Ancestry Of Jats

[Mad Indian]

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.

I can draw a Map showing migration from Antarctica and Artic. That wont make it right. And no, there is no strong evidence for Aryan people. In fact there is strong genetic evidence that AIT/AMT did not happen

 

[Mad Indian]

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.

Yes, but that would imply invasion and conquest, which genetics has ruled it out wrt AIT/AMT. And you said you dont think there was invasion and that only cultural migration, which now you want to change to invasion? Thats why I said its impossible. Seriously dude, instead of these back and forth logical somersaults, stick to occams razor - IVC was Indian-pure and simple as all the evidence points to the same.

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

What a ridiculous question. When we talk about migrations, we talk about it in the scale wrt to the theory we are discussing. By the same logic, Indians have migrated to US in large amount. So with the few genetics markers for Indians there, we can concluded that Indians were the forefathers of USA? Seriously dude, stop clutching at straws

Try reading rig veda.

Actually, thats the problem.Vedas are not hard science. It can be interpreted in many ways depending ont he person interpreting it. @LurkerBaba even said that Rig veda cant be intrepreted as it is only a hymn. So subjective interpretation of vedas <<<<<< Objective data researched on genetics.

. Similarly when islam came in contact with SE east asia they again mixed to form a systems which incorporates several ideas from both systems.

Dude, since when did SEA start speaking Arabic ? Seriously, make up your mind, which part of culture got migrated? Language , religion , both? So you are going to claim with a straight face that the largest country of the world at the time - India actually got its language(Sanskrit) and customs(Hinduism) from the central asian nomads who had just then settled there?

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

Again, Xtianity had political patronage and of course, the Xtianity is indeed a superior culture to the Roman pagans. And Xtianity originiated in a well settled culture and not a bucnh of nomads. And even xtianity spread did not spread the language.

 

[Mad Indian]

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.

Dude, the genetic evidence is very hard and has been fact checked and peer reviewed countless times. And the increased sample size only increases the validity of the now established opinion that AIT/AMT is BS.

Thats why even the original AIT/AMT proponents , .ie the likes of Romilla thappar , have started talking cultural migration and other BS since that would require no genetic proof .

Seriously, you guys remind me of the creationists who talk trash about genetic and other evidence against evolution

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Dude, the genetic evidence is very hard and has been fact checked and peer reviewed countless times. And the increased sample size only increases the validity of the now established opinion that AIT/AMT is BS.

Thats why even the original AIT/AMT proponents , .ie the likes of Romilla thappar , have started talking cultural migration and other BS since that would require no genetic proof .

Seriously, you guys remind me of the creationists who talk trash about genetic and other evidence against evolution

Interesting. Can yo point me to a source where Romila or her ilk present cultural migration?

 

[Mad Indian]

Interesting. Can yo point me to a source where Romila or her ilk present cultural migration?

http://varnam.nationalinterest.in/2004/03/romila_thapar_no_aryan_invasio/

Notice how she is saying that Aryan was a linguistic distinction and not a racial one (.ie it can't be disproven by genetics since linguistics will take it to cultural territory?)
Also, I will try to find other links for the same.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

http://varnam.nationalinterest.in/2004/03/romila_thapar_no_aryan_invasio/

Notice how she is saying that Aryan was a linguistic distinction and not a racial one (.ie it can't be disproven by genetics since linguistics will take it to cultural territory?)
Also, I will try to find other links for the same.

But can't linguistics be trashed as well if the genetics can show that Indians and Iranians separated long before they developed similar language structure? Also, if it can show that migration happened in other direction.

 

[Mad Indian]

But can't linguistics be trashed as well if the genetics can show that Indians and Iranians separated long before they developed similar language structure? Also, if it can show that migration happened in other direction.

There are linguistics evidence to show the migration towards central Asia and Europe from India, but of course the problem is that most of these evidences are very subjective and open to interpretation. That's why Only genetics can be a hard evidence in such cases. It can't be disputed or manipulated.

And I am pretty sure that the linguistic division of indo European and Dravidian family itself is bogus from start to finish. If that's the case, how do you expect it to measure the truth?

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

There are linguistics evidence to show the migration towards central Asia and Europe from India, but of course the problem is that most of these evidences are very subjective and open to interpretation. That's why Only genetics can be a hard evidence in such cases. It can't be disputed or manipulated.

And I am pretty sure that the linguistic division of indo European and Dravidian family itself is bogus from start to finish. If that's the case, how do you expect it to measure the truth?

I am sure it would be settled in the near future. Ofcourse, some subjectivity would remain.

 

[Mad Indian]

I am sure it would be settled in the near future. Ofcourse, some subjectivity would remain.

May be. We might have more evidence in favour of OIT in the coning years. But one thing for sure is that AIT and AMT are pure fiction from start to finish

 

[TejasMK3]

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.

No, what the they are trying to say is that there has been no substantial gene flow into the subcontinent, during the years when the supposed "Aryan Invasion/Migration" happened, which basically rules out an external agent influencing the gene pool during those years (4500-800 BC).

This paper takes into account many other studies conducted in recent times, involving thousands, and not just 132 individuals.

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html

A (2009) study headed by geneticist Swarkar Sharma, collated information for 2809 Indians (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes). The results showed "no consistent pattern of the exclusive presence and distribution of Y-haplogroups to distinguish the higher-most caste, Brahmins, from the lower-most ones, schedule castes and tribals". Brahmins from West Bengal showed the highest frequency (72.22%) of Y-haplogroups R1a1* hinting that it may have been a founder lineage for this caste group. The authors found it significant that the Saharia tribe of Madhya Pradesh had not only 28.07% R1a1, but also 22.8% R1a*, out of 57 people, with such a high percentage of R1a* never having been found before. Based on STR variance the estimated age of R1a* in India was 18,478 years, and for R1a1 it was 13,768 years.
In its conclusions the study proposed "the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins" as well as "the origin of R1a1* ... in the Indian subcontinent".
S. Sharma, argued for an Indian origin of R1a1 lineage among Brahmins, by pointing out the highest incidence of R1a*, ancestral clade to R1a1, among Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) and Saharias, an Indian tribe.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15339343?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

Metspalu M1, Kivisild T, Metspalu E, Parik J, Hudjashov G, Kaldma K, Serk P, Karmin M, Behar DM, Gilbert MT, Endicott P, Mastana S, Papiha SS, Skorecki K,Torroni A, Villems R.

Since the initial peopling of South and West Asia by anatomically modern humans, when this region may well have provided the initial settlers who colonized much of the rest of Eurasia, the gene flow in and out of India of the maternally transmitted mtDNA has been surprisingly limited. Specifically, our analysis of the mtDNA haplogroups, which are shared between Indian and Iranian populations and exhibit coalescence ages corresponding to around the early Upper Paleolithic, indicates that they are present in India largely as Indian-specific sub-lineages. In contrast, other ancient Indian-specific variants of M and R are very rare outside the sub-continent.

Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill. - 2006:

Based on 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations, it announced in its very title how its findings revealed a “Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists,” i.e. of the Indo-Aryans, and stated its general agreement with the previous study. For instance, the authors rejected the identification of some Y-DNA genetic markers with an “Indo-European expansion,” an identification they called “convenient but incorrect ... overly simplistic.” To them, the subcontinent’s genetic landscape was formed much earlier than the dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan immigration: “The influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. ... There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily the recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a lineages.”
“Dravidian” authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization rejected indirectly, since it noted, “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus....” They found, in conclusion, “overwhelming support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers.”
The frequencies of R2 seems to mirror the frequencies of R1a (i.e. both lineages are strong and weak in the same social and linguistic subgroups). This may indicate that both R1a and R2 moved into India at roughly the same time or co-habited, although more research is needed. R2 is very rare in Europe.

Stephen Oppenheimer:

“For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17(Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a, associated with the male Aryan invasion theory) and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe.”

Archaeogenetics of Europe(2000) - Twenty authors headed by Kivisild:

mtDNA haplogroup “M” common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is “inconsistent with the ‘general Caucasoidness’ of Indians.” This shows, once again, that “the Indian maternal gene pool has come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late Pleistocene.” U haplogroup frequency 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24% from Europe to Anatolia. “Indian and western Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened after the corresponding splits.” In other words, there is a genetic connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than was thought.

If one were to extend methodology used to suggest an Aryan invasion based on Y-Dna statistics to populations of Eastern and Southern India, one would be led to an exactly opposite result: “the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe.” The authors do not defend this thesis, but simply guard against “misleading interpretations” based on limited samples and faulty methodology.
The Chenchu tribe is genetically close to several castes, there is a “lack of clear distinction between Indian castes and tribes.

Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.” There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’ — that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.

Todd. R Disotell - Biologist.
http://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/centerforindicstudies/conf2006article.pdf

Comprehensive population genetics data along with archeological and astronomical evidence presented at June 23-25, 2006 conference in Dartmouth, MA, overwhelmingly concluded that Indian civilization and its human population is indigenous.

In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and Asia.

Leading evidences come from population genetics, which were presented by two leading researchers in the field, Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National Institute of Biologicals, India, and Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University in California. Their results generally contradict the notion Aryan invasion/migration theory for the origin of Indian civilization.

Underhill concluded "the spatial frequency distributions of both L1 frequency and variance levels show a spreading pattern emanating from India", referring to a Y chromosome marker. He, however, put several caveats before interpreting genetic data, including "Y-ancestry may not always reflect the ancestry of the rest of the genome"

Dr. Kashyap, on the other hand, with the most comprehensive set of genetic data was quite emphatic in his assertion that there is "no clear genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into India, [and] establishment of caste system and gene flow."

Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist, who is known to lead the idea of Aryan Invasion/migration/influx theory in more recent times, continued to question genetic evidence on the basis that it does not provide the time resolution to explain events that may have been involved in Aryan presence in India.

Dr. Kashyap's reply was that even though the time resolution needs further work, the fact that there are clear and distinct differences in the gene pools of Indian population and those of Central Asian and European groups, the evidence nevertheless negates any Aryan invasion or migration into Indian Subcontinent.

Witzel though refused to present his own data and evidence for his theories despite being invited to do so was nevertheless present in the conference and raised many questions. Some of his commentaries questioning the credibility of scholars evoked sharp responses from other participants.

.....

Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory.

Dr. Bal Ram Singh, Director, Center for Indic Studies at UMass Dartmouth, which organized the conference was appalled at the level of visceral feelings Witzel holds against some of the scholars in the field, but felt satisfied with the overall outcome of the conference.

"I am glad to see people who have been scholarly shooting at each other for about a decade are finally in one room, this is a progress", said Singh.

==========================================================
Check the part above where Witzel who is an Aryan Invasion (rather was, now he has shifted to migration), was asked to present his data, and talk about his theories, he refused to do so, and all he did was question the integrity of the other authors or ridicule them instead.

 

[bennedose]

Try reading rig veda.

I shake my head in despair when people say "read Rig Veda". This is the result of centuries of colonization among Indians.

Rig Veda was never meant to be written. It's entire existence revolved around recitation and being heard, not written. Part of learning of the Rig Veda is learning the error correction algorithms so that the sound is transmitted accurately. Rig Veda has been described as "eternal sounds"

Catholic Christianity took over the Roman empire and had its own set of legends about Christ and saints. When Protestant Christianity fought against the Catholic church - the first things they did were to establish the concept that history starts from the birth of Christ and that all written records since then are the truth. The flip side of that was the hint that if something was not written it could not be true or accurate.

We have picked up these ideas. forgetting that the Vedas recited in Kerala or Kashmir or Bengal were exactly the same and was never written down. Whatever knowledge can come from the Rig Veda will not come from reading. Only by hearing and recitation. I do agree that this is tough shit, but its the truth

 

[bennedose]

Difference in appearance indeed distinguishes one race from another.

Would you be able to tell me what race means? I really don't know. At least I don;t know what you mean by race.

Men from Haryana are apparently marrying women from Kerala. Would that be an interracial marriage.

A friend of mine (parents from Karnataka) has married an American woman whose parents are in Canada but originally from England. Is that an inter-racial marriage?

To what race would the children of such marriages belong?

If genetics shows intermingling of genes between Kerala and Kashmir in the past (as they do), what would actually make them separate races?

 

[pmaitra]

Would you be able to tell me what race means? I really don't know. At least I don;t know what you mean by race.

By race, I mean race in the ethnological sense.

If that is not clear enough, then replace the word race with ethnicity.

Men from Haryana are apparently marrying women from Kerala. Would that be an interracial marriage.

Yes.

A friend of mine (parents from Karnataka) has married an American woman whose parents are in Canada but originally from England. Is that an inter-racial marriage?

To what race would the children of such marriages belong?

If genetics shows intermingling of genes between Kerala and Kashmir in the past (as they do), what would actually make them separate races?

I am going to skip this part, because it is too obvious.

 

[pmaitra]

I shake my head in despair when people say "read Rig Veda". This is the result of centuries of colonization among Indians.

Rig Veda was never meant to be written. It's entire existence revolved around recitation and being heard, not written. Part of learning of the Rig Veda is learning the error correction algorithms so that the sound is transmitted accurately. Rig Veda has been described as "eternal sounds"

Catholic Christianity took over the Roman empire and had its own set of legends about Christ and saints. When Protestant Christianity fought against the Catholic church - the first things they did were to establish the concept that history starts from the birth of Christ and that all written records since then are the truth. The flip side of that was the hint that if something was not written it could not be true or accurate.

We have picked up these ideas. forgetting that the Vedas recited in Kerala or Kashmir or Bengal were exactly the same and was never written down. Whatever knowledge can come from the Rig Veda will not come from reading. Only by hearing and recitation. I do agree that this is tough shit, but its the truth

I don't think @Razor claimed that Rig Veda was meant to be written or disputed that it was meant to be transmitted via recitation. You are attacking a position that he does not hold.

What he is implying is the Rig Veda has enough references pointing towards external ingress of populations.

 

[pmaitra]

No, what the they are trying to say is that there has been no substantial gene flow into the subcontinent, during the years when the supposed "Aryan Invasion/Migration" happened, which basically rules out an external agent influencing the gene pool during those years (4500-800 BC).

This paper takes into account many other studies conducted in recent times, involving thousands, and not just 132 individuals.

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15339343?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

Metspalu M1, Kivisild T, Metspalu E, Parik J, Hudjashov G, Kaldma K, Serk P, Karmin M, Behar DM, Gilbert MT, Endicott P, Mastana S, Papiha SS, Skorecki K,Torroni A, Villems R.

Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill. - 2006:



Stephen Oppenheimer:


Archaeogenetics of Europe(2000) - Twenty authors headed by Kivisild:



Todd. R Disotell - Biologist.
http://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/centerforindicstudies/conf2006article.pdf

Comprehensive population genetics data along with archeological and astronomical evidence presented at June 23-25, 2006 conference in Dartmouth, MA, overwhelmingly concluded that Indian civilization and its human population is indigenous.

In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and Asia.

Leading evidences come from population genetics, which were presented by two leading researchers in the field, Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National Institute of Biologicals, India, and Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University in California. Their results generally contradict the notion Aryan invasion/migration theory for the origin of Indian civilization.

Underhill concluded "the spatial frequency distributions of both L1 frequency and variance levels show a spreading pattern emanating from India", referring to a Y chromosome marker. He, however, put several caveats before interpreting genetic data, including "Y-ancestry may not always reflect the ancestry of the rest of the genome"

Dr. Kashyap, on the other hand, with the most comprehensive set of genetic data was quite emphatic in his assertion that there is "no clear genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into India, [and] establishment of caste system and gene flow."

Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist, who is known to lead the idea of Aryan Invasion/migration/influx theory in more recent times, continued to question genetic evidence on the basis that it does not provide the time resolution to explain events that may have been involved in Aryan presence in India.

Dr. Kashyap's reply was that even though the time resolution needs further work, the fact that there are clear and distinct differences in the gene pools of Indian population and those of Central Asian and European groups, the evidence nevertheless negates any Aryan invasion or migration into Indian Subcontinent.

Witzel though refused to present his own data and evidence for his theories despite being invited to do so was nevertheless present in the conference and raised many questions. Some of his commentaries questioning the credibility of scholars evoked sharp responses from other participants.

.....

Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory.

Dr. Bal Ram Singh, Director, Center for Indic Studies at UMass Dartmouth, which organized the conference was appalled at the level of visceral feelings Witzel holds against some of the scholars in the field, but felt satisfied with the overall outcome of the conference.

"I am glad to see people who have been scholarly shooting at each other for about a decade are finally in one room, this is a progress", said Singh.

==========================================================
Check the part above where Witzel who is an Aryan Invasion (rather was, now he has shifted to migration), was asked to present his data, and talk about his theories, he refused to do so, and all he did was question the integrity of the other authors or ridicule them instead.

Thank you for a post with a lot of sincere effort and references.

Two things to point out:

Stephen Oppenheimer:

“For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17(Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a, associated with the male Aryan invasion theory) and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe.”

This is an expected observation which only provides genetic evidence of Aryan Migration or Aryan Invasion or a combination of both. This is not the only evidence. There is linguistic evidence, and there is evidence from Vedic texts.

Archaeogenetics of Europe(2000) - Twenty authors headed by Kivisild:

mtDNA haplogroup “M” common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is “inconsistent with the ‘general Caucasoidness’ of Indians.” This shows, once again, that “the Indian maternal gene pool has come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late Pleistocene.” U haplogroup frequency 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24% from Europe to Anatolia. “Indian and western Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened after the corresponding splits.” In other words, there is a genetic connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than was thought.

If one were to extend methodology used to suggest an Aryan invasion based on Y-Dna statistics to populations of Eastern and Southern India, one would be led to an exactly opposite result: “the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe.” The authors do not defend this thesis, but simply guard against “misleading interpretations” based on limited samples and faulty methodology.
The Chenchu tribe is genetically close to several castes, there is a “lack of clear distinction between Indian castes and tribes.

Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.” There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’ — that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.

Indeed. Migrations did occur. U haplogroup frequency does indicate so. The migration was not from western Europe, but certainly from Iran. That is why it is called Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory, not Gaelic Invasion/Migration Theory.

 

[Peter]

Well just as I have mentioned in another thread that even if AIT is true it should not be promoted. I personally believe in AMT/AIT. However I do not want any individual to use this knowledge to further divide our society.

AIT/AMT only divides our society along ethnic/caste lines. For any nation to be great it must instill a sense of common ethnicity/nationality among its citizens. Some amount of divergence from this concept of common nationality may be tolerated. If we look at the present day examples of the citizens of USA and Russia, we see they all claim to be Americans and Russians irrespective of their race/ethnicity. India too should follow suite.

AIT aims at destroying our sense of common nationality as Indians. Thus AIT only helps those who want to divide us up. For the sake of unity AIT should not be promoted and instead we should be reminded that we all came from Africa.

 

[Khagesh]

What he is implying is the Rig Veda has enough references pointing towards external ingress of populations.

External to what and external from what.

The migration was not from western Europe, but certainly from Iran.

If this is what you mean by 'external' then how do you explain similarities in Sanskrit-Avestan-Link and Deep Mythological Links. Most of which are alive even to this day and esp. in India form part of a political stream that people here vote for.

Accha if you rely on Rik Ved using your logic for a particular translation how would you then explain a different use of the same thing in other parts of Rik. Are you sure Rik Ved is a historical document.

 

[Khagesh]

No, what the they are trying to say is that there has been no substantial gene flow into the subcontinent, during the years when the supposed "Aryan Invasion/Migration" happened, which basically rules out an external agent influencing the gene pool during those years (4500-800 BC).

You have well collected notes. You must be an oldie anonymous. Naughty boy.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

I can draw a Map showing migration from Antarctica and Artic. That wont make it right. And no, there is no strong evidence for Aryan people. In fact there is strong genetic evidence that AIT/AMT did not happen

I disagree with you. I also do not believe that there is any "pure" race
Or anybody is racially above anybody else.

 

[Mad Indian]

I disagree with you. I also do not believe that there is any "pure" race
Or anybody is racially above anybody else.

Sir, this is not something we can disagree on. This is something we should learn the truth about . would you prefer living a lie than learning the truth(same goes to me if I am indeed wrong).

Not to brag, but read the AIT thread from its beginning. I was brought up with the same AIT crap and I was there defending it. It took me several pages of research to arrive to the present convulsion that I had been conned.

I know how it feels - if AIT is wrong, me being Dravidian would be wrong (in your case you being Aryan would be wrong). So this is an attack on our identity and we are naturally defensive and resistant to it, even if that's the truth. But then again, we should not live a lie just for false bravado or heritage. Truth of the natter is, we are a civilisation continuing from Indus valley and and that is all we all are- and that is our identity- we all are Aryans and we all are dravidians.

We can't let some british theory created to divide us and rule and to justify our division define our identity. We can't let them take our civilisational legacy . because that's what this AIT is about after all- Aryans were Europeans and they founded Indian civilisation and so Indians have no right to this Indian civilisation.