Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Well, even the paper that @Sakal Gharelu Ustad repeatedly peddled to everyone debunks some of his own claims.

Proof: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/aryan-invasion-theory.1403/page-26#post-670559
"Good paper, but focuses on Y-haplogroup R1a1*. It does claim in the abstract that this haplogroup can be found all over Central Asia."

Anyway, he has admitted it: ". . . migration spread over centuries."

I don't give a tuppence about 4k. Who said that? I said that? Migration happened at multiple points in time, and not at one specific point in time. Some of those migrations might as well have been part of invasion.

It says those haplogroup arise on their own in different populations and brahmins and lower castes are not different as claimed by AIT proponents.

Now your post states that you don't know migration happened 4k years ago which means AMT is dead. Good job!

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Dreamhunter]

I dont understand why so many Indians are so insecure about something which happened more
than 3000 years ago.
The British consider the foreign invader William, who invaded England in the 11th century,
as the first British King despite of the fact that he spoke French and who was a descendant
of Viking invaders.
The major part of the Indian population are descendants of people who came from outside of india.
The Dravidians seem to have migrated from Sumeria to India while Indo-Aryan people seem
to have migrated from Central Asia.
This is not really unique to India but migrations are part of world history.
It is strange that there are so many discussions in India about a topic which happened more
than 3000 years ago.

 

[pmaitra]

It says those haplogroup arise on their own in different populations and brahmins and lower castes are not different as claimed by AIT proponents.

Nope.

The link to the paper is out there for everyone to see. I will reproduce the abstract again, because apparently, you are more interested in asking others to use their brain but not interested in using your own to read and comprehend:

Many major rival models of the origin of the Hindu caste system co-exist despite extensive studies, each with associated genetic evidences. One of the major factors that has still kept the origin of the Indian caste system obscure is the unresolved question of the origin of Y-haplogroup R1a1*, at times associated with a male-mediated major genetic influx from Central Asia or Eurasia, which has contributed to the higher castes in India. Y-haplogroup R1a1* has a widespread distribution and high frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, with scanty reports of its ancestral (R*, R1* and R1a*) and derived lineages (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c). To resolve these issues, we screened 621 Y-chromosomes (of Brahmins occupying the upper-most caste position and schedule castes/tribals occupying the lower-most positions) with 55 Y-chromosomal binary markers and seven Y-microsatellite markers and compiled an extensive dataset of 2809 Y-chromosomes (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes) for conclusions. A peculiar observation of the highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Yhaplogroup R1a1* in Brahmins hinted at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group. Further, observation of R1a1* in different tribal population groups, existence of Y-haplogroup R1a* in ancestors and extended phylogenetic analyses of the pooled dataset of 530 Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 Central Asians and Eurasians bearing the R1a1* haplogroup supported the autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins. However, it is important to discover novel Y-chromosomal binary marker(s) for a higher resolution of R1a1* and confirm the present conclusions. Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 54, 47–55; doi:10.1038/jhg.2008.2; published online 9 January 2009​

So, here are the salient points:

• There are genetic evidences that back up rival theories.
• R1a1* exists in Eurasia, Central Asia, and Indian Subcontinent.
• The conclusion in this paper are yet to be confirmed by higher resolution data.

The lesson to learn here is: Before you present a research paper to back up your arguments, make sure to read the research paper yourself first. Don't cherry pick pieces of information that support your PoV and ignore other information that oppose your PoV. You are suffering from Confirmation Bias Syndrome. Come out of it.

Now your post states that you don't know migration happened 4k years ago which means AMT is dead. Good job!

Nope.

My post states what it states. Migration happened at various points in time. Maybe it happened 4K years ago, maybe a little earlier or later. Maybe it happened in waves. What we do know is that there are common genetic links between Indians, Central Asians, and Eurasians. Proof of migration is there. Proof of the timing might not be there. I am not making it up. I am citing the very research paper you presented, in the hope of backing up your claims, which, sadly for you, backs up my position.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

I dont understand why so many Indians are so insecure about something which happened more
than 3000 years ago.
The British consider the foreign invader William, who invaded England in the 11th century,
as the first British King despite of the fact that he spoke French and who was a descendant
of Viking invaders.
The major part of the Indian population are descendants of people who came from outside of india.
The Dravidians seem to have migrated from Sumeria to India while Indo-Aryan people seem
to have migrated from Central Asia.
This is not really unique to India but migrations are part of world history.
It is strange that there are so many discussions in India about a topic which happened more
than 3000 years ago.

Everyone came from Africa so we should stop all debates on everything!!

The culture we inherit in India comes from people who settled here long after migration from Africa and local to the people here and not brought by invaders.

Do you want Indians to act like Pakis and think Muhammed bin quasim as the guy who civilized India!

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

Everyone came from Africa so we should stop all debates on everything!!

The culture we inherit in India comes from people who settled here long after migration from Africa and local to the people here and not brought by invaders.

Do you want Indians to act like Pakis and think Muhammed bin quasim as the guy who civilized India!

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

What part of the post by @Dreamhunter claims that anyone civilized India?

You are attacking a position which @Dreamhunter does not hold. This is a strawman argument.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Nope.

The link to the paper is out there for everyone to see. I will reproduce the abstract again, because apparently, you are more interested in asking others to use their brain but not interested in using your own to read and comprehend:

Many major rival models of the origin of the Hindu caste system co-exist despite extensive studies, each with associated genetic evidences. One of the major factors that has still kept the origin of the Indian caste system obscure is the unresolved question of the origin of Y-haplogroup R1a1*, at times associated with a male-mediated major genetic influx from Central Asia or Eurasia, which has contributed to the higher castes in India. Y-haplogroup R1a1* has a widespread distribution and high frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, with scanty reports of its ancestral (R*, R1* and R1a*) and derived lineages (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c). To resolve these issues, we screened 621 Y-chromosomes (of Brahmins occupying the upper-most caste position and schedule castes/tribals occupying the lower-most positions) with 55 Y-chromosomal binary markers and seven Y-microsatellite markers and compiled an extensive dataset of 2809 Y-chromosomes (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes) for conclusions. A peculiar observation of the highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Yhaplogroup R1a1* in Brahmins hinted at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group. Further, observation of R1a1* in different tribal population groups, existence of Y-haplogroup R1a* in ancestors and extended phylogenetic analyses of the pooled dataset of 530 Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 Central Asians and Eurasians bearing the R1a1* haplogroup supported the autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins. However, it is important to discover novel Y-chromosomal binary marker(s) for a higher resolution of R1a1* and confirm the present conclusions. Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 54, 47–55; doi:10.1038/jhg.2008.2; published online 9 January 2009​

So, here are the salient points:

• There are genetic evidences that back up rival theories.
• R1a1* exists in Eurasia, Central Asia, and Indian Subcontinent.
• The conclusion in this paper are yet to be confirmed by higher resolution data.

The lesson to learn here is: Before you present a research paper to back up your arguments, make sure to read the research paper yourself first. Don't cherry pick pieces of information that support your PoV and ignore other information that oppose your PoV. You are suffering from Confirmation Bias Syndrome. Come out of it.


Nope.

My post states what it states. Migration happened at various points in time. Maybe it happened 4K years ago, maybe a little earlier or later. Maybe it happened in waves. What we do know is that there are common genetic links between Indians, Central Asians, and Eurasians. Proof of migration is there. Proof of the timing might not be there. I am not making it up. I am citing the very research paper you presented, in the hope of backing up your claims, which, sadly for you, backs up my position.

Like a perfect commie liar you forgot to highlight the most important part of the abstract.

Autochtonous- (of an inhabitant of a place) indigenous rather than descended from migrants or colonists.

That's the reason it got published in Nature.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Dreamhunter]

Everyone came from Africa so we should stop all debates on everything!!

The culture we inherit in India comes from people who settled here long after migration from Africa and local to the people here and not brought by invaders.

Do you want Indians to act like Pakis and think Muhammed bin quasim as the guy who civilized India!

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

This is not really the point. We all know that the ancestors of the people of India created the Indian
civilization. And nobody disputed this fact no matter weather these migrations happened
or not. Pakis on the other hand celebrate foreign invaders like Arabs and Turks who did
nothing but plunder the regions of modern Pakistan.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

What part of the post by @Dreamhunter claims that anyone civilized India?

You are attacking a position which @Dreamhunter does not hold. This is a strawman argument.

It is not straw man. He said it does not matter while I think it matters and I gave the reason above.

Hinduism originated and grew in India and developed by locals. The classic AIT/AMT position gives it's credit to outsiders and hence explain the caste system.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

This is not really the point. We all know that the ancestors of the people of India created the Indian
civilization. And nobody disputed this fact no matter weather these migrations happened
or not. Pakis on the other hand celebrate foreign invaders like Arabs and Turks who did
nothing but plunder the regions of modern Pakistan.

Dude, you should read what AIT/AMT people claim. It almost takes away the credit from locals. India is not US colonised by western Europeans, who brought all the culture there.

To me it would still not matter, but current version of AMT is crap and needs to be debunked.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

It is not straw man. He said it does not matter while I think it matters and I gave the reason above.

Hinduism originated and grew in India and developed by locals. The classic AIT/AMT position gives it's credit to outsiders and hence explain the caste system.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

Dude, you should read what AIT/AMT people claim. It almost takes away the credit from locals. India is not US colonised by western Europeans, who brought all the culture there.

To me it would still not matter, but current version of AMT is crap and needs to be debunked.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

Over the past few days, a lot of things were settled:

1. Those that propagate Out of India Theory and oppose Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory do it for political purposes.
2. There is a sense of insecurity amongst many Indians who feel AIT/AMT humiliates Indians. It is true that some distorted AIT/AMT (and also the definition of the term Aryan) to humiliate Indians. Using AIT/AMT to humiliate Indians is wrong. AIT/ AMT itself is not wrong. Especially since there is evidence that backs it up.
3. Many supporters of AIT/AMT do not claim that Indian inhabitants prior to arrival of Aryans were uncivilized. Many opponents of AIT/AMT simply take the liberty to assume that supporters of AIT/AMT claim that Indians prior to arrival of Aryans were uncivilized. This is another fallacy on part of the opponents of AIT/AMT.
4. Many supporters of AIT/AMT are opposed to the caste system. They are opposed to the caste system regardless of whether it is a reflection of racial division or not.

 

[Dreamhunter]

Dude, you should read what AIT/AMT people claim. It almost takes away the credit from locals. India is not US colonised by western Europeans, who brought all the culture there.

To me it would still not matter, but current version of AMT is crap and needs to be debunked.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

I understand what you mean but we all know that these claims are ridiculous.
It is a fact that all components of Indian civilization like Indian architecture, literature
philosophy and many more were created by the people of India.
For example the oldest written languages of India are Sanskrit, Prakrit and Tamil.
And all 3 written languages were created in India as there are not any inscriptions
or any other records outside of South Asia which predate the records which were
found in India. And almost all the Sanskrit, Prakrit and Tamil texts were created in
the regions of modern India.This proves that the most essential part of Indian
civilization ,which is literature, was created by the people of India and nobody else.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Over the past few days, a lot of things were settled:

1. Those that propagate Out of India Theory and oppose Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory do it for political purposes.
2. There is a sense of insecurity amongst many Indians who feel AIT/AMT humiliates Indians. It is true that some distorted AIT/AMT (and also the definition of the term Aryan) to humiliate Indians. Using AIT/AMT to humiliate Indians is wrong. AIT/ AMT itself is not wrong. Especially since there is evidence that backs it up.
3. Many supporters of AIT/AMT do not claim that Indian inhabitants prior to arrival of Aryans were uncivilized. Many opponents of AIT/AMT simply take the liberty to assume that supporters of AIT/AMT claim that Indians prior to arrival of Aryans were uncivilized. This is another fallacy on part of the opponents of AIT/AMT.
4. Many supporters of AIT/AMT are opposed to the caste system. They are opposed to the caste system regardless of whether it is a reflection of racial division or not.

1. No

2. Evidence is mounting against AIT/AMT. Actually I should not even list AIT because it is dead already.

3. It is not about whether locals were civilized or not. AMT is used to claim non indigenous origin of Hinduism and hence the reason why this debate is important.

4. Does not matter.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

1. No

2. Evidence is mounting against AIT/AMT. Actually I should not even list AIT because it is dead already.

3. It is not about whether locals were civilized or not. AMT is used to claim non indigenous origin of Hinduism and hence the reason why this debate is important.

4. Does not matter.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

1. Yes.
2. Wrong.
3. Hinduism originated in India. Vedic religion might have completely or partially originated outside of India. It is possible the contents of the Vedas are a mix of knowledge that was retained by the migrating populations that were conflated with knowledge of the indigenous populations.
4. It does matter or does not matter? Make up your mind. You mentioned caste system in your own post. [LINK]

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

1. Yes.
2. Wrong.
3. Hinduism originated in India. Vedic religion might have completely or partially originated outside of India. It is possible the contents of the Vedas are a mix of knowledge that was retained by the migrating populations that were conflated with knowledge of the indigenous populations.
4. It does matter or does not matter? Make up your mind. You mentioned caste system in your own post. [LINK]

Autochtonous- read it in the abstract again.

I can see how you completely ignored the post which debunked your stand!!



Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[Dreamhunter]

Caste system is not unique to India. Caste systems existed throughout the world.
Medieval European society was more inclined towards the European caste system
than major parts of ancient and medieval India.

 

[pmaitra]

Autochtonous- read it in the abstract again.

I can see how you completely ignored the post which debunked your stand!!



Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

Nothing debunked my stand. You saying so does not make it true.

Read the sentence with the word in it, read the previous sentence, and read the following sentence.

Also, try to understand R1a1* and R1a*. Read the abstract multiple times and understand it.

As I said, come out of your Confirmation Bias.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Nothing debunked my stand. You saying so does not make it true.

Read the sentence with the word in it, read the previous sentence, and read the following sentence.

Also, try to understand R1a1* and R1a*. Read the abstract multiple times and understand it.

As I said, come out of your Confirmation Bias.

Cannot pay you to learn and improve your English so that you can make logically coherent arguments. Or may be it's your confirmation bias!

Anyone reading that abstract would understand that the haplogroup we are talking about is common across populations and has local origins i.e. it cannot be used to claim migration. But yes, you being you, can cover your eyes and live in denial.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

Cannot pay you to learn and improve your English so that you can make logically coherent arguments. Or may be it's your confirmation bias!

Anyone reading that abstract would understand that the haplogroup we are talking about is common across populations and has local origins i.e. it cannot be used to claim migration. But yes, you being you, can cover your eyes and live in denial.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

You should be the last one to pontificate about teaching anyone English.

The abstract talks about evidence that "supported the autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins." Nowhere does the abstract claim that the R1a1 haplogroup originated in India. Rather, it says "Y-haplogroup R1a1* has a widespread distribution and high frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, . . ."

Let me explain. The lineage of people, including those tribals that share R1a1* with Brahmins, are autochthonous to India; not the haplogroup itself.

If you must pay, pay to teach yourself English.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

You should be the last one to pontificate about teaching anyone English.

The abstract talks evidence that "supported the autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins." Nowhere does the abstract claim that the R1a1 haplogroup originated in India. Rather, it says "Y-haplogroup R1a1* has a widespread distribution and high frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, . . ."

Let me explain. The lineage of people, including those tribals that share R1a1* with Brahmins, are autochthonous to India; not the haplogroup itself.

If you must pay, pay to teach yourself English.

Ah so now you are changing the goal post. All Indians came from abroad i.e the brahmins as well as low castes. But your AMT brothers use that to explain caste hierarchy since ages. So effectively you are shooting down their claim and stand!! Very good!

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

Ah so now you are changing the goal post. All Indians came from abroad i.e the brahmins as well as low castes. But your AMT brothers use that to explain caste hierarchy since ages. So effectively you are shooting down their claim and stand!! Very good!

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

No, I am not changing the goalpost whatsoever. I am just avoiding the distractions and deflections you are offering: caste hierarchy, Hinduism, humiliation, "All Indians came from abroad." My point is simple. There are common genes in India, Central Asia, and Eurasia, and hence, there has been either invasion or migration or both. You even admitted migration yourself. Dispute settled.