Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[Bangalorean]

In general, race-based theories don't make sense in the modern day. Perhaps they did make sense during the distant past when "bloodlines" were rigidly maintained and one's financial strength and societal/social position was cemented based on his "race". But in today's era, it hardly holds good. I always maintain that individuals and races do not matter, systems and processes do. Here is a point I keep making very often - this is a post I made to a Chinese troll who was claiming that "Indians are not hard workers, so India is underdeveloped":

Very silly thing to say. Why is North Korea behind South Korea? Because North koreans are not hard workers? Say that to the North Koreans who do backbreaking work in the fields, all year round.

Tell the Indians who labour on construction sites, in farms, in the armed forces, in white collar jobs, that they don't work hard enough!! What nonsense!

Why was China doing so terribly in Mao's time? Did Chinese magically start working hard in 1979, all of a sudden?

I've said this many times, and I say it again: nations are built by systems and processes, good governance structures. A good governance structure and good economic policies and systems make nations great. Think of the difference between West and East Germany. Essentially the same people, but so vastly different in economic power. Why? Because of the difference in systems and governance structures.

Kindly desist from making silly statements.

The reason that South Indian cities are better than North Indian cities in general, and that South Indians have a better HDI, is NOT because "South Indians are racially superior". It is simply because the systems and processes have been better implemented in the South than they have in the North. Once the Northern parts of the nation begin to implement systems and processes as they have been in South and West India, we will see those regions coming to par with South and West. And taking India as a whole, once India implements systems and processes as they are in the West, India will come up to speed too, as a whole.

 

[MAYURA]

In general, race-based theories don't make sense in the modern day. Perhaps they did make sense during the distant past when "bloodlines" were rigidly maintained and one's financial strength and societal/social position was cemented based on his "race". But in today's era, it hardly holds good. I always maintain that individuals and races do not matter, systems and processes do. Here is a point I keep making very often - this is a post I made to a Chinese troll who was claiming that "Indians are not hard workers, so India is underdeveloped":



The reason that South Indian cities are better than North Indian cities in general, and that South Indians have a better HDI, is NOT because "South Indians are racially superior". It is simply because the systems and processes have been better implemented in the South than they have in the North. Once the Northern parts of the nation begin to implement systems and processes as they have been in South and West India, we will see those regions coming to par with South and West. And taking India as a whole, once India implements systems and processes as they are in the West, India will come up to speed too, as a whole.

You know that i have officially withdrawn my theory .

However, I can not withdraw AMT as that is solidly grounded on all counts.

 

[The Messiah]

Re: B'wood Heroines more Vulgar than Mumbai Bar Dancers: Samajwadi

I have withdrawn my racial theory in view of abuses hurled at me instead of facts. I will never again use that theory in this forum where 99 percent think AMT to be crap.

Anyone who thinks there were no migrations into India and people with different features all landed up together in India is blinded with ignorance.

On another note your posts in another thread is the reason for abuses being hurled at you rather than AMT theory.

 

[MAYURA]

Re: B'wood Heroines more Vulgar than Mumbai Bar Dancers: Samajwadi

Anyone who thinks there were no migrations into India and people with different features all landed up together in India is blinded with ignorance.

On another note your posts in another thread is the reason for abuses being hurled at you rather than AMT theory.

I have withdrawn that theory and never mind the abuses as they show majority totalitarianism.

 

[Bangalorean]

Re: B'wood Heroines more Vulgar than Mumbai Bar Dancers: Samajwadi

You know that i have officially withdrawn my theory .

However, I can not withdraw AMT as that is solidly grounded on all counts.

I have withdrawn that theory and never mind the abuses as they show majority totalitarianism.

AIT/AMT is a theory which is believed to be true by a great number of people for many decades. It has begun to be questioned only recently. However, as @Messiah said, the abuses etc. were not hurled at you for the AIT/AMT theory. There was a completely different reason for that.

 

[Virendra]

Re: B'wood Heroines more Vulgar than Mumbai Bar Dancers: Samajwadi

Anyone who thinks there were no migrations into India and people with different features all landed up together in India is blinded with ignorance.

Indeed. However, there are two things:
a) Various genetic researches done till now, point to a possible and minor inward migration, only more than 12,500 years ago. The first wave being sourced out of Africa.
There is nothing that could establish a significant inward migration (in one or many waves) at the time of stipulated Aryan Migration. There is a lot of outward migration from India though (again shown by genetic study, not just my assertion).
b) Physical features are phenotypes and do not have an implication on the genes of a person. Meaning, two people with same genotype can have different phenotypes, thus different appearances.

We cannot rule out very minor inward migrations that don't even have a proper genetic foot mark, humans have been moving all around the planet.
But in context of AMT, indications are only to the contrary. This might help :
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...s-indian-caste-populations-11.html#post734846
You can trace the conversation back through quotes in the posts.

AIT/AMT is a theory which is believed to be true by a great number of people for many decades. It has begun to be questioned only recently. However, as @Messiah said, the abuses etc. were not hurled at you for the AIT/AMT theory. There was a completely different reason for that.

AIT/AMT were questioned by European scholars as far back as when it was first proposed.
Sadly they were a minority then and the Colonial policies favored AIT to be thrust in India. Thus objections were brushed aside.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Simple_Guy]

Re: B'wood Heroines more Vulgar than Mumbai Bar Dancers: Samajwadi

Munda past found in Chatra menhirs (Telegraph)

Municipal labourers digging in Lutidih village, Chatra-Ranchi Road, in mid-May, accidentally spliced five menhirs, little knowing there lay buried a fascinating saga of Munda tribesmen of the Iron Age, circa 7th century BC...over 30 menhirs and countless clay pots. In India, the megalithic burial culture is scattered in Odisha, Bastar in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Northeast, south India and even Kashmir.

 

[pmaitra]

Re: B'wood Heroines more Vulgar than Mumbai Bar Dancers: Samajwadi

I think you have the correct facts, and your interpretations are inaccurate. Let me point out a few things.

a) Various genetic researches done till now, point to a possible and minor inward migration, only more than 12,500 years ago. The first wave being sourced out of Africa.
There is nothing that could establish a significant inward migration (in one or many waves) at the time of stipulated Aryan Migration. There is a lot of outward migration from India though (again shown by genetic study, not just my assertion).

• Firstly, in the paper you cited in our earlier discussion, the authors claimed that their method of detecting migration is accurate for migration that happened upto 12,500 years ago. What you are saying is "more than 12,500 years ago;" which I think is a wrong way to interpret that paper. What the paper says is that their method is correct for migrations that happened 5000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, but might be incorrect for migrations that happened 15,000 years ago. So, the "minor inward migration, only more than 12,500 years ago" that you talk about is an incorrect (and opposite) interpretation of what was actually said.
• Secondly, the directionality of migration, as claimed in that paper, is shown by the intra-haplotypical diversity, but the diversity in a geographical location depends upon the inter-haplotypical dversity, and the inter-haplotypical diversity and directionality of migration are mutually exclusive.
• Thirdly, if we look at the haplotypical diversity of any two regions, for example, Europe and India, we will see there is indication of directional migration in both directions, and the way you are interpreting it is not quite correct. The paper does not say that migration out of India was major and migration into India was minor. It does not say anything of that kind. All it says is there is a directionality indicated by the intra-haplotypical diversity. What the paper does indicate is that just like there is a particular haplotype in large quantity in India and small quantity in Europe, there is also a haplotype in large quantity in India and small quantity in Europe; which indicates, the conclusion that you are drawing that most of the migration was out of India is not correct.

b) Physical features are phenotypes and do not have an implication on the genes of a person. Meaning, two people with same genotype can have different phenotypes, thus different appearances.

Phenotypes are result of two things:

• Environment
• Genes from the parents

So, it is actually the genes that have an implication on the appearance; and it would be equally correct to say that the environment has an implication on the appearance.

Two people with the same genotype having different phenotype is a result of dominant alleles subduing the weaker one. If we look at children born out of traditional endogamous unions (marrying within the same race or caste), we will see that; if both the father and mother have high cheek bones, the child will also have high cheek bones; if both the father and mother have slit eyes, the child will also have slit eyes; if both the father and mother have double chin, the child will also have double chin; so on and so forth. In such cases, the instance you cited as an example (two people with same genotype can have different phenotypes) is very unlikely to occur. In other words, your example is an exeption (in the Indian context), and not a trend.

 

[parijataka]

Guys, Aryan Invasion Theory basically meant superior Aryans invaded India and brought the light of civlisation around as per 19th - 20th century historians. And was used as a justification by the British to rule India as a `superior race`.

India's genetic diversity includes groups such as Shia Muslims in Uttar Pradesh who are of Iranian origin, Anglo Indians of British-Indian mix, Parsis who arrived little more than 1000 years ago, Siddi tribals in Goa and Karnataka who are African imports, some Hyderabadi families with Arab roots, etc. These groups cannot be considered part of the Aryan Invasion Theory obviously.


Of course @Singh's fair complexion is because of the Persian princesses his ancestors married/sowed their wild oats with and @pmaitra, the bious Bongo bhodrolok, is descended of pure Aryan Scandinavian descent with blue eyes and ash blond hair...

 

[pmaitra]

@parijataka, Iran is the land of the Aryans, so yes, Persian imports are indeed Aryans, but may not correspond to the Bronze Age or Iron Age migration/invasion of the Aryans as attributed to AIT/AMT. Moreover, believing in Aryan invasion/migration is one thing, and who was superior and who was inferior is a completely different thing. Yes, some colonialists did try to use evidence (migration/invasion) to justify an assumption (racial superiority), but just because the assumption is unfounded, does not mean the evidence has to be discarded.

 

[MAYURA]

Guys, Aryan Invasion Theory basically meant superior Aryans invaded India and brought the light of civlisation around as per 19th - 20th century historians. And was used as a justification by the British to rule India as a `superior race`.

India's genetic diversity includes groups such as Shia Muslims in Uttar Pradesh who are of Iranian origin, Anglo Indians of British-Indian mix, Parsis who arrived little more than 1000 years ago, Siddi tribals in Goa and Karnataka who are African imports, some Hyderabadi families with Arab roots, etc. These groups cannot be considered part of the Aryan Invasion Theory obviously.


Of course @Singh's fair complexion is because of the Persian princesses his ancestors married/sowed their wild oats with and @pmaitra, the bious Bongo bhodrolok, is descended of pure Aryan Scandinavian descent with blue eyes and ash blond hair...

AIT scenario is very different than this.As per AMT or AIT the creators of vedas were as dark as modern day indians.

I fail to understand the reason of its opposition even when it means that India is the longest continous civilization. There was no such thing as white people civilizing indians but simply an elite dominance pattern of linguistic imposition by north western indians on other indians and then other indians on rest of eastern indians.

The beginning of civilization in india does not need white or blacks as proven by IVC.

However, the theory has merits though it is not without difficulties. My own position is that i am not competent enough but i do think that AMT may be nearer the truth than OIT which is far more fantastic than this.


Genetics, archaeology and linguistics are subjects where immense reaserach needs to be done to arrive at some conclusion. Till then we must be open to every scenario.


Lastly please note that AIT does not make upper castes foreigners as if they are foreigners, then every major race in world civilization is foreigner.


There is no need to think that indians have been living in india since big bang. Our stay, creation of culture,and other such things impart us more legitimacy than the different european people. India is the only country that can relate itself to its pre christian religion as well as langauge which renders any idea suggesting that AMT means indians are foreigners as baseless.

 

[MAYURA]

@parijataka, Iran is the land of the Aryans, so yes, Persian imports are indeed Aryans, but may not correspond to the Bronze Age or Iron Age migration/invasion of the Aryans as attributed to AIT/AMT. Moreover, believing in Aryan invasion/migration is one thing, and who was superior and who was inferior is a completely different thing. Yes, some colonialists did try to use evidence (migration/invasion) to justify an assumption (racial superiority), but just because the assumption is unfounded, does not mean the evidence has to be discarded.

As per AMT , india (some parts of it) were aryanized earlier than Iranians aryans moved into Iran .

The migrations were taking place in bronze age and not in Iron age.

 

[pmaitra]

As per AMT , india (some parts of it) were aryanized earlier than Iranians aryans moved into Iran .

The migrations were taking place in bronze age and not in Iron age.

Actually the end of Bronze Age coincides with the decline of IVC, and the beginning of Iron Age coincides with the growth of the Gangetic culture.

Yes, it is quite possible that India began to be Aryanized even before the Iranian Aryans entered India, especially since the inward migration was across the Hindu Kush from the North and not necessarily from the West. Where exactly these Aryans came from, is unclear, but I think there is a broad consensus, among those that believe, that it happened from multiple directions.

 

[MAYURA]

Actually the end of Bronze Age coincides with the decline of IVC, and the beginning of Iron Age coincides with the growth of the Gangetic culture.

Yes, it is quite possible that India began to be Aryanized even before the Iranian Aryans entered India, especially since the inward migration was across the Hindu Kush from the North and not necessarily from the West. Where exactly these Aryans came from, is unclear, but I think there is a broad consensus, among those that believe, that it happened from multiple directions.

Nice post.

Iranians moved into modern day western iran only somewhere around 1000 bc as attested by assyrian references but Indians were in india even before 1500 bc as can be seen from absence of iron in rigveda and iron is there in india since 1300 bc .

 

[Singh]

Of course @Singh's fair complexion is because of the Persian princesses his ancestors married/sowed their wild oats with and @pmaitra, the bious Bongo bhodrolok, is descended of pure Aryan Scandinavian descent with blue eyes and ash blond hair...

I don't know if my ancestors married any Persian princesses, or themselves were Persian Princes or offsprings of Persians.

What is definitely known is there were two distinct types of "Races" in India.

ANI and ASI.

And today almost all Indians are an admixture of ANI and ASI.

 

[Singh]

Racial Composition and History of India ​

DNA evidence confirms what historians, linguists and anthropologists have long known but nationalists have denied: that Indians are mainly a mix of indigenous Australoids and intrusive Caucasoids. They're composed of two genetic components, one related to Andaman Islanders and the other to Western Eurasians. And the estimated dates of admixture between the two are consistent with the introduction of Indo-Aryan languages from the northwest and probably also earlier events related to the spread of Dravidian languages and even agriculture.

India has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation. We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the "Ancestral North Indians" (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the "Ancestral South Indians" (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the Andamanese are an ASI-related group without ANI ancestry, showing that the peopling of the islands must have occurred before ANI-ASI gene flow on the mainland. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years owing to endogamy. We therefore predict that there will be an excess of recessive diseases in India, which should be possible to screen and map genetically.

Reich et al. "Reconstructing Indian Population History". Nature, 2009.

Metspalu et al. "Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia". Am J Hum Genet, 2011.

Linguistic and genetic studies have shown that most Indian groups have ancestry from two genetically divergent populations, Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI). However, the date of mixture still remains unknown. We analyze genome-wide data from about 60 South Asian groups using a newly developed method that utilizes information related to admixture linkage disequilibrium to estimate mixture dates. Our analyses suggest that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent. These results suggest that this formative period of Indian history was accompanied by mixtures between two highly diverged populations, although our results do not rule out other, older ANI-ASI admixture events. A cultural shift subsequently led to widespread endogamy, which decreased the rate of additional population mixtures.

Moorjani et al. "Estimating a date of mixture of ancestral South Asian populations", Evolutionary and Population Genetics, 2012.

The paper provides an overview of the spatial and temporal aspects of human morphological variation in India. Four morphological types — Australoids, Negritos, Mongoloids and Caucasoids — have been discerned in the contemporary Indian population. The Australoids appear to be the oldest and have evolved in India. The Caucasoids are physically heterogeneous and suggests incorporation of more than one physical type involving more than one migration. The within-type variance compared to between-type variance for characters studied is smaller. The paper further discusses the observed variability in terms of Indian social organization as well as in terms of endogamy, small numerical strength of the groups and varying ecological conditions prevalent in India.

K.C. Malhotra. "Morphological Composition of the People of India". J Hum Evol, 1978.


Racial Reality: Racial Composition and History of India

 

[TrueSpirit]

Yes, I think this has been shared much earlier somewhere on DFI forum.

By the way, does this finding validate the OIT theory?

Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years owing to endogamy.

The only connotation that one can derive from the above sentence is: OIT is True & AIT/AMT is false.

Experts...comments please ?

 

[TrueSpirit]

Excellent study material for interested folks:

Link 1 : Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia

Link 2: Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations.

Link 3: Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations

Link 4 : Reconstructing Indian Population History

Link 5 : Ethnic India: a genomic view, with special reference to peopling and structure.

Link 6: Low levels of genetic divergence across geographically and linguistically diverse populations
from India.

 

[parijataka]

Excellent study material for interested folks:

Link 1 : Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia

Link 2: Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations.

Link 3: Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations

Link 4 : Reconstructing Indian Population History

Link 5 : Ethnic India: a genomic view, with special reference to peopling and structure.

Link 6: Low levels of genetic divergence across geographically and linguistically diverse populations
from India.

links not working other than #3 - just saying, with the titles it is easy to google and find them out.

yes you r right.

 

[TrueSpirit]

@parijataka

All links are working.

Click on the LINK word & it will work. Please do not click on the subject matter description that follows the LINK