Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[KS]

and how they did they reach central ?

Crossing from Sindh in modern day Pakistan.

 

[peacecracker]

This may sound bit crazy but there is a high possibility that south Indians might have come from ancient Sri Lanka because there have been numerous findings of ancient civilized societies dating back to 125,000 years even challenging Africa....



Prehistory of Sri Lanka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Sri Lanka :: Prehistoric record -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Ezhavas/Billava people(OBC) are thought to be those who came from SriLanka. they were Buddists before. they may be Sinhalese?

--
OT: But, Dravidian is such a race existed ever? I mean, South Indians came from Mediterranean region. hard to digest.

 

[Virendra]

If a large number of people entered NW from Central Asia together, there is no record or proof whatsoever to even remotely suggest of it. Large scale migrations leave their mark.
If a small scale migration occured, then it is inconceivable how the entire Sapta Sindhu became sanskritised by them.
How is it that whoever wrote the vedas, have never ever mentioned of their central Asian lebensraum in the vedas?
It is even more laughable that a bunch of herdsmen travelling from thousands of miles away found the exact pass to enter northwest india, had profound astronomical knowledge, only India coming branch knew sanskrit without script, writes it as a script after coming to India and pens the great Vedas.

One cannot deny migrations, human race has always moved to greener pastures, but is this case very few migrations of tiny scale is what I could digest. Anything more than that dosen't stand scrutiny.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Poseidon]

Aryans were central asian nomads.There was definitely no large scale organized invasion.They came in large groups settled here,mixed with the local populace and the result was Indians.
Most of them settled in the north and so genetically North Indians are relatively closer to east europeans than South Indians.

India

In India, R2 percentage is around 15% among Indo-European speaking groups while Dravidian speakers show it at 8%. Among social groups, very high percentages are shown by Indo-European speaking Karmali from West Bengal at 100%, Jaunpur Kshatriya from Uttar Pradesh at 87% and Telugu Andhra Pradesh at 73%.

Other than these, significantly high percentages are shown by the people of West Bengal at 23%, Hindus from New Delhi at 20% and Baniya from Bihar at 36%. It is also significantly high in many Brahmin groups including Punjabi Brahmins (25%), Bengali Brahmins (22%), Konkanastha Brahmins (20%), Chaturvedis (32%), Bhargavas (32%), Kashmiri Pandits (14%) and Lingayat Brahmins (30%).

Among tribal groups, Lodhas of West Bengal show it at 43% while Bhil of Gujarat at 18%. Chenchu and Pallan of South India at 20% and 14% respectively. Tharu of North India shows it at 17%.

North Indian Muslims have a frequency of 11%(Sunni) and 9%(Shia), while Dawoodi Bohra Muslim in the western state of Gujarat have a frequency of 16% and Mappla Muslims of South India have a frequency of 5%.[23] This lineage also forms 5% of Punjabi males.

Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Virendra]

They came in large groups settled here

No evidence of large groups coming from central Asia and settling here. Even the AMT camp doesn't say they were large groups of migrants as there is compelte absence of evidence for it.

Most of them settled in the north and so genetically North Indians are relatively closer to east europeans than South Indians.

Here's to the contrary:
http://www.biotech.ebc.ee/Publications/Metspalu_M_et_al_2011.pdf
Two genetic components among Indians are observed: one is restricted to India and explains 50% genetic ancestry of Indian populations , while, the second which spread to West Asia and Caucasus region. Technically called "haplotype diversity", it is a measure of the origin of the genetic component. The component which spread beyond India has significantly higher haplotype diversity in India than in any other part of world. This is clear proof that this genetic component originated in India and then spread to West Asia and Caucasus. The distribution of two genetic components among Indians clearly indicates that the Aryan-Dravidian division is a myth, Indian population landscape is clearly governed by geography.
Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette. Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are much older than the purported Indo-Aryan migration 3,500 YBP.

Anyway, even if the affinity were to be accepted, it doesn't prove anything about the direction of migration. Although the study I quoted and many others do point to a migration in the reverse direction.
Lastly, if the population concentrated in warmer areas like India, had to move out to freshly appropriated regions post the retreat of Ice Age, going up north - northwest from India makes sense; rather than the other way round.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[KS]

It is our history books that are to be blamed for all the misconceptions about this and so many other things.

 

[HeinzGud]

Ezhavas/Billava people(OBC) are thought to be those who came from SriLanka. they were Buddists before. they may be Sinhalese?

--
OT: But, Dravidian is such a race existed ever? I mean, South Indians came from Mediterranean region. hard to digest.

Maybe Ezhavas came from Sri Lanka but what I'm pointing out is that the ancient settlements in Southern India might be initiated by early Sri Lankan people.....

 

[peacecracker]

^^^ not in kerala,tulunad or konkan areas, I guess.

 

[LalTopi]

I will simplify it even though it is not simplistic...migrations into India:

1. Tribals
2. Dravidians/south Indians migrate from middle east
3. The rest from north west and central asia

In that order.

Really? but in that case we all have tribal, dravidian and 'the rest' blood. Look at the map and read my post again.
Per the sources quoted (which may be wrong), Haplogroup M - i.e. the first wave out of Africa into India - is common throughout India - i.e. people throughout India share a common mother going back around 50,000 years ago.

 

[LalTopi]

The point is everyone think they have figured it out.

When did Chetas, Lions, Rhinos migrate here and where did the Tiger come from?

That's easy - the white dudes on horseback brought them over about 1700 BC. I am sure that plenty of linguistic and archealogical evidence can be found to support this - as can some genetic evidence by highly committed scientists.

 

[LalTopi]

Aryans were central asian nomads.There was definitely no large scale organized invasion.They came in large groups settled here,mixed with the local populace and the result was Indians.
Most of them settled in the north and so genetically North Indians are relatively closer to east europeans than South Indians.

Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Poseidon,

A couple of things:

I followed the link you gave, and it gave the following quote which hints against any 'Aryan' migration at all:

Virtually all modern Central Asian MtDNA M lineages seem to belong to the Eastern Eurasian (Mongolian) rather than the Indian subtypes of haplogroup M, which indicates that no large-scale migration from the present Turkic-speaking populations of Central Asia occurred to India. The absence of haplogroup M in Europeans, compared to its equally high frequency among Indians, eastern Asians and in some Central Asian populations contrasts with the Western Eurasian leanings of South Asian paternal lineages

Also regarding Haplogroup R2, there is the following wiki link:

Haplogroup R2 (Y-DNA) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Key points are that this group could just as easily have come out of India, as well as central Asia. And even if the 'Aryans' had come down, then it would have been 25,000 years ago, as that is when this common male ancestor existed per the wiki link. I.e. R2 provides no support for Aryan invasion nor migration in the 1700 BC timeframe.

 

[solbear]

The Aryan Invasion Theory seems to have declined in terms of popularity. The recent trend is towards peaceful migration of the Indo-Europeans into the Sub-Continent. The issue the old theories seem to hold is that Europeans, in a bid to bolster their ego, seemed to believe that the Aryans were white people and based their theories on this. Despite this one can see a racial diversity within the region and ethnic migrations that correlate to them. However, due to mixing the countries are simply not as clear as they used to be.

Virtually all modern Central Asian MtDNA M lineages seem to belong to the Eastern Eurasian (Mongolian) rather than the Indian subtypes of haplogroup M, which indicates that no large-scale migration from the present Turkic-speaking populations of Central Asia occurred to India. The absence of haplogroup M in Europeans, compared to its equally high frequency among Indians, eastern Asians and in some Central Asian populations contrasts with the Western Eurasian leanings of South Asian paternal lineages

The reason for this is the Mongol/Turkic invasion of Central Asia around 500-100AD. The native populations of Central Asia would have been similar to Tajiks and Afghans.

 

[Mad Indian]

So what about the Tamil Brahmins- are they Aryans or Dravidians, i mean by whatever way you use that term? Answer this as i have a few nutheads to crack in my college-

 

[Mad Indian]

Hi Poseidon,

A couple of things:

I followed the link you gave, and it gave the following quote which hints against any 'Aryan' migration at all:



Also regarding Haplogroup R2, there is the following wiki link:

Haplogroup R2 (Y-DNA) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Key points are that this group could just as easily have come out of India, as well as central Asia. And even if the 'Aryans' had come down, then it would have been 25,000 years ago, as that is when this common male ancestor existed per the wiki link. I.e. R2 provides no support for Aryan invasion nor migration in the 1700 BC timeframe.

Laltopi, though that points you gave are valid, can you give more info regarding the percentage and distribution of the several haplotypes to show that the Indian population is indeed homogenous?

 

[LalTopi]

The Aryan Invasion Theory seems to have declined in terms of popularity. The recent trend is towards peaceful migration of the Indo-Europeans into the Sub-Continent. The issue the old theories seem to hold is that Europeans, in a bid to bolster their ego, seemed to believe that the Aryans were white people and based their theories on this. Despite this one can see a racial diversity within the region and ethnic migrations that correlate to them. However, due to mixing the countries are simply not as clear as they used to be.



The reason for this is the Mongol/Turkic invasion of Central Asia around 500-100AD. The native populations of Central Asia would have been similar to Tajiks and Afghans.

Actually, please read my post carefully and follow the link. The common ancestry with central Asia was 25k years ago, not 500-1000 AD.

 

[LalTopi]

Laltopi, though that points you gave are valid, can you give more info regarding the percentage and distribution of the several haplotypes to show that the Indian population is indeed homogenous?

Very good questions, and I can see that you are equally frustrated to get to the bottom of this. In truth, we are not homogenous, as we all have varying percentages of these ancient markers. But the fact that these ancient markers are spread throughout the country indicates that we have all been around a very long time. I have had a thought to start compiling a table of genetic markers, together with their frequency and spread throughout the country, and age. This is not a quick exercise but should answer your question and also help to put to bed the AIT (or at least let us understand the context)

 

[solbear]

Actually, please read my post carefully and follow the link. The common ancestry with central Asia was 25k years ago, not 500-1000 AD.

That is what I was commenting on. The reason there is no common ancestry with current Central Asian populations is due to Turkic migration into Central Asia around 500-1000AD. Thus, the current Central Asian populations originate from Siberia and Mongolia. The original population of the region are supposed to have been closest to modern-day Tajiks.

Furthermore, take a look at the haplogroup R1a. It's distribution is used to support the kurgan hypothesis which supports the 1700BC migration into India. Personally, I kinda agree with you that the migration might have taken place much before that.

 

[LalTopi]

That is what I was commenting on. The reason there is no common ancestry with current Central Asian populations is due to Turkic migration into Central Asia around 500-1000AD. Thus, the current Central Asian populations originate from Siberia and Mongolia. The original population of the region are supposed to have been closest to modern-day Tajiks.

Furthermore, take a look at the haplogroup R1a. It's distribution is used to support the kurgan hypothesis which supports the 1700BC migration into India. Personally, I kinda agree with you that the migration might have taken place much before that.

Thanks. Yes, I will take a look at R1a, and other Indian relevant haplogroups, will take time, but hopefully will get to the bottom of this.

 

[Mad Indian]

Very good questions, and I can see that you are equally frustrated to get to the bottom of this. In truth, we are not homogenous, as we all have varying percentages of these ancient markers. But the fact that these ancient markers are spread throughout the country indicates that we have all been around a very long time. I have had a thought to start compiling a table of genetic markers, together with their frequency and spread throughout the country, and age. This is not a quick exercise but should answer your question and also help to put to bed the AIT (or at least let us understand the context)

Though my doubts about AIT are cleared to some extend, nothing has answered the timeline and distribution of the Markers

Also, note that, we are the largest populated country in the world for the past three thousand years now, and hence it can explain the marker presence every where. So the most important thing here is the % distribution of markers and not the presence of markers per se

Also, answer my question,

So what about the Tamil Brahmins- are they Aryans or Dravidians?

 

[Godless-Kafir]

That's easy - the white dudes on horseback brought them over about 1700 BC. I am sure that plenty of linguistic and archealogical evidence can be found to support this - as can some genetic evidence by highly committed scientists.

May be those animals followed those black dudes who where running from africa!