Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[A chauhan]

^^ He was rejecting DNA studies on the basis of his arguments and photographs.

 

[Pratap]

Oh, if Pratap is banned how will this thread run.

Who will entertain me with lovely photos of those pure Aryan chiks of Afghanistan and Iran and of course the Dogras?

If I recall correctly, Adi Shankaracharya used to be called "Dravida" by other seers including his Guru Gaudapada. Shanakra also used to refer himself to as "Dravida".

Tumne(aapne actually but tukbandi nahi hoti) Pukara aur ham chale aaye, arguments hatheli pe le aaye re .

First, we have to understand that a term has many usages and its use depends on era and then also it is used in different contexts. Take the case of computers. The man who helped Everest in attaining a correct mathematical solution to its height, Radhakant Sikhadar was called "computer" by his seniors as in those days computer was used for anyone who could do calculations of complex order. However, currently, 99.99 percent of humans have a perception of computer which is radically different from that in 19th century.

Similar is the case with this Adi Shankaracharya example. The classical Sanskrit texts divided Brahminic groups into many categories and the word Dravida was used for all of them ( KM Munshi thought that even Maharashtra and Gujarat Brahmins were called as Dravida subgroup in Pancha Gauda larger group.) so it is not at all surprising that Shankaracharya used a geographical term for himself. Vishwanathan Anand is a Tamil so he would call himself a Tamilian. However, we are talking about linguistics and just as "Hinduism" is a modern word representing all brahmanic scts of ancient India( even when no ancient Indian ever identified himself with this word), similarly, there are languages in India which have no relationship with Indo Aryan languages so far as origin is concerned. The scholars needed a term and hence called them Dravidian ( I know it was a christian Bishop Caldwell) . The term may not be perfect but it is a fact that mostly deep south was referred as Dravida desha and so it is not that wrong either.
No one says( Except likes of DMK) that in Indian history, there were conflicts based on Aryan and Dravidian( many south Indian women regarded themselves as Arya) languages, or that Cholas attacked Bengal because it was a dravidian revenge on Aryan high handedness.

Friendship or harmony based on twisted version is no better. I do not understand why you all attack me as some kind of traitor but if some people get saddened by fact that some 4000 years ago, they( ancestors) did not speak proto form of modern day language and adopted it from someone else, it is very unfortunate. Athing is yours if that is unique to you. Vegeterianism on Ekadashi might be an idea not original to Tulunadu but if it has been present there among indigenous elites and common folk, is unique to them, then the idea is theirs and nothing can change that. Digging about origins some 4 thousand years ago should only be for knowing truth and not its application in modern day political parlance.

 

[Pratap]

^^ He was rejecting DNA studies on the basis of his arguments and photographs.

I had some respect for you earlier but this post is rather shocking. We are not fighting cases in courts that you will have to distort my arguments. Let us see whole affair now. I used photos and arguments only?

Here is what I wrote

For those needing links , please follow this

Genetic affinities among the lower castes and tribal groups of India: inference from Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA

Presence of three different paternal lineages among North Indians: A study of 560 Y chromosomes

Please also read this

Basu et al. (2003) suggests concludes that "Dravidian tribals were possibly widespread throughout India before the arrival of the Indo-European-speaking nomads" and that "formation of populations by fission that resulted in founder and drift effects have left their imprints on the genetic structures of contemporary populations".[37] The geneticist PP Majumder (2010) has recently argued that the findings of Reich et al. (2009) are in remarkable concordance with previous research using mtDNA and Y-DNA:[44]
Central Asian populations are supposed to have been major contributors to the Indian gene pool, particularly to the northern Indian gene pool, and the migrants had supposedly moved into India through what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. Using mitochondrial DNA variation data collated from various studies, we have shown that populations of Central Asia and Pakistan show the lowest coefficient of genetic differentiation with the north Indian populations, a higher differentiation with the south Indian populations, and the highest with the northeast Indian populations. Northern Indian populations are genetically closer to Central Asians than populations of other geographical regions of India... . Consistent with the above findings, a recent study using over 500,000 biallelic autosomal markers has found a north to south gradient of genetic proximity of Indian populations to western Eurasians. This feature is likely related to the proportions of ancestry derived from the western Eurasian gene pool, which, as this study has shown, is greater in populations inhabiting northern India than those inhabiting southern India.

I gave links as well as quoted from the texts. See this post of mine also where I highlighted relevant portions just because you said that you needed time.

Central Asian populations are supposed to have been major contributors to the Indian gene pool, particularly to the northern Indian gene pool, and the migrants had supposedly moved into India through what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. Using mitochondrial DNA variation data collated from various studies, we have shown that populations of Central Asia and Pakistan show the lowest coefficient of genetic differentiation with the north Indian populations, a higher differentiation with the south Indian populations, and the highest with the northeast Indian populations. Northern Indian populations are genetically closer to Central Asians than populations of other geographical regions of India... . Consistent with the above findings, a recent study using over 500,000 biallelic autosomal markers has found a north to south gradient of genetic proximity of Indian populations to western Eurasians. This feature is likely related to the proportions of ancestry derived from the western Eurasian gene pool, which, as this study has shown, is greater in populations inhabiting northern India than those inhabiting southern India.

So I dismissed arguments on genetics by links. When I gave a diagram represnting flow of haplogroup into India, I got a response which was not at all intelectual.

see this

Still, if you insist on distortion of my position, you have support of many members who have been making strawman arguments and I can not do anything.

The photos I posted were in lighter vein and even then they are not that irrelevant.

 

[Pratap]

Bro, just ignore him. He is banned now. That guy was had such an inferiority complex and self- hatred that it was unhealthy and abnormal.
No, north Indians don't express any kinship with Pakistanis. We hate them much more than South Indians do because we are intimate with them. Our grandfathers have passed on stories about the partition and their cruelty toward hindus. If anything, North Indians want to distance ourselves from Pakistanis. For us, it's a gaali to be mistaken as a Paki. You don't know how much bad blood there is between North Indians and Pakistanis.

Bro, just ignore him. He is banned now. That guy was had such an inferiority complex and self- hatred that it was unhealthy and abnormal.

Your ad hominem attacks are nauseating. If you can not win a debate by arguments, just leave it rather than diving into my psychology. You Hindu nationalists are just another siblings of confused seculars who use arguments as " communalists and ignore him", " he wants to divide India" etc.

Just imagine that I am a nazi and I make claim that Lake Titicaca is situated in Argentina. All you need to do is to give a map of Peru Bolivia border to prove me wrong not that " you seem to be nazi".

BTW, inferiority complex can be known by one's attitude to his religion and language and a man who is not ashamed of these two can not be called suffering from inferiority complex.
Some aspects of Hinduism and my language Hindi are considered best in whole worl by me so I do not have inferiority complex.

 

[Pratap]

Thanks for the info. I will ignore him henceforth. No need to make a defensive statement - I know what Indians are like, north, south, east or west.

I had a specific reason for replying to his views the way I did - I am an old hand in such internet discussions (from 1997 to be precise!) . Sometimes a Pakistani poses as an Indian and expresses such views - Indians generally don't although some categories of Indian do - and I can identify the group. So my intention was merely to prod him to reveal his background. Hence my vague and general post without making a specific accusation. I will drop the subject - he needed banning IMHO. No more from me.

I am not a Pakistani and moderators of this forum know me. I am from city which is birthplace of 23rd Jain Tirthankara(located just 7 km away from my house), which is where Buddha gave his discourse first time and Dharmachakra Pravartana took place( 7km away from my home) and is a nagari of Bholebaba.

So you are quite old so far as internet battles are concerned. I joined this only in September 2012 so less experience.

 

[Pratap]

@bennedose

Initially, afterSanskrit was "discovered" by Europeans they believed that "Aryams" must have originated in India. This is what Huxley wrote in 1890

This kills all conspiracy theories as initially, Europeans were more racist than they became later. US treatment of natives in early part was worse than late 19th or early 20th century.

Comparing heads shapes, faces and hair colour is 19th century science and I can see that 19th century science does not seem to be a problem on this thread.

Early twentieth century also and please note that it was nazism which caused disruption in study of anthropolgy not some evidences. Genetics was too primitive before 1970s to give us a clue about relationship among various communities. I never used just 19th century science but merely was trying to post some photos telling that genotype may match phenotype.

So let me post specific references from 19th century "science". The following is a summary of racist trash mistakenly called "science"

Everything is trash in our age but the idea was not that stupid as you are trying to say. It is no easy task to know how common language emerged and what is interrelationship among various peoples of Eurasia so mistakes were bound to occur.

A man called Latham came up (around 1850 I think) with the Sarmatian Hypothesis that suggested that Aryans must have come from Russia - as has been suggested on this thread 164 years after Latham. That is not 21st century science. It is 19th century theory. Here is a screen grab of the relevant part of Latham's Sarmatian Hypothesis

Latham was a linguist. I hope by "164 years after Latham" you mean that I after him is propunding this theory. Ignorance is so dangerous. There are plethora of books on this theory written in 21st century and in their 100s of pages, they mention Latham's arguments in few lines. You are so much ignorant that you have not been aware of the theory and think that I am making up stuff after 164 years. What to say?

I think these theories are laughable bullshit. read tha long ppaper by Aldous Huxley and you can have your fill of why people look the way they do using 19th century nonsensical methodology. If one chooses to call this sciece - that is fine with me, but I stil think it's laughable trash.

Can you show where I quoted these authors? Last time I checked I gave a link of 2009. 2009 is not 19th century, I suppose but then I learn strange things on this thread.

Those who wish to believe it are welcome to do that - I am not setting out to change anyone's mind. I know what I know and I know what I believe.

Sorry to have interrupted. Please lets have some more pretty girlie pics and call it science

Your first line adds little as this is able to create a cycle. You do not know what you are arguing or else you would have not used"164 years after". Instead of countering modern day linguists, you pick up books of 19th centuries, then make jokes on those confused folks and think that you have won the case.

Pretty girls pics were there for making a dry discussion lively but even that is not factually incorrect.

 

[Pratap]

But @Pratap says that is 19th and 20th century crap but he is into 21st century...

And his science like sorcery says that Aryans invaded India and he is an European..

Where did I say that I am European? A quote of mine will be appreciated or else I will be forced to say that you are making things up.

 

[Pratap]

Everyone want themselves to be called Aryans :

Only Indian Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and buddhists of Sri Lanka( not south east asians) can call themselves Aryans.

 

[Pratap]

What Romila has to say - Changed mind :

Such ignorance!

If you think that AIT needs this crackpot Nehruvian anti hindu ideologue masquerading as historian. In general terms, Romila Thapar's opinion matters in international body of Indo European studies as much as Colombian drug cartels matter in Chinese foreign policy.

 

[Pratap]

@bennedose

Mr Pratap's politically incorrect views of the ugliness of South Indians and belief that the "fair and handsome" appearance of certain people in the Indian northwest comes from Russia (and not via any other route), his ignorance of history, especially the history of south India tells an interesting story about him.

There I got it. "Politically Incorrect". I love this word as much as I love chaste Hindi. Anyway, I never used terms such as "ugly" for any people.
I did claim that most of northwestern paternal chromosome has come from an area which falls in area from south west Kazakhastan to South east Ukraineand middle point is in Russia.
Ignorance is a very subjective term but I assure you that I know South Indian early history better than 99 percent of South Indian middle class.

If he is Indian he is not doing India a favor. If he is not Indian it doesn't matter

I am an Indian and am certainly doing India a favor.

. Loads of Pakistanis speak like him in the way they express kinship with North Indians and believe they are separate from South Indians. If Indians believe they have kinship with Pakistanis and not with the south - that is their prerogative, even if it is not good news for the country. The view ignores reality, but then Pakistan itself is a nation of people who choose to ignore reality.

Given that we are still crying how British "broke communal harmony", how"hindu communalists will break this country", how"we should have Article 370 in JK intact", I do not think that our intelligentsia are living in reality. No North Indian( Hindus ) has any kind of love for Pakistani and this shows how little you know about North. Infact, hatred against Pakistan is much stronger in North. Riots have occured in my city because of cricket matches where India lost and some of Indians from a particular community celebrated that.

he original idea of Pakistan or "Dinia" envisaged by Chaudhury Rehmat Ali included large parts of North India but mostly excluded the south. The idea of Pakistan coincided with the western idea of fair skinned Aryans as separate from the cooked up "race" of heathen black Dravidians. So the ideas expressed by Pratapji are facts as believed to be true by a large segment of Pakistanis. One of the plans was to have a Pakistan from Punjab to Bihar - including all of UP, and the dream still exists - judging by the way Pakistanis express their kinship with 'fair and handsome' northern Indians as opposed to 'ugly black' south Indians.

Wrong. Pakistanis in 1940s expelled Khatris and Jat Sikhs from their area. The conflict was between Islam and non Islamic thoughts not between races.
Pratapji did not express any idea shared by Pakistanis who claim that modern day Pakistanis are descendants of Turks and Iranians.
The dream still exists because of Islam being more entrenched in North not for housing a country of fair and handsome.

There must be at least some Indians who agree with that Pakistani viewpoint and those Indians need to think very carefully about what India means to them

Some Indian Muslims and I have zero love for Islam.

It must not be forgotten that South India had many ancient and independent states and they are a proud people. Invaders from the northwest came to the south last and least

True but let us not indulge in this game . Mongols never conquered Papua New Guinea but this does not mean that martial prowess of Islanders was great.

Those Indians who want to separate themselves from south Indian history and wish to embrace a version of history that the creators of Pakistan find convenient are free to do that - but it is necessary to point out where those views come from. India is bigger and older than a restricted Pakistani version.

I do not want to separate myself from South Indian culture( most parts except cross cousin marriage) but it is true that we have different heroes. Rana Pratap , Rana Sanga, Prithviraj and Shivaji in North, KDR and Prataprudradeva in South.All of them were Hindus and fought fiercely with such great invaders( I hate rapist turks but they were very great on battlefield) as Turks.

Add to this the constant refrain that India was a weak nation and always ruled by others - again statements that are nonsensical on many counts, each of which I will be glad to rip up and throw out as and when they are brought up. But the refrain that India was always ruled is another one that comes from our beggar friends across the border and that seems to be a view that Mr Pratap shares. That does not mean he is Pakistani - he just agrees with their viewpoint and disagrees with information that do not coincide with or support his views.

Criticism of India is not allowed but it is a fact that we do have a history of foreign subjugation at every period of history.( I mean whether it is ancient, medieval or modern, Foreigners did rule us for centuries)I suppose you do not call Akbar and Tughlaq as Indians.
You will not be able to throw such claims because I have been warned not to talk on lack of military success in Indian history.
I share view of India being weak because it is a fact that barring few rulers, we always were defeated by evil foreign invaders.

There is a problem with arguing with such viewpoints. The people who make them are not interested in looking at anything that goes against their viewpoint. That is OK. People are free to believe what they want - and there is no need to argue with uninformed, biased and ignorant posts couched in pseudo intellectual rhetoric

Really?Once I was great supporter of OIT, but now I have known the reality. I am much flexible than many of my kind. What was uninformed, biased and ignorant about our history of foreign rule extending for centuries?
Despite being a resident of one of the oldest cities of this part of world, we have no monument intact(except Dhammek stupa and one shiva temple of 11th century)in our city before 18th century. This is what foreign invaders did to us. Not only they destroyed us but they also did not allow us to create architectural and literary splendours thus killing our traditions of art completely.

 

[Mad Indian]

@ European wannabes

 

[Pratap]

@Virendra

India under dense forest is a very generic statement.

True but whole pre modern history is an area where we are forced to make generic statements and in following lines , we would see you doing same.

Our ancestors were not hegemonic Corporates. Even if they need land, they would claim only the imperatively needed amount of it, with least damage to the environment.

Our ancestors were not hegemonic Corporates because in a land where people struggled for having iron sickles, concept of "corporate hegemony" is a joke. However, I agree that compared to Abrahmic though systems, pagan beliefs whether in fifth century Germania or early Vedic India, were distincly marked by certain reverance for nature which stemmed from their belief of universe being divine.

Until post veda ages, they weren't going through a population boom like we had in recent past.

This is what I call a generic statement( not that I disagree) as we have no data on population but I think that after Rigveda was compiled,population in UP and Bihar increased exponentially which is true if we consider complete aryanization of upper gangetic plains and rise of states throughout both these provinces. When agriculture expands in a virgin territory, chances are high that there is great boom.
Study case of USA from 1750 to 1900 and you will get what I am trying to say.

Many of them including the sages, lived in forests in harmony with nature.

True and very texts "Aranyaka" were called so because they were primarily compiled in forests.

The vedas sing praises fo the utility of trees. They do not encourage deforestation. That won't be the case if our ancestors thought there were a bit too many trees around.

Puranas call earth as mother but that does not mean they we did not heavily use it for agriculture. Our ancestors did clear trees and jungles but why should this mean that they considered trees as having no utility? They cleared forests where these were located so as to hinder normal growth of agriculture.

So early on I don't see a reason why they would need to wipe out entire forests to establish themselves at a place.

Clear forests from path but save some of them so as to get forest products easily was the motto.

Because IVC was a metropolitan area acting as the trading core of ancient India.

IVC was a civilization integrated by some sort of co operative system in trade and administration.

Though east UP and Bihar (Videha) had permanent settlements even during Neolithic era, the heaviest aryan settlements were mainly in Sarasvati-Indus Yamuna-Doab region.

Plough based sedentary agriculture came to these areas only in middle to late second milenium BCE.

They obviously had knowledge of eastern areas. Earliest book of RigVeda (earliest Veda) mentions Ganga river and the RV also knows about eastern areas like Ilayaspada, Kikata.

Very little of eastern areas is mentioned. If you mean by eastern areas, lands east and south of Merath, then there is little mention.
Ganga is very infrequently cited in Rv and rather than early books, it is late books which mention this which strengthens the common wisdom of aryan expansion from west to East.
Kikata has been mentioned as some sort of tribe and same is case with proto magadha tribe mentioned in Rigveda.

Knowledge of Elephants can come from the eastern areas.

I do not get its relevance.

Also Aryans were nomadic people to start with. Elephants, Lions and Tigers might have been wiped out by hunting attrition.

Animals are not completely wiped out by nomadic hunting. It is centralized states and their hunting parties that do it like Mughals or British did in latter half of second millenium AD.

What the earliest book of RV doesn't know about are the five major rivers of Punjab.

I am sure this is picked up from Shrikant Talageri. Earliest portions of Rigveda do know not only rivers of punjab but also those of Swat and Afghanistan.
Helmand, Gumal, Kabul and Swat rivers were known to earliest Rigvedic Aryas.

In post veda stages when they had significant population expansion
the forests were cleared by fire (as says a passage in Shatapath Brahmana).

This itself was facilitated by increase in population because of plough based agriulture. Burning is still used in many parts but role of iron implements can not be denied.

In addition, Archeologists like George Erdosy, Gregory Possehl, B. B. Lal, D. K. Chakrabarti and Praveen Gullapalli have already questioned the role of iron in clearing forests of the Gangetic plains.

They fail to explain why cities emerged in Gangetic plains only in post Vedic age if Iron was not important. Transition from Bronze to Iron is a significant epoch in our history and denying this is like denying use of ploughs in agriculture. No archaeologist can tell us land under forests in pre iron age and lands under forest in Iron age so their view is not that scientific.

According to them iron implements haven't had a major role in clearing Gangetic forests till 600 BCE.

I doubt this. I think that Iron played a big role since 900 BC as by that time we have traces of earliest cities in Kaushambi and Varanasi both of which were full of forests .

 

[Pratap]

@ European wannabes

Perhaps you do not know how to conduct an intellectual debate. If you have problems with my arguments, attack them one by one just as I have been doing and that too in a polite manner.
Diving into my psychology is useless but it serves purpose of bringing out intellectual bankruptcy of such polemists.
You accusing me of being European wannabes is as much wrong as was King Nenduzheliyan's accusing of Kovalan of theft of anklets of queen in famous Tamil epic Silpaddikaram. Just remember what happened to Madurai for that false slander.( In case you know about this)

 

[Mad Indian]

Perhaps you do not know how to conduct an intellectual debate. If you have problems with my arguments, attack them one by one just as I have been doing and that too in a polite manner.
Diving into my psychology is useless but it serves purpose of bringing out intellectual bankruptcy of such polemists.
You accusing me of being European wannabes is as much wrong as was King Nenduzheliyan's accusing of Kovalan of theft of anklets of queen in famous Tamil epic Silpaddikaram. Just remember what happened to Madurai for that false slander.( In case you know about this)

If you think what you are having is "intellectual debate", you can have it with yourself. Thanks:thumb:

 

[Pratap]

If you think what you are having is "intellectual debate", you can have it with yourself. Thanks:thumb:

Some people in this forum are living in delusion that AIT is discredited so I was checking that tendency. Whatever I write will be picked up by other polemists like @bennedose and @Bhadra.

 

[Mad Indian]

Some people in this forum are living in delusion that AIT is discredited so I was checking that tendency. Whatever I write will be picked up by other polemists like @bennedose and @Bhadra.

AIT has been discredited beyond doubt by several genetic evidences. But I dont think you have the mental acumen to understand it. So continue your dribble for its amusing to see European wannabes

 

[Pratap]

AIT has been discredited beyond doubt by several genetic evidences. But I dont think you have the mental acumen to understand it. So continue your dribble for its amusing to see European wannabes

AIT has also to do with archaeology and linguistics. Please do not bring shame to your family by constantly lying on genetic part.
Almost all big heads in genetics agree that R1a and most importantly its subclades did not move from India to Europe. On the contrary, direction was in other direction.I have given links and have yet to see a point by point refutal.

Google Spencer Wells and then google your name. You are a non entity in field of genetics.

 

[Mad Indian]

AIT has also to do with archaeology and linguistics. Please do not bring shame to your family by constantly lying on genetic part.

Almost all big heads in genetics agree that R1a and most importantly its subclades did not move from India to Europe. On the contrary, direction was in other direction.

Google Spencer Wells and then google your name. You are a non entity in field of genetics.

LOL. You have no ----ing clue on what you are talking about so wank yourself out. As I said, dont quote me in this "intellectual" nonsense of yours

I have given links and have yet to see a point by point refutal.

Which I had refuted with genetic evidence, for which you are yet to provide contradictory evidence for. But your intelligence seems to be so dim that you could not understand it. Its not my fault that I cant convince a retarded european wannabe

 

[Pratap]

LOL. You have no ----ing clue on what you are talking about so wank yourself out. As I said, dont quote me in this "intellectual" nonsense of yours


Which I had refuted with genetic evidence, for which you are yet to provide contradictory evidence for. But your intelligence seems to be so dim that you could not understand it. Its not my fault that I cant convince a retarded european wannabe

It is also not my fault that I can not convince an idiot who considers that he knows genetics more than scientists in field when his name is not known to anyone.

If I am retarded, then all scientists are also dim witted and it is better that I remain in their group rather than in group of intelligents like you.


Show me where R1b originated?

 

[shinoj]

Aryans migrated from India to Outside in around 4000 BC. And everything you hear apart from this is Bullshit and Western and Wikipedia Propoganda. Aryan itself is a Sanskrit Word and a Vedic COncept.

Now the Western Wannabes, can you shut the Trap.