that people went to Europe in the last 10,000 years, became white, martial, intelligent and then came to India?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

There is strong evidence for Aryan or arya people . I don't believe all the theories but there were people that invaded or there were a series of invasions ? This is not about skin color. Aryans can be thought of as Vedic people. In my jat migration map you see I wrote speculated as most history really is.

 

[Srinivas_K]

Why are they differentiating indo sythians and indo Aryans ? I always read that vast majority of North Indians , Pakistanis some afghans and Iranians were Aryans?

Define Aryans?

India is a society of various tribes who migrated through out history. Even in small region of North India people of various tribes live together under one caste, same case with south, west and east !

 

[pmaitra]

We are going to continue to disagree.

Most likely so.

Race based on appearance is nonsense/non-science.

Difference in appearance indeed distinguishes one race from another.

Linguistic anthropology has nothing to do with races or genetics but is a sociological method to study how language influences societies.

Not quite. Linguistic anthropology does indicate possible migration routes. It is not complete evidence, but a part of the total evidence. Small bits of evidence added together add greater credibility to a theory.

I have great respect for Mahalanobis as a mathematician, but craniometry continues to be nonsense and it was fashionable in his era to believe that there was science in there. There isn't. Craniometry and Phrenology were used to determine "criminality" among other things. If Mahalanobis has anything worthwhile to look at I would be happy to look at it - but Mahalanobis' name, well known in statistics, is not known in the racist study of cranial measurements.

Phrenology is off topic, doesn't add value to the discussion, but only helps in adding deflection. It is also a strawman. Please debate phrenology with whoever wants to debate phrenology.

Let's talk about craniometry. The shape of our bones reflect upon our appearance. If what you claim, that craniometry is nonsense, were to be true, then similar sciences, like reconstructing dinosaurs based on their bones is also nonsense. That is a hard sell.

I would like to be shown one scholarly university dept anywhere in the west, (whose "scientists" invented these nonsensical metrics) that now accepts any of these subjects as valid science.

I would refer you to a simple metric called Chi-Square metric. Please see the relationship between degree of freedom with statistical significance. Once you do that, you would realize why you will never get any conclusive answer to support AIT/AMT or ASI/ANI theories.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Why should tall, fair skinned and supposedly "martial" people in North West India have originated in Europe? They could well have originated from the wide region northwest of India that includes Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.

It is only because of European white supremacist "science" fed to us as "education" that Indians believe that superior, white, martial Aryans came from Europe. The Aryan Migration theory has all these components "White, tall, martial, victorious and wise". So why should any Indian believe this to be true? It is so obviously a plant

Another reason why a few educated folks from agrarian and pastoral communities believe foreign theories is that it gives them a leg up over the traditional narrative, which they term "brahmanical".

The mass of Jats, Meenas, Ahirs, Yadavs, Gujjars, etc don't have any tradition of foreign origins. But the educated few among them can proclaim social superiority via the Scythian theory.

Rajputs gain absolutely nothing from the Scythian theory, so the educated among them assert indigenous origins.

 

[Razor]

As @Mad Indian mentioned, AIT/AMT have pretty much been kicked out, even linguistically, which is really the only domain where they are even discussed due some inconsistencies their solution proposed i is full of holes, and is by no means conclusive.

AIT is not even talked about these days by even it's last defender Witzel, (but he still says there was a migration, and that he has genetic proof.....which he conveniently refuses to present).

When @Peter wrote in the other thread about AIT/AMT being "absolutely true" I was surprised because almost no one apart from some hardcore dravidian nationalist types believe in that.

When I asked for proof about what makes him sure about AIT, he confuses ANI/ASI populations living in India some 50,000 years ago (atleast) as Aryans and Dravidians and worse presents that as "proof" for Aryan invasions, an event that supposedly occurred 3000-4000 years ago.


Here is a very simple to the point write up, with multiple references to studies done by MIT and nature magazine.



This has been pretty much accepted by most anthropologists, refer to the thread posted above for statements.

Here is the important one:

"This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide."
"There is no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India."
The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally upper and lower castes and tribal groups. "The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society."
"Impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different."
The present-day Indian population is a mix of ancient north and south bearing the genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations - the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI).
"The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,'' said Thangarajan. He added, "At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India."
The study also helps understand why the incidence of genetic diseases among Indians is different from the rest of the world. Singh said that 70% of Indians were burdened with genetic disorders and the study could help answer why certain conditions restricted themselves to one population. For instance, breast cancer among Parsi women, motor neuron diseases among residents of Tirupati and Chittoor, or sickle cell anaemia among certain tribes in central India and the North-East can now be understood better, said researchers.
The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world.

I m not sure if we actually have conflicting views.

Are you saying that there have been no invasions into the Indian sub-continent since 40k years back?

Also just a quick question: 132 individuals across 25 diverse groups implies about 5 individuals per group. Is that a large enough sample size? Just curious.

 

[Razor]

Because taking up of something as massive as "religion, language, Culture" requires that the donar has a better culture?!?!. Is it not obvious? Why would a civilised society copy culture from barbaric nomads . And how the hell would nomads have more culture than civilised societies?


I am actually puzzled you are even asking this question!

Islamic invasions have ensured that nearly half the population and the richest, most fertile lands of the Indian sub-continent are lost.
One with bigger stick, wins.

Again, this is completely contradictory to the claim of no migration. First decide whether there was migration/settlement. Genetics have proved that there have been no migration into Indian subcontinent for the past 12000bce which blows AIT/AMT right out of the window.

So you are suggesting that Aleaxander and the macedons, never met Porus, no central asians led by Mr. Babur came here, brits, etc.

And If Aryan dravidian divide is actually a thing, why do we find no record of such distinction in any of our texts - be it sanskrit or be it in Tamil?

Try reading rig veda.

Now they are desperately clutching at straws that there was only cultural migration and other such bull shit instead of the obvious answer - culture originated in India . Why do you think it is far more likely that the culture came from outside of India rather than originate here? Do you have any justifications?

When a bunch of monks from xtianity met native pagans religions of rome, they mixed together to form the xtianity we know as roman catholic religion. Similarly when islam came in contact with SE east asia they again mixed to form a systems which incorporates several ideas from both systems.

 

[Razor]

Oh man. Looking at the euro wannabes here, I can only guess how badly Indians lack self esteem

Since when did C. Asia and Southern Russia become "euro"?
Is this the famous straw man ?

 

[Razor]

Note that the word "Arya" in the Rig Veda means "noble". There is no word called "Aryan". It has been made up to suit cooked up racist history which has been swallowed by us Indians. I will explain

This is basically a nonsense story that has racist European white supremacist origins. I have original references and actually started writing a now incomplete book but I will summarize. But you need to understand European history from the 1800s to 1900s
The Old Testament has the story of Noah (of Noah's Ark) who had 3 sons
1. Ham
2. Shem
3. Japheth

Ham was supposed to have seen his father naked, so Noah cursed him and said his descendants would be slaves. Africans and Blacks were "Ham's children" or Hamites. Shem's descendants became Shem-ites (Semites) - i.e Arabs and Jews. Japheth's descendants became white Christian Europeans. Hamites were inferior and Semites (jews) were hated.

A highly religious Christian Europe believed this story until so called "Assyriologists" discovered ruins from biblical times in Syria and Iraq. This caused great distress in Europe because the hated Semites had a history older than Europe. This taqleef continued till Europeans "discovered" Sanskrit and the Rig Veda as being older than any of these. Initially Sanskrit was thought to be a "mother language" of European languages, and fair skinned upper caste Indians were considered to be brothers of Europeans (which upper caste North Indians and other Indian Brahmins liked very much). This gave the Christian Europeans a history older than the hated Jews. Later the racist tendencies of Europe came to the fore. Aldous Huxley asked "How can the black Indian be our equal?" So the story was made up that the superior "Aryans" came from Europe to India taking their language with them and finally in India the people got "degraded" by mingling with black locals. Technically any Indian who believes this concocted story must accept that he is a "degraded mixed race Aryan" because he is a descendant of a mixture of pure ("Pakhi") Aryans with corrupt black people.

Indians need to open their eyes and discard this idiotic theory.

What about the word Iran (Eran)? Several thousand years older than these AIT?
How about the greek word ariana. Quite older than these AIT/AMT/OIT theories I presume.

Why have you written these bible ki kahaaniyan?

 

[Mad Indian]

Since when did C. Asia and Southern Russia become "euro"?
Is this the famous straw man ?

Who said I was talking about You???

I am talking about the people who desperately cling onto their Indo-aryan connections when there is none