# Aryans vs Dravidians?



## Tikolo

Does anyone know any historical details of the battles that took place between Aryans and Dravidians? were there any battles to begin with?

How did Indo aryan culture, language, religions spread in the northern subcontinent so easily?

Also has anyone ever made a movie on this subject? it would be nice if hollywood makes a movie on Aryans vs Dravidians

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Riea

There is no such thing as Aryans vs Dravidian battle. That thing is a pure myth...

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Kompromat

http://www.defence.pk/forums/seniors-cafe/272890-aryan-invasion-india-myth.html

God help the ignorants.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## genmirajborgza786

both Aryans & Dravidians along with the afro/Arabians & the Caucasians got their behind whooped by the true warrior of them all

the fearless ,the brave, the awesome 

*The Mongolian's * 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7009/6588276513_ea769da071_z.jpg

http://groupbox.com/uploads/712976/mongolian1.jpg

_hai kise ki jurrat jo samne aye ?_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## livingdead

genmirajborgza786 said:


> both Aryans & Dravidians along with the afro/Arabians & the Caucasians got their behind whooped by the true warrior of them all
> 
> the fearless ,the brave, the awesome
> 
> *The Mongolian's *
> 
> http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7009/6588276513_ea769da071_z.jpg
> 
> http://groupbox.com/uploads/712976/mongolian1.jpg
> 
> _hai kise ki jurrat jo samne aye ?_


both look chinese to me

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Azizam

Indo-European languages are not a myth but I have no idea about genetic background of people in the subcontinent.


----------



## Beerbal

When King of Lanka Ravana was on death bed his wife Mandodari told him "Hey *Arya-Putra*, Son of Ayodhya-King, Ram wants to meet you."


She addessed Ravana as Arya ...


Arya means noble.. Unlike some Arabic or African tribal religion, Indian religion don't appreciate inbreeding. Inter-cultural marriage was common in India. Color of skin doens't define race. India is place of mixed race where Queen of Afghanistan was married to King of Hastinapur. 

Where princes of Greece married to king of Patliputra and so on.. 


There was no war as TS suggetsed.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## INDIC

Beerbal said:


> India is place of mixed race where *Queen of Afghanistan* was married to King of Hastinapur.



Gandhara included Pothohar Plateau, Peshawar Valley and Kabul river valley. Part of Afghanistan and North Pakistan constituted the ancient Gandhara. Gandhari wasn't a foreigner. Indic people lived there in ancient time, but in modern time these areas are inhabited by non-Indic people.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## genmirajborgza786

hinduguy said:


> both look chinese to me



yup the Mongols were among the yellow race 

in south Asia the closest people that comes to them ethnically are the Tibeto-Burman race eg: the Assamese ,Ghurkhas, Chakmas some Kashmiris also ( from gilgit-baltistan, laddak & leh rgions) & to some extent the Bengalis


----------



## Skallagrim

Why do Indians vehemently protest the Aryan Invasion theory and why does any such thread always get closed?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## neehar

there are many theories none of them are proven.they simply remained as theories to this day.some historians believes them some dont.


----------



## Beerbal

Skallagrim said:


> Why do Indians vehemently protest the Aryan Invasion theory and why does any such thread always get closed?





Because thats not true.. 30,000 year ago India has major civilization sites,Ayodhya (the great Planes), Dwarka, Lanka, And Deccan platue. 

After great flood (Ice age meltdown), Dwarka was ravaged, the displaced ppl moved to Indus-Saraswati Plane.. Indus valley civilization was ravaged by natural calamities..

There was no Aryan , non-Aryan concept in India..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## livingdead

tikolo.. am curious what you next thread will be on

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dash

Indians - We are Aryans
Pakistani - U are Dravidians

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How does that help TODAY anyways..?


----------



## Spring Onion

Dash said:


> Indians - We are Aryans
> Pakistani - U are Dravidians
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> How does that help TODAY anyways..?



Ask Internet Indians what they get from claiming something which is not ??

As far as internet Pakistanis are concerned I believe they get chance to dig /research and read that's is a good development in my opinion otherwise even internet Pakistanis were ignorant about many such things.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shinigami

on the contrary i believe in Aryans vs Dravidians, which was recorded in the mahabharata. what i dont believe is associating the dravidians with the shudras (untouchables) which everyone seems to be doing

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ayush

Shinigami said:


> on the contrary i believe in Aryans vs Dravidians, which was recorded in the mahabharata. what i dont believe is *associating the dravidians with the shudras* (untouchables) which everyone seems to be doing



really?? who says that??


----------



## Jackdaws

Tikolo said:


> Does anyone know any historical details of the battles that took place between Aryans and Dravidians? were there any battles to begin with?
> 
> How did Indo aryan culture, language, religions spread in the northern subcontinent so easily?
> 
> Also has anyone ever made a movie on this subject? it would be nice if hollywood makes a movie on Aryans vs Dravidians



I can see it already - Brad Pitt with a little tan playing the Aryan leader and Denzel Washington with some fair and lovely playing the Dravidian leader - Jackie Chan thrown in to play the Mongolian. I can see why Hollywood would be interested in this sure fire summer hit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gold1010

Wouldn't mind seeing a big movie on Hannibal.


----------



## eastwatch

Shinigami said:


> on the contrary i believe in Aryans vs Dravidians, which was recorded in the mahabharata. what i dont believe is associating the dravidians with the shudras (untouchables) which everyone seems to be doing



As I have read, the Aryan immigrants imposed their will on the local populace. After a few thousand years of mixed unions/marriages, the Aryan leaders divided the society and imposed a caste system. People at the lowest rungs were Achyuts who were renamed Dalits. 

There were many other strata in between the highest and lowest castes. All people of Hindu society know about this, but many low caste Hindus in PDF try to deny the existence of Aryans and Dravidian in India because it hurts their own ego.

Many Nazis deny there were any Jew killing in WWll. But can this denial change the history? Can the denial of Aryan immigration to India erase the history written in the very physical features of Indians living in the North, NW and (partially) NE and those in South?

One does not have to be racial to discuss an issue, but denying race issue will only help the caste system to stay longer in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shinigami

Ayush said:


> really?? who says that??



pretty much everyone. everywhere you read "Aryans subjugated the dravidians and made them slaves"
i feel the aryans deep down respected them after all that epic battles.
stay in south india for a while and you see a clear difference between the dark caucasoids (dravidians) and the lowercastes/untouchables.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

Shinigami said:


> pretty much everyone. everywhere you read "Aryans subjugated the dravidians and made them slaves"



That's the main motive behind starting this thread.  

Genetic studies however put two categories - Ancestral North Indian(ANI) and Ancestral South Indian(ASI).


----------



## Iggy

Shinigami said:


> on the contrary i believe in Aryans vs Dravidians, which was recorded in the mahabharata. what i dont believe is associating the dravidians with the shudras (untouchables) which everyone seems to be doing



I dont think anyone relate Dravidian to Shudras.. May be some one with better knowledge can contribute.. But I do like Dravidians be associated with Asuras though .. I kind of having a soft spot for them

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Tikolo said:


> Does anyone know any historical details of the battles that took place between Aryans and Dravidians? were there any battles to begin with?
> 
> How did Indo aryan culture, language, religions spread in the northern subcontinent so easily?
> 
> Also has anyone ever made a movie on this subject? it would be nice if hollywood makes a movie on Aryans vs Dravidians



If you are referring to the Aryan Invasion Theory, then you should know that Max Mueller's theory has long been discredited. If you are referring to an Aryan migration, then that is supported by genetic evidence. The Indo-Aryans lived alongside the Harappans according to some sources, & gained power steadily as the Harappan civilization declined. Could there have been some clashes? Possibly yes, but there was no large scale subjugation or enslavement of the indigenous as some people may imply. I also suggest that you read up on the Kurgan hypothesis. The caste system according to some sources was developed so that the Vedic Aryans may consolidate their power. However, I think the caste system is unfair to every caste, because no body deserves to be bound to a particular occupation by birth. Anyway, this topic has been discussed many times in the past few weeks, I suggest you check out those threads. A thread on the IVC & Sarasvati river is running as we speak.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Ayush

Shinigami said:


> pretty much everyone. everywhere you read "Aryans subjugated the dravidians and made them slaves"
> i feel the aryans deep down respected them after all that epic battles.
> stay in south india for a while and you see a clear difference between the dark caucasoids (dravidians) and the lowercastes/untouchables.



yep,i am in karnataka right now...


----------



## turbo charged

Beerbal said:


> Arya means noble.. Unlike some Arabic or African tribal religion, Indian religion don't appreciate inbreeding. Inter-cultural marriage was common in India. Color of skin doens't define race. India is place of mixed race where Queen of Afghanistan was married to King of Hastinapur.
> 
> Where princes of Greece married to king of Patliputra and so on..
> 
> 
> There was no war as TS suggetsed.





these people look to you tribal?








or these people look to you tribal?








hindustan kai bherway sach sach batai

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nassr

p(-)0ENiX said:


> If you are referring to the Aryan Invasion Theory, then you should know that Max Mueller's theory has long been discredited. If you are referring to an Aryan migration, then that is supported by genetic evidence. The Indo-Aryans lived alongside the Harappans according to some sources, & gained power steadily as the Harappan civilization declined. Could there have been some clashes? Possibly yes, but there was no large scale subjugation or enslavement of the indigenous as some people may imply. I also suggest that you read up on the Kurgan hypothesis. The caste system according to some sources was developed so that the Vedic Aryans may consolidate their power. However, I think the caste system is unfair to every caste, because no body deserves to be bound to a particular occupation by birth. Anyway, this topic has been discussed many times in the past few weeks, I suggest you check out those threads. A thread on the IVC & Sarasvati river is running as we speak.



The term Indo Aryans has been interpreted differently over a period of time by different scholars. Various scholars have explained that the Indo-Europeans were originally a people in South Russia. One branch of these Indo-Europeans, the Indo-Iranians, migrated towards the east and settled down in Central Asia. Much later, one branch of these Indo-Iranians, the Indo-Aryans, migrated southeastwards into the northwestern parts of India and thus commenced the story of the Aryans in India. Later, the Indo Aryans were called Vedic Aryans since it was propagated that they composed the hymns of the Rig Veda during the period of their earliest settlements in the northwest and the Punjab, before they came into contact with other parts of India. 

However, Indian Hindus of a particular hue, while interpreting the Rig Veda highlight a different theory. They propagate that the Vedic Aryans were not the ancestors of all Indian Hindus and were in fact ancestors of just one of the tribes. It is claimed rather dubiously, that the Vedic Aryans have a definite historical identity and that they were the Purus (a tribe) of the ancient scriptures. And, the particular Vedic Aryans of the Rig Veda were only one section amongst the Purus, who called themselves Bharatas. 

The word Arya is explained in Rig Veda as the Noble Ones. The explanation given by the Hindutva hued Indians tend to align the Bharatas as the only noble ones from the tribe of Purus as referred in the Rig Veda, which as explained earlier is a rather dubious reference. 

The figure underneath amply explains that out of the total 1028 hymns, only 34 hymns in Rig Veda mention the word Arya. The column on the left highlights the names of these tribes/sub-tribes and the next two columns indicate the percentages of total hymns and Arya hymns. The rest is all self explanatory and does not need much explanation except that the Rig Veda identifies Aryas with Bharatas only in 3% of the 34 Arya hymns. And with only 1.8% mention of Bharatas in all the Rig Veda hymns, India named itself Bharat, as if the remaining 80% Hindus in India are not noble enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hellraiser007

Bharat was the name derived from a king called Bharata who ruled Ancient India according to India epic. Not based on Vedas.



Nassr said:


> The term Indo Aryans has been interpreted differently over a period of time by different scholars. Various scholars have explained that the Indo-Europeans were originally a people in South Russia. One branch of these Indo-Europeans, the Indo-Iranians, migrated towards the east and settled down in Central Asia. Much later, one branch of these Indo-Iranians, the Indo-Aryans, migrated southeastwards into the northwestern parts of India and thus commenced the story of the Aryans in India. Later, the Indo Aryans were called Vedic Aryans since it was propagated that they composed the hymns of the Rig Veda during the period of their earliest settlements in the northwest and the Punjab, before they came into contact with other parts of India.
> 
> However, Indian Hindus of a particular hue, while interpreting the Rig Veda highlight a different theory. They propagate that the Vedic Aryans were not the ancestors of all Indian Hindus and were in fact ancestors of just one of the tribes. It is claimed rather dubiously, that the Vedic Aryans have a definite historical identity and that they were the Purus (a tribe) of the ancient scriptures. And, the particular Vedic Aryans of the Rig Veda were only one section amongst the Purus, who called themselves Bharatas.
> 
> The word Arya is explained in Rig Veda as the Noble Ones. The explanation given by the Hindutva hued Indians tend to align the Bharatas as the only noble ones from the tribe of Purus as referred in the Rig Veda, which as explained earlier is a rather dubious reference.
> 
> The figure underneath amply explains that out of the total 1028 hymns, only 34 hymns in Rig Veda mention the word Arya. The column on the left highlights the names of these tribes/sub-tribes and the next two columns indicate the percentages of total hymns and Arya hymns. The rest is all self explanatory and does not need much explanation except that the Rig Veda identifies Aryas with Bharatas only in 3% of the 34 Arya hymns. And with only 1.8% mention of Bharatas in all the Rig Veda hymns, India named itself Bharat, as if the remaining 80% Hindus in India are not noble enough.


----------



## Nassr

Hellraiser007 said:


> Bharat was the name derived from a king called Bharata who ruled Ancient India according to India epic. Not based on Vedas.



I posted this elsewhere also. Let me post again. 

The Rig Veda knows of Bharata only as an ancestor of contemporary dynasties, tribes and clans. There is nothing in the Rig Veda about Bharata the person, let alone Bharata the emperor. There is absolutely no mention of any wars that he may have fought, enemies that he vanquished or territories annexed, not even the wealth he may have amassed or gifted. 

This clearly indicates that in the primary Vedic scripture the Rig Veda, there is no mention of a country known as Bharat or Bharata or Bharatversha. 

The shape of India is described in the 'Mahabharata' which is believed to be a text of around first century AD, as an equilateral triangle, which was divided into four smaller equal triangles. The apex of the triangle is Cape Comorin, and the base is formed by the line of the Himalaya mountains. No dimensions are given, and no places are mentioned. 


Another description of India is that of the Nava-Khanda, or Nine-Divisions, which is first described by the astronomers Parasara and Varaha-Mihira, although it was probably older than their time and was later adopted by the authors of several of the Puranas. According to this arrangement, Pdnchdla was the chief district of the central division, Magadha of the east, Kalinga of the south-east, Avanta of the south, Anarta of the south-west, Sindhu-Sauvira of the west, Hdrahaura of the north-west, Madra of the north, and Kauninda of the north-east. But there is a discrepancy between this epitome of Varaha and his details, as Sindhu-Sauvira is assigned to the south-west, along with Anarta. There however is absolutely no agreement among the scholars with regard to deciphering the exact location of Sindhu-Sauvira and different scholar state different locations. 


With regard to the detailed lists of the 'Brihat-Samhita' with those of the Brahmanda, Markandeya, Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas; although there are sundry repetitions and displacements of names, as well as various readings, yet all the lists are substantially the same. Some of them, however, are differently arranged. All of the Puranas, for instance, mention the Nine Divisions and give their names, but only the Brahmanda and Markandeya state the names of the districts in each of the Nine Divisions; as the Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas agree with the Mahabharata in describing only five Divisions in detail, namely, the middle Province and those of the four cardinal points. The names of the Nine Divisions given in the Mahabharata and the Puranas differ entirely from those of Yaraha-Mihira. 

At times I really wonder as to why we the Pakistanis have to explain the details of Vedic or Hindu scriptures or epics to the Indians, who misquote the essence of what is said in their own books. It is a shame.


----------



## Hellraiser007

Mahabharata is a new version of Bharata a story which was told orally around 10 to 15th century B.C.

Vedas date is also debatable.

Considering that oral traditions date back to literary works, we can safely say Mahabharata dates earlier than Vedas.

Vedas are not stories or epics, they are knowledge embedded in Hyms. 



> Traditionally, the authorship of the Mahabharata is attributed to Vyasa. There have been many attempts to unravel its historical growth and compositional layers. The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE.[2] The text probably reached its final form by the early Gupta period (c. 4th century).[3] The title may be translated as "the great tale of the Bh&#257;rata dynasty". According to the Mahabharata itself, the tale is extended from a shorter version of 24,000 verses called simply Bh&#257;rata.[4]







Nassr said:


> I posted this elsewhere also. Let me post again.
> 
> The Rig Veda knows of Bharata only as an ancestor of contemporary dynasties, tribes and clans. There is nothing in the Rig Veda about Bharata the person, let alone Bharata the emperor. There is absolutely no mention of any wars that he may have fought, enemies that he vanquished or territories annexed, not even the wealth he may have amassed or gifted.
> 
> This clearly indicates that in the primary Vedic scripture the Rig Veda, there is no mention of a country known as Bharat or Bharata or Bharatversha.
> 
> The shape of India is described in the 'Mahabharata' which is believed to be a text of around first century AD, as an equilateral triangle, which was divided into four smaller equal triangles. The apex of the triangle is Cape Comorin, and the base is formed by the line of the Himalaya mountains. No dimensions are given, and no places are mentioned.
> 
> 
> Another description of India is that of the Nava-Khanda, or Nine-Divisions, which is first described by the astronomers Parasara and Varaha-Mihira, although it was probably older than their time and was later adopted by the authors of several of the Puranas. According to this arrangement, Pdnchdla was the chief district of the central division, Magadha of the east, Kalinga of the south-east, Avanta of the south, Anarta of the south-west, Sindhu-Sauvira of the west, Hdrahaura of the north-west, Madra of the north, and Kauninda of the north-east. But there is a discrepancy between this epitome of Varaha and his details, as Sindhu-Sauvira is assigned to the south-west, along with Anarta. There however is absolutely no agreement among the scholars with regard to deciphering the exact location of Sindhu-Sauvira and different scholar state different locations.
> 
> 
> With regard to the detailed lists of the 'Brihat-Samhita' with those of the Brahmanda, Markandeya, Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas; although there are sundry repetitions and displacements of names, as well as various readings, yet all the lists are substantially the same. Some of them, however, are differently arranged. All of the Puranas, for instance, mention the Nine Divisions and give their names, but only the Brahmanda and Markandeya state the names of the districts in each of the Nine Divisions; as the Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas agree with the Mahabharata in describing only five Divisions in detail, namely, the middle Province and those of the four cardinal points. The names of the Nine Divisions given in the Mahabharata and the Puranas differ entirely from those of Yaraha-Mihira.
> 
> At times I really wonder as to why we the Pakistanis have to explain the details of Vedic or Hindu scriptures or epics to the Indians, who misquote the essence of what is said in their own books. It is a shame.


----------



## INDIC

Nassr said:


> I posted this elsewhere also. Let me post again.
> 
> The Rig Veda knows of Bharata only as an ancestor of contemporary dynasties, tribes and clans. There is nothing in the Rig Veda about Bharata the person, let alone Bharata the emperor. There is absolutely no mention of any wars that he may have fought, enemies that he vanquished or territories annexed, not even the wealth he may have amassed or gifted.
> 
> This clearly indicates that in the primary Vedic scripture the Rig Veda, there is no mention of a country known as Bharat or Bharata or Bharatversha.
> 
> The shape of India is described in the 'Mahabharata' which is believed to be a text of around first century AD, as an equilateral triangle, which was divided into four smaller equal triangles. The apex of the triangle is Cape Comorin, and the base is formed by the line of the Himalaya mountains. No dimensions are given, and no places are mentioned.
> 
> 
> Another description of India is that of the Nava-Khanda, or Nine-Divisions, which is first described by the astronomers Parasara and Varaha-Mihira, although it was probably older than their time and was later adopted by the authors of several of the Puranas. According to this arrangement, Pdnchdla was the chief district of the central division, Magadha of the east, Kalinga of the south-east, Avanta of the south, Anarta of the south-west, Sindhu-Sauvira of the west, Hdrahaura of the north-west, Madra of the north, and Kauninda of the north-east. But there is a discrepancy between this epitome of Varaha and his details, as Sindhu-Sauvira is assigned to the south-west, along with Anarta. There however is absolutely no agreement among the scholars with regard to deciphering the exact location of Sindhu-Sauvira and different scholar state different locations.
> 
> 
> With regard to the detailed lists of the 'Brihat-Samhita' with those of the Brahmanda, Markandeya, Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas; although there are sundry repetitions and displacements of names, as well as various readings, yet all the lists are substantially the same. Some of them, however, are differently arranged. All of the Puranas, for instance, mention the Nine Divisions and give their names, but only the Brahmanda and Markandeya state the names of the districts in each of the Nine Divisions; as the Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas agree with the Mahabharata in describing only five Divisions in detail, namely, the middle Province and those of the four cardinal points. The names of the Nine Divisions given in the Mahabharata and the Puranas differ entirely from those of Yaraha-Mihira.
> 
> At times I really wonder as to why we the Pakistanis have to explain the details of Vedic or Hindu scriptures or epics to the Indians, who misquote the essence of what is said in their own books. It is a shame.



Oral tradition of Mahabharata dates back to 11-8th century BC and people were aware of the word Bharatvarsha by the time Nanda-Maurya period in 4th century BC. It didn't come in 1st century unlike you are suggesting.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Nassr said:


> The term Indo Aryans has been interpreted differently over a period of time by different scholars. Various scholars have explained that the Indo-Europeans were originally a people in South Russia. One branch of these Indo-Europeans, the Indo-Iranians, migrated towards the east and settled down in Central Asia. Much later, one branch of these Indo-Iranians, the Indo-Aryans, migrated southeastwards into the northwestern parts of India and thus commenced the story of the Aryans in India. Later, the Indo Aryans were called Vedic Aryans since it was propagated that they composed the hymns of the Rig Veda during the period of their earliest settlements in the northwest and the Punjab, before they came into contact with other parts of India.



The Indo-Aryans migrated alongside the Indo-Iranians, & consisted of multiple tribes. The Persians & Medians too migrated from Andronovo, the difference is that they were influenced by Semites. The Vedic Aryans were greatly influenced by the Harappans. The whole Sub-Continent does not descend from the Vedic Aryans, their concentrations remained towards the north western regions & to an extent the northern regions of the Sub-Continent. Some migrations did take place to other regions but those individuals generally mixed with other races thus wiping them out. It was essentially their cultural dominance & some might even say their technological superiority that led to the spread of their language & culture. During the era the Vedic Aryans remained in the north western region, they were a politically separate entity from the rest of the Sub-Continent & their closest genetic & cultural ties remained with the Indo-Iranians towards the West. There may have been a slight clash of civilization but it certainly did not lead to any enslavement. Anyway, I am done with this discussion. You are aware that similar topics have been discussed here recently & they require way too much repetition with little to no results whatsoever. Let the ignorant believe whatever they want.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## farhan_9909

Indian And Pakistanis share similar genes.

if pakistanis call them dravidians.than indirectly Pakistanis are dravidians aswell

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> Gandhara included Pothohar Plateau, Peshawar Valley and Kabul river valley. Part of Afghanistan and North Pakistan constituted the ancient Gandhara. Gandhari wasn't a foreigner. *Indic people lived there in ancient time, but in modern time these areas are inhabited by non-Indic people.*



Can you backup your claim, at least this one?  which "indic" people lived there in those times?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Can you backup your claim, at least this one?  which "indic" people lived there in those times?



The ancient people of Gandhara.


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Can you backup your claim, at least this one?  which "indic" people lived there in those times?



Can you backup that it wasn't.


----------



## Nassr

p(-)0ENiX said:


> The Indo-Aryans migrated alongside the Indo-Iranians, & consisted of multiple tribes. The Persians & Medians too migrated from Andronovo, the difference is that they were influenced by Semites. The Vedic Aryans were greatly influenced by the Harappans. The whole Sub-Continent does not descend from the Vedic Aryans, their concentrations remained towards the north western regions & to an extent the northern regions of the Sub-Continent. Some migrations did take place to other regions but those individuals generally mixed with other races thus wiping them out. It was essentially their cultural dominance & some might even say their technological superiority that led to the spread of their language & culture. During the era the Vedic Aryans remained in the north western region, they were a politically separate entity from the rest of the Sub-Continent & their closest genetic & cultural ties remained with the Indo-Iranians towards the West. There may have been a slight clash of civilization but it certainly did not lead to any enslavement. Anyway, I am done with this discussion. You are aware that similar topics have been discussed here recently & they require way too much repetition with little to no results whatsoever. Let the ignorant believe whatever they want.




Interestingly, the genetic studies show that majority of Pakistanis are genetically closer to the people of Middle East, Southern Europe, Georgia and Central Asia. Whereas, there have been migrations from east to west into the areas populated by the Melluhas, these migrations did not play a major part in the genetic admix of the original people of the IVC. 

Whatever I have read does not indicate that there is any evidence that the migrating Aryans, if at all, had any worthwhile connection with the people of IVC and I can prove it with archeological evidence. Probably, because by the time they arrived and certainly not in any large number as it were, the IVC had faded out. If we consider the timelines of the BMAC or the Oxus Civilization as some call it and compare these with IVC, majority of the archeologists and historians confirm that though there is a probability that BMAC people did migrate to Iran, there is no evidence that they migrated to the IVC. And if they did, at a later stage from Iran to Meluhha landmass, this would most certainly be after the fading out of the IVC. 

The Rig Veda, despite mention by some Indians, did not assign Arya to any race or caste or tribe. It was just mentioned for those who were the noble ones and nothing more. I personally do not think that there were any Vedic Aryans as some of the Indians have started proclaiming of-late. 

Actually these are also matters of belief, therefore for those who have not read the Rig Veda and Mahabharat or Puranas etc themselves, the response may always be coloured in belief and it certainly is not their fault. 

There is a massive effort underway in India since some time now, to prove that the Rig Veda and certain other scriptures are much older than the IVC. The reason, IVC represents an urban civilization and the Rig Veda outlines a rural environment and therefore, the Rig Veda has to be older than the IVC and should pre-date it to prove that the IVC was in fact a continuation of the Vedic civilization logically progressing from rural environment to urban environment. And many renowned Indian historians and archeologists have said this openly. Naming of Ghagar-Hakra as Saraswati is also a part of this revisionism. Initially, in their effort to prove the Aryan Invasion Theory wrong, the Indians de-bunked that there ever were any Aryan invasion. Then came the counter to Aryan Migration Theory and now Out of India Theory is being propagated. In doing so, they have written so much self contradictory archeological and historical narrations that it is now difficult for them to un-justify what they justified in the first place, when all this was initiated. 

The problem is that, as many of such theories are proven wrong, new one emerge. Lets see as to where does this charade ends, if at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

What was India called during the era of Mauryan Empire.


----------



## INDIC

Nassr said:


> What was India called during the era of Mauryan Empire.



Chanakya knew about Bharatvarsha and he had a vision to unite it as single entity of Akhand Bharat.


----------



## Tikolo

farhan_9909 said:


> Indian And Pakistanis share similar genes.
> 
> if pakistanis call them dravidians.than indirectly Pakistanis are dravidians aswell



they share genes, but pakistanis are definatly more west eurasian then most Indians in terms of genetics, the highest ANI is found in Pakistan, obviously pashtuns, kalash and other northerners are the most non south asian population, but even many punjabi/sindhi groups show very high ANI

in terms of aryans, we really dont know what their genetic makeup was, so we can't say for sure how much they effected the genes of south asians


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> The ancient people of Gandhara.



And they were? Dravidians right?


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> And they were? Dravidians right?



You have to prove it if they weren't indic.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> You have to prove it if they weren't indic.



I dont need to prove anything, its you who said they were dravidians from jungles of India.


----------



## scorpionx

seiko said:


> I dont think anyone relate Dravidian to Shudras.. May be some one with better knowledge can contribute.. But I do like Dravidians be associated with Asuras though .. I kind of having a soft spot for them



Common belief says Asuras were the ancient Assyrians (the master architecture class in _Puranas_),a sub branch of the Indo-Iranian group.


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> I dont need to prove anything, its you who said they were dravidians from jungles of India.




Hey snowwhite show me where I wrote that. You also need to prove your claim.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Nassr said:


> Interestingly, the genetic studies show that majority of Pakistanis are genetically closer to the people of Middle East, Southern Europe, Georgia and Central Asia. Whereas, there have been migrations from east to west into the areas populated by the Melluhas, these migrations did not play a major part in the genetic admix of the original people of the IVC.
> 
> Whatever I have read does not indicate that there is any evidence that the migrating Aryans, if at all, had any worthwhile connection with the people of IVC and I can prove it with archeological evidence. Probably, because by the time they arrived and certainly not in any large number as it were, the IVC had faded out. If we consider the timelines of the BMAC or the Oxus Civilization as some call it and compare these with IVC, majority of the archeologists and historians confirm that though there is a probability that BMAC people did migrate to Iran, there is no evidence that they migrated to the IVC. And if they did, at a later stage from Iran to Meluhha landmass, this would most certainly be after the fading out of the IVC.
> 
> The Rig Veda, despite mention by some Indians, did not assign Arya to any race or caste or tribe. It was just mentioned for those who were the noble ones and nothing more. I personally do not think that there were any Vedic Aryans as some of the Indians have started proclaiming of-late.



Genetic studies indicate an Indo-Aryan & Indo-Iranian migration. Other civilizations as in the Medians for instance were aware of their connection with the Vedic people. If by the Middle East, you mean Semites, then rest assured only a few Pakistanis may have Semitic mixture. This does not just apply to Pakistan, but to Afghanistan & Iran as well. The migration of the Indo-Iranian people occurred in stages, the Indo-Aryans in particular also had to marry indigenous women because genetic studies indicates that the majority of the migrants were men, but women were naturally present as well. Right now, we can't be certain if the Indo-Aryans had any ethnic relations with the IVC because we haven't deciphered their language. The Harappans were also Caucasian as far as I know, but we do not know if they were Indo-European people because of the failure to decrypt their script & analyze their language. I am not aware of any studies performed on the corpses of Harappan people. The Vedic Aryans lived with the Harappans in the later stages of the Harappan civilization, that is why there is civilizational continuity after the Harappans disappeared. The Vedic Aryans steadily gained strength, political, & cultural dominance. 



Nassr said:


> Actually these are also matters of belief, therefore for those who have not read the Rig Veda and Mahabharat or Puranas etc themselves, the response may always be coloured in belief and it certainly is not their fault.
> 
> There is a massive effort underway in India since some time now, to prove that the Rig Veda and certain other scriptures are much older than the IVC. The reason, IVC represents an urban civilization and the Rig Veda outlines a rural environment and therefore, the Rig Veda has to be older than the IVC and should pre-date it to prove that the IVC was in fact a continuation of the Vedic civilization logically progressing from rural environment to urban environment. And many renowned Indian historians and archeologists have said this openly. Naming of Ghagar-Hakra as Saraswati is also a part of this revisionism. Initially, in their effort to prove the Aryan Invasion Theory wrong, the Indians de-bunked that there ever were any Aryan invasion. Then came the counter to Aryan Migration Theory and now Out of India Theory is being propagated. In doing so, they have written so much self contradictory archeological and historical narrations that it is now difficult for them to un-justify what they justified in the first place, when all this was initiated.
> 
> The problem is that, as many of such theories are proven wrong, new one emerge. Lets see as to where does this charade ends, if at all.



Let them do whatever they want, no one can change the truth. People may present a falsified form of history for furthering their own agenda, but they are eventually going to get caught. In any case, there is really no point in discussing this anymore. These discussions have been held multiple times recently on this forum with little result.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tikolo

^ the large bulk of ANI started entering pakistan around 4200 years ago and it continued till 1900 years ago. so yes, it seems during that time period, there were lots of individual migrations towards the indus from central asia, Caucasian, Iran, Middle east etc.... 

The harrapan people are a mystery, if we are to assume that west asian farmers started the indus valley civilization, then yes obviously they would have been caucasian, that eventually mixed with indigenous ASI who were living on the Indus at the time, however if harrapan civilization is older then the ANI migrations, then they were probably more ASI then ANI and perhaps closer to Dravidian people. At this it is anybody's guess


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> Hey snowwhite show me where I wrote that. You also need to prove your claim.



You claimed indic people were living there, what do you mean by "Indic"? The amount of ASI genes one have?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> You claimed indic people were living there, what do you mean by "Indic"? The amount of ASI genes one have?



Both Greeks sources by Herodotus and ancient Indian sources identify people of Gandhara as Indian people. The ancient people of Gandhara spoke some Sanskrit derived languages. 

Weren't you sometimes back claiming that Punjabis of your country have about 1/5 of ancestral ASI ancestry.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> Both Greeks sources by Herodotus and ancient Indian sources identify people of Gandhara as Indian people. The ancient people of Gandhara spoke some Sanskrit derived languages.
> 
> Weren't you sometimes back claiming that Punjabis of your country have about 1/5 of ancestral ASI ancestry.



They identified them as "Indoi" by Greeks because of Indus river which unfortunately for you is in Pakistan. "India" name come with British. And ancient-people of Gandhara didn't come from jungles of India, you guys were to busy in your caste system at that time. 

No real Historian (by real i mean non-hindu) Gandhara people decendents are current day Pakistanis.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> No real Historian (by real i mean non-hindu) Gandhara people decendents are *current day Pakistanis.*



Current day Pakistan but Gandhara was the part of Bharatvarsha in ancient time. Gandhara people spoke *Indo*-Aryan language derives from Sanskrit. They were the one on whom name Hindukush came & Pakistanis seems very proud of the slaughtering of the people of Gandhara.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pk_baloch

shan said:


> They identified them as "Indoi" by Greeks because of Indus river which unfortunately for you is in Pakistan. "India" name come with British. And ancient-people of Gandhara didn't come from jungles of India, you guys were to busy in your caste system at that time.
> 
> No real Historian (by real i mean non-hindu) Gandhara people decendents are current day Pakistanis.



indic username always twists the real history of pakistan ..u r wasting ur time on him ..

though he knows what r u talking and wat he is answering

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> "India" name come with British.



British took name India from Roman, Romans took name India from Greeks. Before British arrived Romans, Arabs and Chinese had trade relations at various ports of India like Muziris(Kerala), Tamralipti(West Bengal) and Arikamedu(Tamil Nadu).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nexus

hinduguy said:


> both look chinese to me



check out Dragon in 2nd pic.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> Current day Pakistan but Gandhara was the part of Bharatvarsha in ancient time. Gandhara people spoke *Indo*-Aryan language derives from Sanskrit. They were the one on whom name Hindukush came & Pakistanis seems very proud of the slaughtering of the people of Gandhara.



Again more BS, Gandhara was not part of Bharat. It was independent and away from Hindu influence of Dravidians.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Tikolo said:


> ^ the large bulk of ANI started entering pakistan around 4200 years ago and it continued till 1900 years ago. so yes, it seems during that time period, there were lots of individual migrations towards the indus from central asia, Caucasian, Iran, Middle east etc....
> 
> The harrapan people are a mystery, if we are to assume that west asian farmers started the indus valley civilization, then yes obviously they would have been caucasian, that eventually mixed with indigenous ASI who were living on the Indus at the time, however if harrapan civilization is older then the ANI migrations, then they were probably more ASI then ANI and perhaps closer to Dravidian people. At this it is anybody's guess



Please mention me or quote me when you reply to me. I would have missed your post if I hadn't visited this thread again. The migrations took place around 3000 to 8000 years ago according to some studies so we can't pinpoint a precise date because the migration wouldn't have occurred all of a sudden. Caucasian does not simply mean Indo-European, it includes Semitic people as well, & based on the skull shape, the Harappans were Caucasians. Of course, we can't confirm if they were another bunch of Indo-Europeans unless we decrypt their language or study their DNA. One thing is certain, that the Vedic Aryans considered them distinct from themselves. The Indo-Iranian migrations took place during the later era of the Harappan civilization, but of course the migration did take place in stages according to some sources. That is why it's very difficult to pinpoint a precise date. Some of the migrants married local Harappan women as well, that is indicated by genetic research.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Genetic studies indicate an Indo-Aryan & Indo-Iranian migration. Other civilizations as in the Medians for instance were aware of their connection with the Vedic people. If by the Middle East, you mean Semites, then rest assured only a few Pakistanis may have Semitic mixture. This does not just apply to Pakistan, but to Afghanistan & Iran as well. The migration of the Indo-Iranian people occurred in stages, the Indo-Aryans in particular also had to marry indigenous women because genetic studies indicates that the majority of the migrants were men, but women were naturally present as well. Right now, we can't be certain if the Indo-Aryans had any ethnic relations with the IVC because we haven't deciphered their language. The Harappans were also Caucasian as far as I know, but we do not know if they were Indo-European people because of the failure to decrypt their script & analyze their language. I am not aware of any studies performed on the corpses of Harappan people. The Vedic Aryans lived with the Harappans in the later stages of the Harappan civilization, that is why there is civilizational continuity after the Harappans disappeared. The Vedic Aryans steadily gained strength, political, & cultural dominance.
> 
> 
> 
> Let them do whatever they want, no one can change the truth. People may present a falsified form of history for furthering their own agenda, but they are eventually going to get caught. In any case, there is really no point in discussing this anymore. These discussions have been held multiple times recently on this forum with little result.



The genetic studies that I have seen indicate that though there is admix between Iranian and Pakistani people, it is much more pronounced in case of Central Asia and Pakistan as compared to Iran and Pakistan. The admix similarity between the Turks and Central Asian is also similar, which may indicate that Pakistanis are genetically more closer to Central Asians and Turks than the Iranians. The relationship between languages does not have to necessarily relate to the genetic admix and linguists say that the languages do not necessarily travel through migrations. This means that in a certain timeframe, there were more people who migrated from Turkey to Central Asia to Pakistan than from Iran to Pakistan. The Semite mix as you indicate may not be as pronounced as is the Iranian mix which is also not as pronounced. There however, is a mention of a Meluhha Kingdom on the borders of Egypt around 630 BC, which means that the Meluhhans from IVC migrated in large numbers from the IVC to Mesopotamia in the initial instance and later to Palestine. 

From the perspective of given timeframe i.e. the IVC period (3300 BC-1900 BC), there is no known connection between the so-called Vedic Aryans and the IVC. Majority of the historians highlight that the Aryan migrations took place around or after 1500 BC, which means that the people of IVC could not have been the Aryans as they existed much earlier and much before these migrations began. In my opinion and I have read about it as well, the Vedic Aryans were the people of IVC who wrote the Rig Veda after the IVC faded out completely. And as these people were not Aryans in the first place, mention of Arya in the Rig Veda is used for these people as the noble ones and not as a race or a tribe. This also qualifies as the Rig Veda which in its earliest manifest essentially projects monotheism, which the people of the IVC were i.e. monotheists. Now, monotheism does not mean that they were Semite or Muslims or followers of Abrahamic religions. The Indians immediately start reacting to this as being Muslim. 

Deciphering of the language may indicate its family amongst the languages which may not be enough to identify these people as Aryans unless they state it in the seals that infact they were Aryans or Meluhhans or future Pakistanis that they actually were.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

shan said:


> Again more BS, Gandhara was not part of Bharat. It was independent and away from Hindu influence of Dravidians.



What do you mean by Hindu influence? Why is it alway Hindu?

Even with the heavy cultural intrusion from the Greeks, Persians, Central Asians, there is an Indian base to the culture. You cant deny that.






Gandhara




East-Central India




Gandhara




East-Central India




Gandhara




East-Central India




Gandhara




East-Central India

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tikolo

Nassr said:


> The genetic studies that I have seen indicate that though there is admix between Iranian and Pakistani people, it is much more pronounced in case of Central Asia and Pakistan as compared to Iran and Pakistan. The admix similarity between the Turks and Central Asian is also similar, which may indicate that Pakistanis are genetically more closer to Central Asians and Turks than the Iranians. The relationship between languages does not have to necessarily relate to the genetic admix and linguists say that the languages do not necessarily travel through migrations. This means that in a certain timeframe, there were more people who migrated from Turkey to Central Asia to Pakistan than from Iran to Pakistan. The Semite mix as you indicate may not be as pronounced as is the Iranian mix which is also not as pronounced. There however, is a mention of a Meluhha Kingdom on the borders of Egypt around 630 BC, which means that the Meluhhans from IVC migrated in large numbers from the IVC to Mesopotamia in the initial instance and later to Palestine.
> 
> From the perspective of given timeframe i.e. the IVC period (3300 BC-1900 BC), there is no known connection between the so-called Vedic Aryans and the IVC. Majority of the historians highlight that the Aryan migrations took place around or after 1500 BC, which means that the people of IVC could not have been the Aryans as they existed much earlier and much before these migrations began. In my opinion and I have read about it as well, the Vedic Aryans were the people of IVC who wrote the Rig Veda after the IVC faded out completely. And as these people were not Aryans in the first place, mention of Arya in the Rig Veda is used for these people as the noble ones and not as a race or a tribe. This also qualifies as the Rig Veda which in its earliest manifest essentially projects monotheism, which the people of the IVC were i.e. monotheists. Now, monotheism does not mean that they were Semite or Muslims or followers of Abrahamic religions. The Indians immediately start reacting to this as being Muslim.
> 
> Deciphering of the language may indicate its family amongst the languages which may not be enough to identify these people as Aryans unless they state it in the seals that infact they were Aryans or Meluhhans or future Pakistanis that they actually were.





which studies are you talking about? links? anyways pakistanis are defiantly closer to Iranians then they are to turks or present day central asians, unless you are talking about central asians before they mixed with east asian/mongols, we can't be certian at this point what was central asian dna like before mixing with east asian dna

Genetically, the closes people to Pakistanis are obviously North Indians, followed by Afghans and Iranians, then east indians (bengalis), south indians etc..... this is how pakistani genetic cline is


----------



## Nassr

Water Car Engineer said:


> What do you mean by Hindu influence? Why is it alway Hindu?
> 
> Even with the heavy cultural intrusion from the Greeks, Persians, Central Asians, there is an Indian base to the culture. You cant deny that.





^^^^^^ There was no India that existed at that time. How can anybody qualify it to be Indic in the absence of an India as an entity.


----------



## Tikolo

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Please mention me or quote me when you reply to me. I would have missed your post if I hadn't visited this thread again. The migrations took place around 3000 to 8000 years ago according to some studies so we can't pinpoint a precise date because the migration wouldn't have occurred all of a sudden. Caucasian does not simply mean Indo-European, it includes Semitic people as well, & based on the skull shape, the Harappans were Caucasians. Of course, we can't confirm if they were another bunch of Indo-Europeans unless we decrypt their language or study their DNA. One thing is certain, that the Vedic Aryans considered them distinct from themselves. The Indo-Iranian migrations took place during the later era of the Harappan civilization, but of course the migration did take place in stages according to some sources. That is why it's very difficult to pinpoint a precise date. Some of the migrants married local Harappan women as well, that is indicated by genetic research.



the most recent study just published last month (check harrapa ancestry) project says 4200 years is when Admixture between ANI and ASI started taking place, however I personally think that actual admixture must have started long before that, because even south indian tribal population show some ANI in them

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Tikolo said:


> the most recent study just published last month (check harrapa ancestry) project says 4200 years is when Admixture between ANI and ASI started taking place, however I personally think that actual admixture must have started long before that, because even south indian tribal population show some ANI in them



You're right. South Indian tribals groups have ANI. And Pashtons all the way in the N.W. will have some ASI. After the Pashtons the ASI is lost.

It's amazing that S. Indian tribals will have up to 30% ANI when they're not even apart of the caste system. They are not even in the society in any empire. They were literally forest people. No one really came in and no one really came out.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Water Car Engineer said:


> What do you mean by Hindu influence? Why is it alway Hindu?
> 
> Even with the heavy cultural intrusion from the Greeks, Persians, Central Asians, there is an Indian base to the culture. You cant deny that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gandhara
> 
> 
> 
> 
> East-Central India
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gandhara
> 
> 
> 
> 
> East-Central India
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gandhara
> 
> 
> 
> 
> East-Central India
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gandhara
> 
> 
> 
> 
> East-Central India



"Hindu Dravidian" influence, no offence but only idiot will believe that Vedic Hinduism and current day Indian Hinduism is one and same.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Tikolo said:


> the most recent study just published last month (check harrapa ancestry) project says 4200 years is when Admixture between ANI and ASI started taking place, however I personally think that actual admixture must have started long before that, because even south indian tribal population show some ANI in them



Different sources state different dates, that is due to the difficulty involved in deriving an accurate time period through DNA. As our technology improves, we will be able to more precisely determine at what point in history migration & admixture begun to take place. At this point, consider it between 3000 to 8000 years ago. The Indo-Iranians did migrate towards other portions of the Sub-Continent, but they generally intermarried & mixed up with the locals there. Their primary settlements remained the north western & to an extent the northern regions of the Sub-Continent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

Tikolo said:


> which studies are you talking about? links? anyways pakistanis are defiantly closer to Iranians then they are to turks or present day central asians, unless you are talking about central asians before they mixed with east asian/mongols, we can't be certian at this point what was central asian dna like before mixing with east asian dna
> 
> Genetically, the closes people to Pakistanis are obviously North Indians, followed by Afghans and Iranians, then east indians (bengalis), south indians etc..... this is how pakistani genetic cline is



Oh there are quite a few studies and many conducted recently. Which North Indians are you referring to. Are you talking about the Ancestral North Indians (ASI) - the ASIs as referred to in the studies belong to India and not Pakistan. The closeness of borders does not necessarily make the Afghanis or Iranis or north Indians as genetically closer to large number of Pakistanis. Yes, there is admix but it is not as large as one may think it is except for people of southern Afghanistan. And the limited genetic linkages with North Indians are of much later descent due to later historical intermingling of people.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Yes, vedic culture is a prototype, obviously. All those vedic idiots did was throw **** in fire and sing mantras all day. Great, 1000 years wasted before Buddhism.



shan said:


> "Hindu Dravidian" influence, no offence but only idiot will believe that Vedic Hinduism and current day Indian Hinduism is one and same.




What you think those styles were Vedic Hinduism or something? That civilization was being developed in India.


----------



## Nassr

Tikolo said:


> the most recent study just published last month (check harrapa ancestry) project says 4200 years is when Admixture between ANI and ASI started taking place, however I personally think that actual admixture must have started long before that, because even south indian tribal population show some ANI in them



This was the time when the IVC was fading or it had faded out. Therefore linking such conclusions without taking the archeological and historical perspective in view may lead to assumptions and not conclusions. In any case it is indeed very difficult to put a time line to genetic admix at this stage of scientific evolution though it may be possible at a later stage.


----------



## Tikolo

Nassr said:


> Oh there are quite a few studies and many conducted recently. Which North Indians are you referring to. Are you talking about the Ancestral North Indians (ASI) - the ASIs as referred to in the studies belong to India and not Pakistan. The closeness of borders does not necessarily make the Afghanis or Iranis or north Indians as genetically closer to large number of Pakistanis. Yes, there is admix but it is not as large as one may think it is except for people of southern Afghanistan. And the limited genetic linkages with North Indians are of much later descent due to later historical intermingling of people.



I am talking about the genetic distances of people that Harrapa ancestry project calculates, when I say north indians, I mean people like Punjabis, Rajashitanis, western Uttar pardesh, these people are obviously genetically closer to eastern pakistanis. Pakistani Pashtuns and Baloch are obviously closer to Afghans, then they are to northern Indians. It depends which group in Pakistan we are talking about

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

Water Car Engineer said:


> Yes, vedic culture is a prototype, obviously. All those vedic idiots did was throw **** in fire and sing mantras all day. Great, 1000 years wasted before Buddhism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you think those styles were Vedic Hinduism or something? That civilization was being developed in India.



Could you please explain the difference between the Vedic and Hindu practices and cultures.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

What ever happened is a murky, but if these Central Asians that looked like this invaded India and Indian civilization ends up looking like this below 1000(2300ish BC)years after the invasion..

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

































etc
etc

It's fair to say they took a lot from the culture that was already there.


----------



## Nassr

Tikolo said:


> I am talking about the genetic distances of people that Harrapa ancestry project calculates, when I say north indians, I mean people like Punjabis, Rajashitanis, western Uttar pardesh, these people are obviously genetically closer to eastern pakistanis. Pakistani Pashtuns and Baloch are obviously closer to Afghans, then they are to northern Indians. It depends which group in Pakistan we are talking about



Firstly, the people of IVC include the people of Punjab, part of Rajasthan and part of Gujarat and definitely not Uttar Pradesh. Secondly, genetics does not necessarily relate to closeness of distances as in old days the linkages amongst the people were not as pronounced due to the distances as it were. Unless of-course there was a trade or other related exchanges amongst the populace of different places. The traditional ground trade route through Afghanistan between the IVC and Iran, Mesopotamia and Central Asia existed during the times of IVC and therefore the linkages. However, very little if at all any trade or other linkages existed between the people of Indus valley and Ganges valley and its adjoining plains. Therefore, despite the relative closeness of distances, there were hardly any linkages and hardly any genetic admix till much much later in the history.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Nassr said:


> The genetic studies that I have seen indicate that though there is admix between Iranian and Pakistani people, it is much more pronounced in case of Central Asia and Pakistan as compared to Iran and Pakistan. The admix similarity between the Turks and Central Asian is also similar, which may indicate that Pakistanis are genetically more closer to Central Asians and Turks than the Iranians. The relationship between languages does not have to necessarily relate to the genetic admix and linguists say that the languages do not necessarily travel through migrations. This means that in a certain timeframe, there were more people who migrated from Turkey to Central Asia to Pakistan than from Iran to Pakistan. The Semite mix as you indicate may not be as pronounced as is the Iranian mix which is also not as pronounced. There however, is a mention of a Meluhha Kingdom on the borders of Egypt around 630 BC, which means that the Meluhhans from IVC migrated in large numbers from the IVC to Mesopotamia in the initial instance and later to Palestine.



The mixture between Iranian & Pakistani people refers to Indo-Iranian people. We are not referring to Persian mixture in the Pakistani populace because that would naturally be less. The Pashtuns, Balochis, northern Punjabis, & Kashmiris are all descendants of the Indo-Iranian migrations. Those migrations took place from Central Asia or Andronovo, it's important to remember that ancient Central Asia was different from the modern ethnic groups residing there. Pakistanis are not close to Turks at all, no genetic study ever indicated that. In fact all studies indicate relations to Indo-Iranian people & to an extent Eastern European people. Some Turkic groups were residing in Central Asia during the time the Indo-Iranian Sintashta culture was prevalent in Central Asia, but there is no known admixture between them. 

Any Semitic or Turkic mixture present in the modern day Pakistani population took place within the Islamic era. That mixture is so little & in so few people that we might as well not consider it or even discuss it. The Sumerian term Meluhha was applied to the Harappans, but that does not imply that the Harappans migrated there. In fact, the Harappans are only known to have business relations as in trade with the Babylonians & Mesopotamians. Languages do not always travel through migration, they also travel through cultural or political dominance. However, in the case of the Sub-Continent, Afghanistan, & Iran, Indo-Iranian migrations took place towards Iran, Afghanistan, & the Indus Valley. Once the Indo-Iranian people settled in the north western regions of the Sub-Continent, their cultural dominance spread their languages all over the region. This is why Indo-Aryan languages are spoken all over the Sub-Continent even though most people do not descend from them. Genetic studies confirm this, & the reason the caste system was developed was to preserve their power & race. The Indo-Iranian people remained predominantly in the north western regions of the Sub-Continent.



Nassr said:


> From the perspective of given timeframe i.e. the IVC period (3300 BC-1900 BC), there is no known connection between the so-called Vedic Aryans and the IVC. Majority of the historians highlight that the Aryan migrations took place around or after 1500 BC, which means that the people of IVC could not have been the Aryans as they existed much earlier and much before these migrations began.



Those dates (particularly the 1500 BC migration) are not accurate because they are generally derived from Max Mueller's Aryan Invasion Theory which has been discredited. Max Mueller derived those dates in a manner that got them to conform with his religious beliefs in the Bible & its dates of the world's creation or something. That is why those dates are inaccurate. 

The Indo-Iranians or Aryans migrated towards the Indus, they did not invade or enslave it. Their migration is said to have occurred around 3000 to 8000 years ago. The source that you asked for is present below.

Genetic evidence suggests European migrants may have influenced 
the origins of India's caste system

This study focuses on India, but the dates for Indo-European migrations predominantly towards the north western regions of the Sub-Continent are still valid.

Please note that Sanskrit was at one point in time an unwritten language. In fact, I have read that the Aryans developed their script after interacting with the Harappans & other local people of the Sub-Continent.



Nassr said:


> In my opinion and I have read about it as well, the Vedic Aryans were the people of IVC who wrote the Rig Veda after the IVC faded out completely. And as these people were not Aryans in the first place, mention of Arya in the Rig Veda is used for these people as the noble ones and not as a race or a tribe. This also qualifies as the Rig Veda which in its earliest manifest essentially projects monotheism, which the people of the IVC were i.e. monotheists. Now, monotheism does not mean that they were Semite or Muslims or followers of Abrahamic religions. The Indians immediately start reacting to this as being Muslim.



That's not correct, genetic & historical evidence does not indicate that at all. The Vedic Aryans considered themselves distinct from the Harappans, even though they did marry their women sometimes. They migrated towards the Indus Valley in the later stages of that civilization & probably resided in Afghanistan before that. The Sanskrit language is different from the Harappan language. It isn't reasonable to believe that those people randomly forgot their language or history after the IVC's collapse. The term Aryan evolved in a manner similar to the word Roman. In the later era of the Roman empire, the Byzantines called themselves Romans even if they were Greek. That doesn't change the fact that the Romans are the people of Italy. Similarly, the term Aryan evolved in to meaning anyone that follows the Vedic culture or speaks their languages. It initially referred to a race, similar to Avestan's word "Arian". There is little proof that the people of the IVC were monotheists, & we won't know much till we decipher their language. The Vedic Aryans were not monotheists though.



Nassr said:


> Deciphering of the language may indicate its family amongst the languages which may not be enough to identify these people as Aryans unless they state it in the seals that infact they were Aryans or Meluhhans or future Pakistanis that they actually were.



Deciphering their language will help us to classify it as Indo-European, Dravidian, or even the possibility of it being Semitic, even though that is extremely unlikely. In the past, the original speakers of a language shared heritage with the original speakers of their language's sister languages. We already know that the Harappans hadn't been colonized previously so there language is bound to be their own. No other civilization has a script similar to theirs.

Anyway, this was a nice topic for discussion, but I am bored of it now. Let me know if you want me to provide you with more links of genetic studies or some other relevant sources.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

Water Car Engineer said:


> What ever happened is a murky, but if these Central Asians that looked like this invaded India and Indian civilization ends up looking like this below 1000(2300ish BC)years after the invasion..
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> It's fair to say they took a lot from the culture that was already there.



Please understand that all the pilgrim-centres of Hinduism are located to the east of Haryana. There is no Hindu pilgrim centre worthy of particular note in the Punjab or the northwest India. We in Pakistan also do not have such a culture as you are portraying in the pics and as it is, there are very few Hindu pilgrim areas in Pakistan worthy of any name. And it is not because the Muslims destroyed it while they invaded this area, these were actually not there in any worthwhile number. Therefore your culture is also alien to us here in Pakistan.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Nassr said:


> Please understand that all the pilgrim-centres of Hinduism are located to the east of Haryana. There is no Hindu pilgrim centre worthy of particular note in the Punjab or the northwest India. We in Pakistan also do not have such a culture as you are portraying in the pics and as it is, there are very few Hindu pilgrim areas in Pakistan worthy of any name. And it is not because the Muslims destroyed it while they invaded this area, these were actually not there in any worthwhile number. Therefore your culture is also alien to us here in Pakistan.




Haryana is basically Punjab. 




> We in Pakistan also do not have such a culture as you are portraying in the pics and as it is, there are very few Hindu pilgrim areas in Pakistan worthy of any name.



Yeah, because it's like 2000++ years old. Look at the pictures of Gandhara art. When Gandhara started to produce art in the Gerco-Roman style you can see that base of the culture-civilization is Indic in nature, with added spice from the Greeks, etc. And this is after 1000 years of Greek, Persian, Central Asian intrusion.



> Therefore your culture is also alien to us here in Pakistan.




Oh trust me, the culture of Gandhara would be alien to Western Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan as well. Persian culture would be alien to modern Iran. Pre-Islamic cultures of Arab would be alien to Arabia, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Nassr

Water Car Engineer said:


> Haryana is basically Punjab.
> 
> Yeah, because it's like 2000++ years old. Look at the pictures of Gandhara art. When Gandhara started to produce art in the Gerco-Roman style you can see that base of the culture-civilization is Indic in nature, with added spice from the Greeks, etc. And this is after 1000 years of Greek, Persian, Central Asian intrusion.



I know Haryana was part of old Punjab - I referred it because of the present understanding. 

The only difference that I have with you is Gandhara being Indic. When India didn't exist at that time it can not be related to India which is a much later advent. And the IVC area which is west of the watershed that divides the Indus and Gangetic plains was only part of a politically unified Indo-Gangetic Plain only three times in the known history of over 9000 years during the times of Mauryas, Muslims and British rule. We the people of IVC do not call anything within this area as Indic.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Nassr said:


> I know Haryana was part of old Punjab - I referred it because of the present understanding.
> 
> The only difference that I have with you is Gandhara being Indic. When India didn't exist at that time it can not be related to India which is a much later advent. And the IVC area which is west of the watershed that divides the Indus and Gangetic plains was only part of a politically unified Indo-Gangetic Plain only three times in the known history of over 9000 years during the times of Mauryas, Muslims and British rule. We the people of IVC do not call anything within this area as Indic.




It's clear which civ in belonged to. You dont have to like it. It's not part of the Iranic, Sinic, etc. civs. I'm only referring it to present understandings.


----------



## Nassr

p(-)0ENiX said:


> The mixture between Iranian & Pakistani people refers to Indo-Iranian people. We are not referring to Persian mixture in the Pakistani populace because that would naturally be less. The Pashtuns, Balochis, northern Punjabis, & Kashmiris are all descendants of the Indo-Iranian migrations. Those migrations took place from Central Asia or Andronovo, it's important to remember that ancient Central Asia was different from the modern ethnic groups residing there. Pakistanis are not close to Turks at all, no genetic study ever indicated that. In fact all studies indicate relations to Indo-Iranian people & to an extent Eastern European people. Some Turkic groups were residing in Central Asia during the time the Indo-Iranian Sintashta culture was prevalent in Central Asia, but there is no known admixture between them.
> 
> Any Semitic or Turkic mixture present in the modern day Pakistani population took place within the Islamic era. That mixture is so little & in so few people that we might as well not consider it or even discuss it. The Sumerian term Meluhha was applied to the Harappans, but that does not imply that the Harappans migrated there. In fact, the Harappans are only known to have business relations as in trade with the Babylonians & Mesopotamians. Languages do not always travel through migration, they also travel through cultural or political dominance. However, in the case of the Sub-Continent, Afghanistan, & Iran, Indo-Iranian migrations took place towards Iran, Afghanistan, & the Indus Valley. Once the Indo-Iranian people settled in the north western regions of the Sub-Continent, their cultural dominance spread their languages all over the region. This is why Indo-Aryan languages are spoken all over the Sub-Continent even though most people do not descend from them. Genetic studies confirm this, & the reason the caste system was developed was to preserve their power & race. The Indo-Iranian people remained predominantly in the north western regions of the Sub-Continent.
> 
> 
> 
> Those dates (particularly the 1500 BC migration) are not accurate because they are generally derived from Max Mueller's Aryan Invasion Theory which has been discredited. Max Mueller derived those dates in a manner that got them to conform with his religious beliefs in the Bible & its dates of the world's creation or something. That is why those dates are inaccurate.
> 
> The Indo-Iranians or Aryans migrated towards the Indus, they did not invade or enslave it. Their migration is said to have occurred around 3000 to 8000 years ago. The source that you asked for is present below.
> 
> Genetic evidence suggests European migrants may have influenced
> the origins of India's caste system
> 
> This study focuses on India, but the dates for Indo-European migrations predominantly towards the north western regions of the Sub-Continent are still valid.
> 
> Please note that Sanskrit was at one point in time an unwritten language. In fact, I have read that the Aryans developed their script after interacting with the Harappans & other local people of the Sub-Continent.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not correct, genetic & historical evidence does not indicate that at all. The Vedic Aryans considered themselves distinct from the Harappans, even though they did marry their women sometimes. They migrated towards the Indus Valley in the later stages of that civilization & probably resided in Afghanistan before that. The Sanskrit language is different from the Harappan language. It isn't reasonable to believe that those people randomly forgot their language or history after the IVC's collapse. The term Aryan evolved in a manner similar to the word Roman. In the later era of the Roman empire, the Byzantines called themselves Romans even if they were Greek. That doesn't change the fact that the Romans are the people of Italy. Similarly, the term Aryan evolved in to meaning anyone that follows the Vedic culture or speaks their languages. It initially referred to a race, similar to Avestan's word "Arian". There is little proof that the people of the IVC were monotheists, & we won't know much till we decipher their language. The Vedic Aryans were not monotheists though.
> 
> 
> 
> Deciphering their language will help us to classify it as Indo-European, Dravidian, or even the possibility of it being Semitic, even though that is extremely unlikely. In the past, the original speakers of a language shared heritage with the original speakers of their language's sister languages. We already know that the Harappans hadn't been colonized previously so there language is bound to be their own. No other civilization has a script similar to theirs.
> 
> Anyway, this was a nice topic for discussion, but I am bored of it now. Let me know if you want me to provide you with more links of genetic studies or some other relevant sources.



I think that there are many aspects that you highlight are akin to what I am stating, the difference being in methodology of given explanation. 

The popular narration of linkages here is between the people of different countries as they exist now and not the terminologies used by certain experts. 

I relate to a combination of archeological, historical and genetic facts as these have been pronounced. Your emphasis, as I understand is more towards genetics. 

There is archeological evidence that the people of BACTRIA migrated to Persia. There is no archeological evidence that those who moved from BACTRIA to Persia, further moved to IVC areas. 

However, there is archeological and historical references which state that the people from Central Asia did move to IVC areas. And these people have been identified as Indo-Aryans and not Indo-Iranians. And the studies that I have gone through, does not mention linkages of Indo-Iranians with the people of IVC or much later as people of Pakistan. And it was for this reason that I had requested for references. 

According to my studies, Vedic Aryans which is a recent advent, essentially from Hindutva hued Indians has never been identified beyond a reasonable doubt as people of IVC, and has been highly speculatory to say the least. Calling IVC a Vedic civilization was marred by earlier speculations and is now being challenged. I do not agree that there were any linkages between the Vedic people with the IVC at any stage before this civilization faded out. And this I can discuss with you to any length. Thanks.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Water Car Engineer said:


> It's clear which civ in belonged to. You dont have to like it. It's not part of the Iranic, Sinic, etc. civs. I'm only referring it to present understandings.



It doesnt have to be part of Iran to be distinct from Dravidian civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tikolo

Nassr said:


> Firstly, the people of IVC include the people of Punjab, part of Rajasthan and part of Gujarat and definitely not Uttar Pradesh. Secondly, genetics does not necessarily relate to closeness of distances as in old days the linkages amongst the people were not as pronounced due to the distances as it were. Unless of-course there was a trade or other related exchanges amongst the populace of different places. The traditional ground trade route through Afghanistan between the IVC and Iran, Mesopotamia and Central Asia existed during the times of IVC and therefore the linkages. However, very little if at all any trade or other linkages existed between the people of Indus valley and Ganges valley and its adjoining plains. Therefore, despite the relative closeness of distances, there were hardly any linkages and hardly any genetic admix till much much later in the history.



I am talking about current admixture between the people, I never said Indus was connected to ganga, it never was. There was nothing on ganga river in those days

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

Water Car Engineer said:


> It's clear which civ in belonged to. You dont have to like it. It's not part of the Iranic, Sinic, etc. civs. I'm only referring it to present understandings.



It is not a matter of likes or dislikes. It is part of geological, archeological and historical evidence based on which the conclusions are arrived at. The IVC is part of Pakistani heritage as the core of this civilization and its people live here. Earlier they were known as Meluhhas and now the same people call it Pakistan.



Tikolo said:


> I am talking about current admixture between the people, I never said Indus was connected to ganga, it never was. There was nothing on ganga river in those days



Therefore, the limited genetic admix between the Indians and Pakistanis has been a rather recent phenomenon and does not relate to the times of the IVC.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Nassr said:


> I think that there are many aspects that you highlight are akin to what I am stating, the difference being in methodology of given explanation.
> 
> The popular narration of linkages here is between the people of different countries as they exist now and not the terminologies used by certain experts.
> 
> I relate to a combination of archeological, historical and genetic facts as these have been pronounced. Your emphasis, as I understand is more towards genetics.
> 
> There is archeological evidence that the people of BACTRIA migrated to Persia. There is no archeological evidence that those who moved from BACTRIA to Persia, further moved to IVC areas.



Some of our views were similar, but our views regarding the identity of the Indo-Aryans were different, & I think my previous explanations should clear any misconceptions. I give importance to archaeological, historical, cultural, & linguistic evidence as well, but genetic evidence is extremely important because it's the one thing that cannot lie. No one moved from Persia to the Indus, any movement that may have taken place, resulted during the period the Persians ruled over the Indus. The Indo-Iranian migrations to both Iran & the Indus are confirmed as of now. I think we both agree that the Indo-Iranians initially resided in Afghanistan when the migrations from Central Asia began.



Nassr said:


> However, there is archeological and historical references which state that the people from Central Asia did move to IVC areas. And these people have been identified as Indo-Aryans and not Indo-Iranians. And the studies that I have gone through, does not mention linkages of Indo-Iranians with the people of IVC or much later as people of Pakistan. And it was for this reason that I had requested for references.



The Indo-Aryans are a branch of Indo-Iranians. In fact the Indo-Iranians as a whole are present in modern day Pakistan. The Pashtuns & Balochis are an Iranic people. The Kashmiris & northern Punjabis are purely Indo-Aryan. You previously claimed that the Aryans were the same people as the IVC, that is not true at all & that is why I provided you with a source proving that Indo-European tribes migrated to the Indus. As such the Harappans are different from the Indo-Iranians.



Nassr said:


> According to my studies, Vedic Aryans which is a recent advent, essentially from Hindutva hued Indians has never been identified beyond a reasonable doubt as people of IVC, and has been highly speculatory to say the least. Calling IVC a Vedic civilization was marred by earlier speculations and is now being challenged. I do not agree that there were any linkages between the Vedic people with the IVC at any stage before this civilization faded out. And this I can discuss with you to any length. Thanks.



I never claimed that the IVC was linked with the Vedic people, but it remains a fact that the Indo-Aryans lived with the Harappans for a short duration of time till their collapse before the advent of the Vedic civilization. We won't know who they (Harappans) were precisely till their script is deciphered. The Indo-Aryans differentiated themselves from Harappans, but they married some of their women, & adopted certain aspects of their culture. That is why there are some similarities between them.


----------



## eastwatch

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Genetic studies indicate an Indo-Aryan & Indo-Iranian migration. Other civilizations as in the Medians for instance were aware of their connection with the Vedic people. If by the Middle East, you mean Semites, then rest assured only a few Pakistanis may have Semitic mixture. This does not just apply to Pakistan, but to Afghanistan & Iran as well.
> 
> The migration of the Indo-Iranian people occurred in stages, the Indo-Aryans *in particular also had to marry indigenous women because genetic studies indicates that the majority of the migrants were men*, but women were naturally present as well. Right now, we can't be certain if the Indo-Aryans had any ethnic relations with the IVC because we haven't deciphered their language.



*Bold part:*Your assumption here that the majority of Aryan men left their women and children behind in the west Asia and immigrated to India is something cannot be accepted as a truth. There is no proof to support your view. Certainly, both sexes of Aryans came and settled in Indian north/NW.

Because they wielded supremacy over the local Indians, therefore, the Aryan men took this privilege to take multiple partners/wives from the locals. However, the off-springs born out of these unequal unions by the local mothers were, by Aryan custom, not given the status of Aryan. 

They were given Sudra status or any other status the mothers belonged to. This is the reason why Aryan Y-chromsome, inherited from the fathers, is so prevalent among the lower caste Hindus in India. Aryan polygamy, by taking many non-Aryan local women into bed, has created a prevalence of Aryan Y-chromosoms among all groups of Hindus.

Too many of intermarriages in old times alarmed the Aryan leaders and they imposed a strict Caste system in the society to bar people from marrying into other castes.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

eastwatch said:


> *Bold part:*Your assumption here that the Aryan men left their women and children behind in the west Asia and immigrated to India is something cannot be accepted as a truth. There is no proof to support your view. Certainly, both sexes of Aryans came and settled in Indian north/NW.
> 
> Because they wielded supremacy over the local Indians, therefore, the Aryan men took this privilege to take multiple partners/wives from the locals. However, the off-springs born out of these unequal unions by the local mothers were, by Aryan custom, not given the status of Aryan.
> 
> They were given Sudra status or any other status the mothers belonged to. This is the reason why Aryan Y-chromsome, inherited from the fathers, is so prevalent among the lower caste Hindus in India. Aryan polygamy, by taking many non-Aryan local women into bed, has created a prevalence of Aryan Y-chromosoms among all groups of Hindus.
> 
> Too many of intermarriages in old times alarmed the Aryan leaders and they imposed a strict Caste system in the society to bar people from marrying into other castes.



Who said Aryan women & children didn't migrate with the men? They obviously did migrate with them, otherwise their race would never have survived. I think you have misunderstood my post. I will explain what I meant in detail later when I get the time. The points you have raised are valid, but they require more details & clarification.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eastwatch

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Who said Aryan women & children didn't migrate with the men? They obviously did migrate with them, otherwise their race would never have survived. I think you have misunderstood my post. I will explain what I meant in detail later when I get the time. The points you have raised are valid, but they require more details & clarification.



Sorry, it was an unintentional typing mistake. Now, I have corrected your citation. Please re-check my previous post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Again more BS, Gandhara was not part of Bharat. It was independent and away from *Hindu influence* of Dravidians.



Are you claiming Gandhara never had Hindu influence.


----------



## INDIC

Nassr said:


> Please understand that *all the pilgrim-centres of Hinduism* are located to the east of Haryana.



Hinglaj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Katasraj temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haryana has major Pilgrimage center at Kurukshetra. Rajasthan has major Pilgrimage site at Pushkar.


----------



## INDIC

Nassr said:


> It is not a matter of likes or dislikes. It is part of geological, archeological and historical evidence based on which the conclusions are arrived at. The IVC is part of Pakistani heritage as the core of this civilization and its people live here. Ea*rlier they were known as Meluhhas and now the same people call it Pakistan.*
> .




Pakistanis are descendants of (Dravidian) Meluhhans, Snowwhite Pakistanis are not Dravidians. Can you clear this confusion.


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> It doesnt have to be part of Iran to be distinct from Dravidian civilization.



You have gone trolling, prove that Gandhara didn't have Indian culture and wasn't the part of Bharatvarsha.


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

Beerbal said:


> When King of Lanka Ravana was on death bed his wife Mandodari told him "Hey *Arya-Putra*, Son of Ayodhya-King, Ram wants to meet you."
> 
> 
> She addessed Ravana as Arya ...
> 
> 
> Arya means noble.. Unlike some Arabic or African tribal religion, Indian religion don't appreciate inbreeding. Inter-cultural marriage was common in India. Color of skin doens't define race. India is place of mixed race where Queen of Afghanistan was married to King of Hastinapur.
> 
> Where princes of Greece married to king of Patliputra and so on..
> 
> 
> There was no war as TS suggetsed.



Good post .......adding to your post ......that queen of Afghanistan was Gandhari ......this is because her father ,the King , was ruling Afghanistan from "gandhar " ( which is today's "kandhar")......her brother's name was Shakuni .....the maternal uncle to Kauravas ....


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Who said Aryan women & children didn't migrate with the men? They obviously did migrate with them, otherwise their race would never have survived. I think you have misunderstood my post. I will explain what I meant in detail later when I get the time. The points you have raised are valid, but they require more details & clarification.



I dont think that Aryans actually came from foreign land to India .They were quite native to indian subcontinent .The Harappa and Mohanjodaro civilization were already there since the beginning . The Europeons didnot come from outside Europe . Likewise , the Aryans were present in west asia well as India . They didnot come from anywhere else .


----------



## eastwatch

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> I dont think that Aryans actually came from foreign land to India .They were quite native to indian subcontinent .The Harappa and Mohanjodaro civilization were already there since the beginning . The Europeons didnot come from outside Europe . Likewise , the Aryans were present in west asia well as India . They didnot come from anywhere else .



Human race was born in Africa and they moved outwards at the end of the last Ice Age some thousands of years ago. So, how do you expect any one inhabiting in India at the early evolution of Homo Sapiens if someone did not migrate physically? Ice melted and the northern zones became more and more habitable for the physically weak Homo Sapiens to live. 

Modern men derived in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and they moved out to different places in multiple groups when their habitats became overcrowded, food became scarce and north became habitable. So, one or the other group certainly came to India followed by many other groups that continued even during the recent historical time.

So, this is how the Dravidians, Aryans, Shokks, Huns, Turk and Mongolian - all groups of people immigrated to India and settled here. Some came from west, and some from center north Asia at later times. There have always been movements of people. Even today people are moving to different lands. But, the process has been slowed down.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## farhan_9909

All the south asian including the pakistanis are dravidians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

eastwatch said:


> *Bold part:*Your assumption here that the majority of Aryan men left their women and children behind in the west Asia and immigrated to India is something cannot be accepted as a truth. There is no proof to support your view. Certainly, both sexes of Aryans came and settled in Indian north/NW.



I think it's obvious that Aryan women & children migrated with their men. You probably misunderstood the point that I was trying to imply. The Indo-Iranian migrations occurred in stages as far as we know at the moment. They didn't arrive as a huge group & simply settle next to the Harappans. I think the more accurate statement is that women were slightly fewer in number in comparison to the men as far as the Indo-Aryans are concerned, not the Indo-Iranians as a whole. The Indo-Aryans or the Vedic people weren't exactly an extremely large group when they settled in northern Punjab. However, their birth rates were extremely high later on, & they placed a huge amount of emphasis on having male children as was the case with many patriarchal societies throughout history. This emphasis on male children may also have resulted from a desire to build a large army for self-defense. Both the Indo-Iranian & Indo-Aryan people migrated as a whole, as in including men, women, & children. Some sources postulate that those migrations were extremely rough due to the terrain & weather conditions in the region. Let's not forget that climatic changes are considered one of the factors leading to the decline of the Harappans themselves. 

Even though most of these Indo-Iranian settlements remained in the north western & northern regions of the Sub-Continent, there were some albeit lesser migrations to other portions of the Sub-Continent. To some extent genetic evidence does indicate that according to this study focused on India alone.

Genetic evidence suggests European migrants may have influenced 
the origins of India's caste system



> Analysis of the paternally transmitted Y chromosome among Indians in general indicated that the Y chromosome had a more European flavor. Maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA among Indians is more Asian than European. *This suggests that the Europeans who entered India were predominantly male.*



Keep in mind that this study focused on modern day India as a whole. It does not take in to consideration that the majority of those settlements were in the north western (Indus) & norther regions of the Sub-Continent. So we can conclude that men & women were present in proportional amounts in the primary regions of their settlement, but other minor migrations deeper in to the Sub-Continent were carried out by men that ended up marrying local women. That probably explains the results from this study. 



eastwatch said:


> Because they wielded supremacy over the local Indians, therefore, the Aryan men took this privilege to take multiple partners/wives from the locals. However, the off-springs born out of these unequal unions by the local mothers were, by Aryan custom, not given the status of Aryan.
> 
> They were given Sudra status or any other status the mothers belonged to. This is the reason why Aryan Y-chromsome, inherited from the fathers, is so prevalent among the lower caste Hindus in India. Aryan polygamy, by taking many non-Aryan local women into bed, has created a prevalence of Aryan Y-chromosoms among all groups of Hindus.
> 
> Too many of intermarriages in old times alarmed the Aryan leaders and they imposed a strict Caste system in the society to bar people from marrying into other castes.



I am not sure about the status of Aryan in case of birth from non-Aryan women, but if men married women from lower castes, their children would have belonged to the caste of their fathers. Those people would naturally not be Aryans racially, but as the term "Aryan" evolved to refer to people following Vedic culture, then those people may have been considered as cultural Aryans. Some of the migrants that traveled deeper in to the Sub-Continent mixed with the locals there, including women from lower castes, that wiped them out, but their descendants naturally carry traces of their DNA. To be honest, the caste system focused more on occupations, but there was without a doubt a racial twist to it. The Aryans desired to consolidate their power & thus assigned themselves higher castes. Personally, I do not disagree with their desire to preserve their race or heritage, every people has the right to do that. I just think that the caste system wasn't the appropriate method to preserve race, & let's not forget that the rigidity of occupations is unfair as well.



Babbar-Khalsa said:


> I dont think that Aryans actually came from foreign land to India .They were quite native to indian subcontinent .The Harappa and Mohanjodaro civilization were already there since the beginning . The Europeons didnot come from outside Europe . Likewise , the Aryans were present in west asia well as India . They didnot come from anywhere else .



You may continue to believe whatever you want. Unfortunately, historic, linguistic, & genetic evidence doesn't support your view. Races have migrated for centuries, not just in the Sub-Continent, but in other lands too. The Phoenicians for instance migrated to North Africa & setup the Carthaginian empire, & were the source of their culture & society.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

farhan_9909 said:


> All the south asian including the pakistanis are dravidians.



Every south asian have ASI (Ancestral South Indian) genes. Pakistanis have least amount of ASI genes from Pashtun/Baloch who average 20-30% and Punjabis with average of 25-35%. I think ASI genes are what differentiate south asians from other regions like Iran or Arab countries.



INDIC said:


> Are you claiming Gandhara never had Hindu influence.



I claimed they never had Dravidian Hindu influence, but Vedic one which is normal because thats where it originated. And now you will start saying both are the same and one like Akhand Bharat


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

eastwatch said:


> Human race was born in Africa and they moved outwards at the end of the last Ice Age some thousands of years ago. So, how do you expect any one inhabiting in India at the early evolution of Homo Sapiens if someone did not migrate physically? Ice melted and the northern zones became more and more habitable for the physically weak Homo Sapiens to live.
> 
> Modern men derived in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and they moved out to different places in multiple groups when their habitats became overcrowded, food became scarce and north became habitable. So, one or the other group certainly came to India followed by many other groups that continued even during the recent historical time.
> 
> So, this is how the Dravidians, Aryans, Shokks, Huns, Turk and Mongolian - all groups of people immigrated to India and settled here. Some came from west, and some from center north Asia at later times. There have always been movements of people. Even today people are moving to different lands. But, the process has been slowed down.



Please stop this bs, in the book of RSS nama chapter number 584865 it is clearly mentioned that "Indians" pooped out of India million years ago.

thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Gandhara is the home and of kautilya,the infamous 'chanakya' of pakistani paranoia.The one who is supposedly the master of subversive tactics of the 'hindus' was from present day pakistan...from somewhere which was never part of india.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Genetic evidence suggests European migrants may have influenced
> the origins of India's caste system




Do you have any updated study? That study is 12 years old! Anyway now its believed R1A1 originated near east or Pakistan specifically. This is what 23andme.com says about it. They cant pinpoint exact location because its thousands of years old, but it seem many people now are pretty sure that Pakistan is most likely country of origin. 

"Haplogroup R1a1
Haplogroup R1a1 appears to have arisen in the Near East or present-day Pakistan during the peak of the Ice Age about 18,000 years ago. Until the Ice Age began to wane about 15,000 years ago, it may have been limited to the area around the Black Sea, a region that remained relatively ice-free and hospitable while much of Eurasia was covered by glaciers and tundra."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Gandhara is the home and of kautilya,the infamous 'chanakya' of pakistani paranoia.The one who is supposedly the master of subversive tactics of the 'hindus' was from present day pakistan...from somewhere which was never part of india.



Pakistanis are following Arab religion, doesn't make them arabs does it? Continue to believe in Akhand Bharat crap.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

shan said:


> Do you have any updated study? That study is 12 years old! Anyway now its believed R1A1 originated near east or Pakistan specifically. This is what 23andme.com says about it. They cant pinpoint exact location because its thousands of years old, but it seem many people now are pretty sure that Pakistan is most likely country of origin.
> 
> "Haplogroup R1a1
> Haplogroup R1a1 appears to have arisen in the Near East or present-day Pakistan during the peak of the Ice Age about 18,000 years ago. Until the Ice Age began to wane about 15,000 years ago, it may have been limited to the area around the Black Sea, a region that remained relatively ice-free and hospitable while much of Eurasia was covered by glaciers and tundra."



The origins of the R1a haplogroup are still under study, but you might be interested to know that this haplogroup also exists in regions of Eastern Europe. At this point, the prevailing view remains that migrations from Central Asia reached the Indus. The Kurgan hypothesis is another informative theory you may want to refer to. As far as Europe itself is concerned, the majority of Indo-Europeans over there have been settled since Paleolithic times, the only migrations that took place from Central Asia towards Europe remained focused towards Eastern Europe.

By the way, the quote you have referred to in your post, also points towards regions close to Central Asia as the origin of R1a1. 

Croatian genetic heritage: Y-chromosome story



> The fact that the second most frequent haplogroup in the mainland and island populations was *R1a* implies that at least some of the founding ancestral groups of Croatian population originated from *Indo-European speaking populations who had possibly migrated from southern Russia 2000 BP carrying this mutation.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nassr

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Some of our views were similar, but our views regarding the identity of the Indo-Aryans were different, & I think my previous explanations should clear any misconceptions. I give importance to archaeological, historical, cultural, & linguistic evidence as well, but genetic evidence is extremely important because it's the one thing that cannot lie. No one moved from Persia to the Indus, any movement that may have taken place, resulted during the period the Persians ruled over the Indus. The Indo-Iranian migrations to both Iran & the Indus are confirmed as of now. I think we both agree that the Indo-Iranians initially resided in Afghanistan when the migrations from Central Asia began.
> 
> 
> 
> The Indo-Aryans are a branch of Indo-Iranians. In fact the Indo-Iranians as a whole are present in modern day Pakistan. The Pashtuns & Balochis are an Iranic people. The Kashmiris & northern Punjabis are purely Indo-Aryan. You previously claimed that the Aryans were the same people as the IVC, that is not true at all & that is why I provided you with a source proving that Indo-European tribes migrated to the Indus. As such the Harappans are different from the Indo-Iranians.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that the IVC was linked with the Vedic people, but it remains a fact that the Indo-Aryans lived with the Harappans for a short duration of time till their collapse before the advent of the Vedic civilization. We won't know who they (Harappans) were precisely till their script is deciphered. The Indo-Aryans differentiated themselves from Harappans, but they married some of their women, & adopted certain aspects of their culture. That is why there are some similarities between them.



I read the study that you referred to. The quote of 3000-8000 years from; 

_Shared Indo-European languages (i.e., Hindi and most European languages) suggested to linguists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that contemporary Hindu Indians are descendants of primarily West Eurasians who migrated from Europe, the Near East, Anatolia (Turkey), and the Caucasus 30008000 years ago (Poliakov 1974; Renfrew 1989a,b)._

This has been quoted from a book written by Leon Poliakov, a French writer of Jewish origin, titled, The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe. Renfrew is also quoted, who also quotes from Poliakov. The reference of 3000-8000 years ago is declared highly suspect by various scholars who imply that the main theme of Poliakovs book was to denounce the Aryan racist theories and this date was not primarily based on historical dating of various pre-historical events and therefore this can not be taken as a historical fact. 

Secondly, the association of so-called Indo-Iranians with IVC era is highly suspect as Indo-Iranians are primarily associated with introduction of horse and chariots. No horse or a chariot has ever been found in Harappa and Mohenjodaro or any other qualified IVC era site. This is mere speculation and highly suspect and I do not believe this. You may not agree with me. The assertion that it were Indo-Iranians who settled first in Afghanistan and later along Indus has never been proved archeologically as I said earlier as well that people of BACTRIA did migrate to Iran but not to IVC area. I have a problem with the term Aryan and its historical usage as well. The most comprehensive guide to the early textual history of the term Aryan remains that produced by a Nazi scholar, Hans Siegert (1941/42), but over the past years a series of detailed intellectual histories and themed volumes that touch on the Aryan question have been published. The issue here however is not simply the correcting of a misleading translation or the creation of a historical narrative, but the reconceptualization of the Aryan paradigm, and, as a corollary, the political history of linguistic theorizing. 

Thirdly, the study you referred to has been superseded by many other studies that have been conducted later, and if I may, I would like to highlight some the quotes from that study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics in 2011:

The percentage of West Eurasian maternal lineages is substantial (up to 50%) in Indus Valley populations but marginal (<10%) in the south of the subcontinent.

Genome-wide scans on the Human genome diversity panel (HGDP) data involving 51 global populations have revealed that South Asia, represented by Pakistani populations, shares most signals of recent positive selection with populations from Europe,
the Near East, and North Africa. 

Our simulations show that differences in haplotype diversity between source and recipient populations can be detected even for migration events that occurred 500 generations ago (~12,500 years ago assuming one generation to be 25 years).

Pakistan consistently appearing markedly more similar to West Eurasian than to Indian populations. 

Combined with our ADMIXTURE and PCA results, this is powerful evidence that Pakistan is a poor proxy for South Asian genetic diversity, despite having often fulfilled this role in previous publications.

Within India the geographic cline of the Indus/Caucasus signal is very weak, which is unexpected under the ASI-ANI model, according to which the ANI contribution should decrease as one moves to the south of the subcontinent. This can be interpreted as prehistorical migratory complexity within India that has perturbed the geographic signal of admixture. 

It was first suggested by the German orientalist Max Muller that ca. 3,500 years ago a dramatic migration of Indo-European speakers from Central Asia (the putative Indo Aryan migration) played a key role in shaping contemporary South Asian populations and was responsible for the introduction of the Indo-European language family and the caste system in India. A few studies on mtDNA and Y-chromosome variation have interpreted their results in favor of the hypothesis, whereas others have found no genetic evidence to support it.

The demographic history of Central Asia is, however, complex, and although it has been shown that demic diffusion coupled with influx of Turkic speakers during historical times has shaped the genetic makeup. 

Patterning suggests additional complexity of gene flow between geographically adjacent populations because it would be difficult to explain the western ancestry component in Indian populations by simple and recent admixture from the Middle East.

In terms of human population history, our oldest simulated migration event occurred roughly 12,500 years ago and predates or coincides with the initial Neolithic expansion in the Near East. Knowing whether signals associated with the initial peopling of Eurasia fall within our detection limits requires additional extensive simulations, but our current results indicate that the often debated episode of South Asian prehistory, the putative Indo-Aryan migration 3,500 years ago falls well within the limits of our haplotype-based approach. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. 



Therefore, any suggestion that there was a migration of people to the IVC after 12500 years before present may stand nullified as per this study.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Gandhara is the home and of kautilya,the infamous 'chanakya' of pakistani paranoia.The one who is supposedly the master of subversive tactics of the 'hindus' was from present day pakistan...from somewhere which was never part of india.



There are those who say that Chanakya was an Ajivaka. Others state that he was a Buddhist. Was he a Hindu?

What was the name of Mauryan empire.


----------



## INDIC

Nassr said:


> There are those who say that Chanakya was an Ajivaka. Others state that he was a Buddhist. Was he a Hindu?
> 
> What was the name of Mauryan empire.



Chanakya's real name was Vishnu Gupta.


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> I claimed they never had Dravidian Hindu influence, but Vedic one which is normal because thats where it originated. And now you will start saying both are the same and one like Akhand Bharat



why you mentioned Dravidian Hindu influence.  How you saw Gandhara different.


----------



## eastwatch

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Keep in mind that this study focused on modern day India as a whole. It does not take in to consideration that the majority of those settlements were in the north western (Indus) & norther regions of the Sub-Continent. So we can conclude that men & women were present in proportional amounts in the primary regions of their settlement, but other minor migrations deeper in to the Sub-Continent were carried out by men that ended up marrying local women. That probably explains the results from this study.
> 
> *I am not sure about the status of Aryan in case of birth from non-Aryan women, but if men married women from lower castes, their children would have belonged to the caste of their fathers. Those people would naturally not be Aryans racially, but as the term "Aryan" evolved to refer to people following Vedic culture, then those people may have been considered as cultural Aryans. Some of the migrants that traveled deeper in to the Sub-Continent mixed with the locals there, including women from lower castes, that wiped them out, but their descendants naturally carry traces of their DNA*.
> 
> To be honest, the caste system focused more on occupations, but there was without a doubt a racial twist to it. The Aryans desired to consolidate their power & thus assigned themselves higher castes. Personally, I do not disagree with their desire to preserve their race or heritage, every people has the right to do that. I just think that the caste system wasn't the appropriate method to preserve race, & let's not forget that the rigidity of occupations is unfair as well.



Bold part: I was talking about the first few thousands of years when the supremacist Aryans made the local their virtual slaves, but mated with their women. The off springs were not allowed the status of their fathers, but were given that of their mothers, who were slaves.

This polygamy, mating and fathering continued for a few millenniums, when this phenomenon alarmed the Aryan masters. They were eager to maintain their purity. So, they imposed full restrictions on unequal marriages. 

*Only at this juncture, the caste system was introduced.*


----------



## INDIC

@eastwatch the Indian folklore says it was common for great kings to take wives from lowest strata of the society like daughter of fisherman but their children followed the lineage of their father without any discrimination. Your theory is not true.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Nassr said:


> I read the study that you referred to. The quote of 3000-8000 years from;
> 
> _Shared Indo-European languages (i.e., Hindi and most European languages) suggested to linguists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that contemporary Hindu Indians are descendants of primarily West Eurasians who migrated from Europe, the Near East, Anatolia (Turkey), and the Caucasus 3000&#8211;8000 years ago (Poliakov 1974; Renfrew 1989a,b)._
> 
> This has been quoted from a book written by Leon Poliakov, a French writer of Jewish origin, titled, The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe. Renfrew is also quoted, who also quotes from Poliakov. The reference of 3000-8000 years ago is declared highly suspect by various scholars who imply that the main theme of Poliakov&#8217;s book was to denounce the Aryan racist theories and this date was not primarily based on historical dating of various pre-historical events and therefore this can not be taken as a historical fact.
> 
> Secondly, the association of so-called Indo-Iranians with IVC era is highly suspect as Indo-Iranians are primarily associated with introduction of horse and chariots. No horse or a chariot has ever been found in Harappa and Mohenjodaro or any other qualified IVC era site. This is mere speculation and highly suspect and I do not believe this. You may not agree with me. The assertion that it were Indo-Iranians who settled first in Afghanistan and later along Indus has never been proved archeologically as I said earlier as well that people of BACTRIA did migrate to Iran but not to IVC area. I have a problem with the term Aryan and its historical usage as well. The most comprehensive guide to the early textual history of the term Aryan remains that produced by a Nazi scholar, Hans Siegert (1941/42), but over the past years a series of detailed intellectual histories and themed volumes that touch on the Aryan question have been published. The issue here however is not simply the correcting of a misleading translation or the creation of a historical narrative, but the reconceptualization of the Aryan paradigm, and, as a corollary, the political history of linguistic theorizing.
> 
> Thirdly, the study you referred to has been superseded by many other studies that have been conducted later, and if I may, I would like to highlight some the quotes from that study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics in 2011:
> 
> The percentage of West Eurasian maternal lineages is substantial (up to 50%) in Indus Valley populations but marginal (<10%) in the south of the subcontinent.
> 
> Genome-wide scans on the Human genome diversity panel (HGDP) data involving 51 global populations have revealed that South Asia, represented by Pakistani populations, shares most signals of recent positive selection with populations from Europe,
> the Near East, and North Africa.
> 
> Our simulations show that differences in haplotype diversity between source and recipient populations can be detected even for migration events that occurred 500 generations ago (~12,500 years ago assuming one generation to be 25 years).
> 
> Pakistan consistently appearing markedly more similar to West Eurasian than to Indian populations.
> 
> Combined with our ADMIXTURE and PCA results, this is powerful evidence that Pakistan is a poor proxy for South Asian genetic diversity, despite having often fulfilled this role in previous publications.
> 
> Within India the geographic cline of the Indus/Caucasus signal is very weak, which is unexpected under the ASI-ANI model, according to which the ANI contribution should decrease as one moves to the south of the subcontinent. This can be interpreted as prehistorical migratory complexity within India that has perturbed the geographic signal of admixture.
> 
> It was first suggested by the German orientalist Max Muller that ca. 3,500 years ago a dramatic migration of Indo-European speakers from Central Asia (the putative Indo Aryan migration) played a key role in shaping contemporary South Asian populations and was responsible for the introduction of the Indo-European language family and the caste system in India. A few studies on mtDNA and Y-chromosome variation have interpreted their results in favor of the hypothesis, whereas others have found no genetic evidence to support it.
> 
> The demographic history of Central Asia is, however, complex, and although it has been shown that demic diffusion coupled with influx of Turkic speakers during historical times has shaped the genetic makeup.
> 
> Patterning suggests additional complexity of gene flow between geographically adjacent populations because it would be difficult to explain the western ancestry component in Indian populations by simple and recent admixture from the Middle East.
> 
> In terms of human population history, our oldest simulated migration event occurred roughly 12,500 years ago and predates or coincides with the initial Neolithic expansion in the Near East. Knowing whether signals associated with the initial peopling of Eurasia fall within our detection limits requires additional extensive simulations, but our current results indicate that the often debated episode of South Asian prehistory, the putative Indo-Aryan migration 3,500 years ago falls well within the limits of our haplotype-based approach. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, any suggestion that there was a migration of people to the IVC after 12500 years before present may stand nullified as per this study.



Sorry, but I did not use any racist sources. Just because the Nazis used the term Aryan in a racist sense doesn't change the fact that the word Aryan was used in the ethnic sense by Indo-Iranians initially before evolving in to a cultural identity. The book you are referring to according to your post was published in 1974, a lot has changed since then. My reference to the migrations that took place around 3000 to 8000 years ago comes from the article here, it did not come from any book or source with racist claims. The majority of Europeans were present in Europe since Paleolithic times. There were only a few migrations from Central Asia towards Europe & those migrants settled in Eastern Europe alone. Genetic studies including the one I posted regarding Croatians confirm this. Apart from that you may refer to the Kurgan hypothesis for further reading as well. Most of the points you have raised were already clarified by me in previous threads we had discussions in. Almost all genetic studies indicate that the majority of Pakistanis have the R1a haplogroup in their DNA in varying amounts. This has naturally pointed to a migration. I repeat, the Indo-Aryans & Harappans were separate people.

As far as archaeological evidence is concerned regarding chariots, I mentioned a source on a previous thread regarding the unearthing of Aryan cities in Central Asia & Russia. 

The place where Europe began: Spiral cities built on remote Russian plains by swastika-painting Aryans



> Bronze age cities built by the Aryans that date back to the beginning of Western civilisation in Europe have been discovered in a remote part of Russia.
> 
> Archaeologists have identified 20 of the spiral-shaped settlements that were built some 4,000 years ago shortly after the Great Pyramid in Egypt.





> 'These ancient Indian texts and hymns describe sacrifices of horses and burials and the way the meat is cut off and the way the horse is buried with its master.
> 
> 'If you match this with the way the skeletons and the graves are being dug up in Russia, they are a millimetre-perfect match.'



These are some of the first signs of archaeological evidence, & I am certain more evidence shall be uncovered in the future. History already teaches us that the Vedic Aryans considered themselves superior to the people of the Indus Valley. Genetic studies like the one below postulate a migration over 3000 years ago from Central Asia. Besides, your post also claims that Pakistanis are closer to Eurasians, & that in itself shows evidence of migration & admixture in the Indus. Those studies & sources below agree with the uncovering of Aryan cities that were built over 4000 years ago.

Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations

GENETIC DIVERSITY IN PAKISTANI POPULATIONS

The Indo-Europeans

Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were NOT Hindu !



> Now coming to the Aryans.. The concept of Aryan Race is nonsense invented by the Nazis. But what is historically correct is that Aryans were an ancient people who originally inhabited Central Asia and later migrated southwards to the regions stretching from Iran to northwest India. These early Aryans had a similar language, race, culture, and religion with many variations. The Aryans of Iran were later influenced by the Elamites and Babylonians. The Aryans of Pakistan were later influenced by the Harappans. The Aryans of north India were later influenced by the Dravidic-Mundic natives giving birth to Hinduism. Of course in later centuries other peoples also invaded/migrated bringing other influences/mixing.





> &#8220;The evidence of the Rig Veda shows that during the centuries when the Aryans were occupying the Punjab and composing the hymns of the Rig Veda, the north-west part of the subcontinent was culturally separate from the rest of India. The closest cultural relations of the Indo-Aryans at that period were with the Iranians, whose language and sacred texts are preserved in the various works known as the Avesta, in inscriptions in Old Persian, and in some other scattered documents. So great is the amount of material common to the Rig Veda Aryans and the Iranians that the books of the two peoples show common geographic names as well as deities and ideas&#8221;. (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown)



I have already clarified that dates derived from Max Mueller's Aryan invasion theory are incorrect & have been debunked. The dates we should focus on are those that are derived from genetic & archaeological evidence. The Indo-Iranian migrations are simple facts supported by many historical accounts including sources from the region of Media civilization & Persia. This is just a bit of evidence to support my claims, & none of them are from racist sources. Do not falsely accuse people of racism or of using racist sources. The Europeans are not considered Aryans because the word "Aryan" originates from Sanskrit & Avestan. The Aryan race doesn't exist, but the term Aryan initially referred to a group of people (Indo-Iranian tribes) before being applied in the cultural sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> @eastwatch the Indian folklore says it was common for great kings to take wives from lowest strata of the society like daughter of fisherman but their children followed the lineage of their father without any discrimination. Your theory is not true.



Please spare us your folklore, we are having discussion on basis of scientific facts.


----------



## Tikolo

I believe that present day Hinduism has almost nothing to do with the vedic religion, they completely sound different to me. Present day Hinduism is a mix of Dravdian pagan religions which existed before Vedic religion was brought to south asia.


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Please spare us your folklore, we are having discussion on basis of scientific facts.



Why you think so,if you don't know folklore preserve history to some extent and studied by historian to decipher history. 

35% ASI among Punjabi, still you can't stop badmouthing them.


----------



## Tikolo

INDIC said:


> Why you think so,if you don't know folklore preserve history to some extent and studied by historian to decipher history.
> 
> 35% ASI among Punjabi, still you can't stop badmouthing them.



The ASI component is a very old component, that even existed as far as Iran, so it had nothing to with present day Indians moving to other countries.

Buddhism and Hinduism for sure have existed in Pakistan and Gandhara was a Buddhist/Hindu kingdom, however that does not mean present day Indians from the Ganga Valley went up there and formed a civilization. If you look at the history of the Vedic religion, it came from the NW part of south asia and spread in to other parts of south asia, so it is the other way around rather


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> Why you think so,if you don't know folklore preserve history to some extent and studied by historian to decipher history.
> 
> 35% ASI among Punjabi, still you can't stop badmouthing them.



Badmouthing who? Its a fact Punjabis have ASI between 25-35%, average will be around 30%. Pashtuns/Baloch between 20-30% and average around 25% or even less, check harappadna.org. Do you know some Baloch people believe they come from Syria? After DNA tests it turned out they had 0% admixture with them. So science always triumph legends and folklore. Just like many Pakistanis still believe in being syeds, so spare us your bs.

I dont know what Pakistani ASI component have to do with anything.

After punjab the percentage of ASI goes up to 50-60%+ in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tikolo

shan said:


> Badmouthing who? Its a fact Punjabis have ASI between 25-35%, average will be around 30%. Pashtuns/Baloch between 20-30% and average around 25% or even less, check harappadna.org. Do you know some Baloch people believe they come from Syria? After DNA tests it turned out they had 0% admixture with them. So science always triumph legends and folklore. Just like many Pakistanis still believe in being syeds, so spare us your bs.
> 
> I dont know what Pakistani ASI component have to do with anything.
> 
> 
> 
> After punjab the percentage of ASI goes up to 50-60%+ in India.



Pakistani pashtuns from one tribe are showing around 20% ASI, however the Afghan ones show less, I think Pashtuns overall will have 15-20% ASI on average, Baloch are even less ASI, only at 14%, because they are more related to west asians, then south asians. Pakistani punjabies are around 30-35% ASI. Obviously the more east and south you go in to south asia, the ASI rises, Tamil groups are between 60-70% ASI

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Tikolo said:


> Pakistani pashtuns from one tribe are showing around 20% ASI, however the Afghan ones show less, I think Pashtuns overall will have 15-20% ASI on average, Baloch are even less ASI, only at 14%, because they are more related to west asians, then south asians. Pakistani punjabies are around 30-35% ASI. Obviously the more east and south you go in to south asia, the ASI rises, Tamil groups are between 60-70% ASI



Search Results pathan | Harappa Ancestry Project

Check this out, couple of them have 35-36%. Most of them above 20%, so average around 25% or less. Maybe with more samples the average will come down to 20%. And yes Baloch people have least amount of ASI.

Punjabis have between 25-35% on Harappadna.org, next week he should do similar graph for Punjabis.


----------



## ranjeet

I don't know what this hoopla is all about, let the confused ones dig more about their history.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tikolo

shan said:


> Search Results pathan | Harappa Ancestry Project
> 
> Check this out, couple of them have 35-36%. Most of them above 20%, so average around 25% or less. Maybe with more samples the average will come down to 20%. And yes Baloch people have least amount of ASI.



The average on harrapa from the spreadsheet comes to 22.91% for pathans, however these samples dont represent all pashtuns, only the Bangash tribe from kurram valley, which are thought to be the most (south asian) looking pathans, because they mixed with punjabis over the centuries. I think Afghan pashtun average is more accurate coming at 17%. There are around 100 pashtun tribe overall, these need to do mass sampling for them

Also pashtun (caucasian) component is much higher then most other south asians, I think there was a mass migration of some Caucasian group to the pashtun areas, pashtun do resemble (chechens) and others from the area to some degree

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dravidianhero

@shan
who are ancestral south indians?negroids or australoids?what do scientific studies say abt this?by looks,majority of present day south indians are australoids with a mix of caucassian and negroids(ofcourse the proportion changes with caste)


----------



## Tikolo

dravidianhero said:


> @shan
> who are ancestral south indians?negroids or australoids?what do scientific studies say abt this?by looks,majority of present day south indians are australoids with a mix of caucassian and negroids(ofcourse the proportion changes with caste)




The closes group to ASI that exists today are the Andaman Islanders (bay of bengal) I beleive:







^ I think Andaman Islanders are cousin population to ASI. Not really sure what would a 100% ASI look like though, probably similar to them. There is no pure ASI left now


----------



## INDIC

Tikolo said:


> Buddhism and Hinduism for sure have existed in Pakistan and Gandhara was a Buddhist/Hindu kingdom, *however that does not mean present day Indians from the Ganga Valley went up there and formed a civilization. *



Gandhara was the part of ancient Indian civilization, it is documented by both ancient Indian and ancient Greek sources. The people in Gandhara spoke an Indo-Aryan language derivative of Sanskrit. 

[


Tikolo said:


> If you look at the history of the *Vedic religion*, it came from the NW part of south Asia and spread in to other parts of south asia, so it is the other way around rather



There are four Vedas, not only Rigveda. Rigveda was composed between banks of Indus-Yamuna.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tikolo

INDIC said:


> Gandhara was the part of ancient Indian civilization, it is documented by both ancient Indian and ancient Greek sources. The people in Gandhara spoke an Indo-Aryan language derivative of Sanskrit.



so??? where did the indo aryan language and culture came from you think? ganga valley? 

like I said before, the flow was from NW part of south to towards India, not the other way around

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tikolo

Andaman Islanders:


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

eastwatch said:


> Bold part: I was talking about the first few thousands of years when the supremacist Aryans made the local their virtual slaves, but mated with their women. The off springs were not allowed the status of their fathers, but were given that of their mothers, who were slaves.
> 
> This polygamy, mating and fathering continued for a few millenniums, when this phenomenon alarmed the Aryan masters. They were eager to maintain their purity. So, they imposed full restrictions on unequal marriages.
> 
> *Only at this juncture, the caste system was introduced.*



The Vedic people established cultural & political dominance over the locals of the Indus, there was no slavery. I haven't heard of any source that indicates that women were enslaved for labor or any other purpose. They may have been taken as wives or concubines, but that's not slavery. It's quite common for elites to marry women from among those they rule over, & the data I have read indicates that any child born to an upper caste father would belong to his or her father's caste. 

There is no doubt the Aryans were eager to preserve their race. Preserving race isn't an issue, but the method they used to preserve it (the caste system) wasn't just. The caste system focuses on occupations, but there is no denying it had a slight racial reason for its existence. As I stated earlier, the Vedic people assigned themselves the positions of higher castes to consolidate their power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Badmouthing who? Its a fact Punjabis have ASI between 25-35%, average will be around 30%. Pashtuns/Baloch between 20-30% and average around 25% or even less, check harappadna.org. Do you know some Baloch people believe they come from Syria? After DNA tests it turned out they had 0% admixture with them. So science always triumph legends and folklore. Just like many Pakistanis still believe in being syeds, so spare us your bs.
> 
> I dont know what Pakistani ASI component have to do with anything.



Genetic studies prove these folklore that inter-caste marriages were very common in ancient India. 



shan said:


> After punjab the percentage of ASI goes up to 50-60%+ in India.



35% ASI ancestry, but Pakistanis still obsessive not to correlate themselves with South Indians.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Today there are neither aryans nor dravidians,only indians.
Of course i hope our pak friends know the IVC was a dravidian civilization.


----------



## INDIC

Tikolo said:


> so??? where did the indo aryan language and culture came from you think? ganga valley?
> 
> like I said before, the flow was from NW part of south to towards India, not the other way around



I don't dispute this, I only said Gandhara was the part of Ancient Indian civilization with a common language and culture with whole of North India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Tikolo said:


> The average on harrapa from the spreadsheet comes to 22.91% for pathans, however these samples dont represent all pashtuns, only the Bangash tribe from kurram valley, which are thought to be the most (south asian) looking pathans, because they mixed with punjabis over the centuries. I think Afghan pashtun average is more accurate coming at 17%. There are around 100 pashtun tribe overall, these need to do mass sampling for them
> 
> Also pashtun (caucasian) component is much higher then most other south asians, I think there was a mass migration of some Caucasian group to the pashtun areas, pashtun do resemble (chechens) and others from the area to some degree



They are not from one tribe, only 3 samples are from Harappadna, rest from this study. 

Human Genome Diversity Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They didnt pick from 1 tribe, that's not how Genome project works. Out of 3 samples which pashtuns submited to Harappadna. They had to pick from small population of Kalash because they are only 6000 in total if im not wrong.

1 Pakistani pashtun 21%
2 Afghan Pashtuns with 20% & 14%.

20-25% seem about right average for Pakistani pashtun and 15-20 Afghan pashtun, hopefully in coming years we will get more and more samples. Pashtuns with Turkish ancestry who are believed to have 10-15% ASI.


----------



## Hobo1

Ravan the so called King of Dravidians was infact from a village in Ghaziabad, infact there is also temple of Ravan in Ghaziabad.
Aryans vs Dravidians is myth perpetuated by m'chod Periyar and Brits. 
There is hardly any difference b\w genetic material of people living in North and South. And this has been proved scientifically. 

Pakistanis and their brothers whom they have left behind in India can be termed as folks resembling traits of caucasian ancestors of Aryans.


----------



## INDIC

Tikolo said:


> The closes group to ASI that exists today are the Andaman Islanders (bay of bengal) I beleive:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ I think Andaman Islanders are cousin population to ASI. Not really sure what would a 100% ASI look like though, probably similar to them. There is no pure ASI left now



Andaman Islanders are not related to mainlander Indian population, they are isolated group of Africans.


----------



## dravidianhero

Tikolo said:


> Andaman Islanders:


 @Tikolo
i doubt andamanis negroids are ASIs.i dont have anything against them but believe me i am yet to come across a southie who has negroid hair or lips.i am not saying SIs dont have negroid dna but i presume its not in a great degree.i saw some australoid pics on net.they look a bit close to south indians(only a small bit).but the thing is even their hair is rough ,wiry and coarse(south indians have straight hair).it is all complicated.


----------



## Tikolo

INDIC said:


> Andaman Islanders are not related to mainlander Indian population, they are isolated group of Africans.



The have 0% relation to africans, even though they look like them, on harrapa ancestry project, they show 48% relation to the south indian component, they are related to ASI, however still by a distance



dravidianhero said:


> @Tikolo
> i doubt andamanis negroids are ASIs.i dont have anything against them but believe me i am yet to come across a southie who has negroid hair or lips.i am not saying SIs dont have negroid dna but i presume its not in a great degree.i saw some australoid pics on net.they look a bit close to south indians(only a small bit).but the thing is even their hair is rough ,wiry and coarse(south indians have straight hair).it is all complicated.



That's because even most south indians are 30-40% west asian, also you have to understand that pure ASI existed long ago, possibly over 12,000 years ago. all we know is that ASI and Andaman Islanders were related, this is the reason, to this day Andaman Islanders are showing the same south indian component at 48%, they are distant cousin population

the highest ASI on main land india is found in Paniya tribe (tamil nadu) at around 74%, look how they look: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/tags/paniyas/interesting/


----------



## LaBong

Never have seen such gene obsessed people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dravidianhero

@Tikolo
may be u r right


----------



## Tikolo

Correction, onge andaman islanders have actually 51% of the south indian component on harrapa ancestry spreadsheet


----------



## INDIC

LaBong said:


> Never have seen such gene obsessed people.



Dude, have you ever read chats on Afghan forums about Pakistanis.


----------



## curioususer

All Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are fabricating non-sense on this thread.


----------



## dravidianhero

Tikolo said:


> Correction, onge andaman islanders have actually 51% of the south indian component on harrapa ancestry spreadsheet



do iranians have any asi component in them


----------



## LaBong

INDIC said:


> Dude, have you ever read chats on Afghan forums about Pakistanis.



Yeah kale dalkhors and other expletives.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tikolo

dravidianhero said:


> do iranians have any asi component in them



depends where in Iran, western / northern iranians have almost 0%, but eastern iranians usually show around 5%, afghans around 15-17%, it gets to 30-35% from pakistani punjab to 60-70% in south india


----------



## INDIC

Tikolo said:


> depends where in Iran, western / northern iranians have almost 0%, but *eastern iranians usually show around 5%*, afghans around 15-17%, it gets to 30-35% from pakistani punjab to 60-70% in south india



Are you referring to Balochs of Iran.


----------



## dravidianhero

Tikolo said:


> depends where in Iran, western / northern iranians have almost 0%, but eastern iranians usually show around 5%, afghans around 15-17%, it gets to 30-35% from pakistani punjab to 60-70% in south india





30 to 35% of asi in pak proves my point tht u ppl are as dravidian as we are(am proud to be dravidian)...i have time and again said that i dont see any diff in the facial features of pak punjabis and most south indians apart from the size of nose(underline the word most here.most south indians have smaller noses compared to north indians and for me the difference end there).
Many pakistanis here are of the belief tht all the south indians are black.if u exclude tamil nadu u will find most south indians dont look any diff from north indians in color(brown) or facial features


----------



## curioususer

Dravidian is linguistic division. We have repeated this many times.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> Are you referring to Balochs of Iran.



Baloch have 10-15% on average ASI. ASI component is what differentiate South Asia from other regions.


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Baloch have 10-15% on average ASI.



No surprise, Brahui still speak an isolated Dravidian language.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> No surprise, Brahui still speak an isolated Dravidian language.



Genetic have nothing to do with languages. And having 20-30% doesnt make one Dravidian. Check out dravidian population they have 60-70% ASI. 

There is no such a thing as 100% ASI, its just a component shared by mostly South Asian populations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Genetic have nothing to do with languages. And having 20-30% doesnt make one Dravidian. Check out dravidian population they have 60-70% ASI.
> 
> There is no such a thing as 100% ASI, its just a component shared by mostly South Asian populations.



The curiousity is about the existence of an isolated Dravidian language in Pakistan.Can you tell us about Brahuis.


----------



## Nassr

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Sorry, but I did not use any racist sources. Just because the Nazis used the term Aryan in a racist sense doesn't change the fact that the word Aryan was used in the ethnic sense by Indo-Iranians initially before evolving in to a cultural identity. The book you are referring to according to your post was published in 1974, a lot has changed since then. My reference to the migrations that took place around 3000 to 8000 years ago comes from the article here, it did not come from any book or source with racist claims. The majority of Europeans were present in Europe since Paleolithic times. There were only a few migrations from Central Asia towards Europe & those migrants settled in Eastern Europe alone. Genetic studies including the one I posted regarding Croatians confirm this. Apart from that you may refer to the Kurgan hypothesis for further reading as well. Most of the points you have raised were already clarified by me in previous threads we had discussions in. Almost all genetic studies indicate that the majority of Pakistanis have the R1a haplogroup in their DNA in varying amounts. This has naturally pointed to a migration. I repeat, the Indo-Aryans & Harappans were separate people.
> 
> As far as archaeological evidence is concerned regarding chariots, I mentioned a source on a previous thread regarding the unearthing of Aryan cities in Central Asia & Russia.
> 
> The place where Europe began: Spiral cities built on remote Russian plains by swastika-painting Aryans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are some of the first signs of archaeological evidence, & I am certain more evidence shall be uncovered in the future. History already teaches us that the Vedic Aryans considered themselves superior to the people of the Indus Valley. Genetic studies like the one below postulate a migration over 3000 years ago from Central Asia. Besides, your post also claims that Pakistanis are closer to Eurasians, & that in itself shows evidence of migration & admixture in the Indus. Those studies & sources below agree with the uncovering of Aryan cities that were built over 4000 years ago.
> 
> Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations
> 
> GENETIC DIVERSITY IN PAKISTANI POPULATIONS
> 
> The Indo-Europeans
> 
> Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were NOT Hindu !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already clarified that dates derived from Max Mueller's Aryan invasion theory are incorrect & have been debunked. The dates we should focus on are those that are derived from genetic & archaeological evidence. The Indo-Iranian migrations are simple facts supported by many historical accounts including sources from the region of Media civilization & Persia. This is just a bit of evidence to support my claims, & none of them are from racist sources. Do not falsely accuse people of racism or of using racist sources. The Europeans are not considered Aryans because the word "Aryan" originates from Sanskrit & Avestan. The Aryan race doesn't exist, but the term Aryan initially referred to a group of people (Indo-Iranian tribes) before being applied in the cultural sense.


 @p(-)0ENiX

Please do read your own references before you post them. You referred to a news report which quoted a study, the same study which you referred to later as well. The news report had quoted 3000-8000 year aspect from the same study. I posted the exact paragraph from that study. That study quoted and provided a reference of a book in support. The name of that book is The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe written by Poliakov. Therefore I said that 3000-8000 year aspect was suspect. 

I also state that the people of IVC were not Aryans (Indo or Iranian) and were locals. The reference that I gave earlier was retrospective and contextual with regard to what the particular hued Indians talk about so-called Vedic Aryans who wrote Rig Veda. In my opinion however there were no Vedic Aryans and they never existed. 

I am not concerned about Russian linkages to any Vedic literature, though I have read a lot about it. The Russians incidentally also state that river Saraswati is the present Brahmaputra. Anyways that is a separate aspect. 

There was no connection between the IVC era and Vedic era, which are two distinctly different entities. After the demise of IVC, the IVC people may have written the Rig Veda as it emanated from the IVC landmass.


----------



## INDIC

Nassr said:


> *There was no connection between the IVC era and Vedic era, *which are two distinctly different entities. After the demise of IVC, *the IVC people may have written the Rig Veda as it emanated from the IVC landmass.*



Both of them sounds opposite of each other. Can you explain.


----------



## bronxbull

Tikolo said:


> ^ the large bulk of ANI started entering pakistan around 4200 years ago and it continued till 1900 years ago. so yes, it seems during that time period, there were lots of individual migrations towards the indus from central asia, Caucasian, Iran, Middle east etc....
> 
> The harrapan people are a mystery, if we are to assume that west asian farmers started the indus valley civilization, then yes obviously they would have been caucasian, that eventually mixed with indigenous ASI who were living on the Indus at the time, however if harrapan civilization is older then the ANI migrations, then they were probably more ASI then ANI and perhaps closer to Dravidian people. At this it is anybody's guess



There was no Pakistan at that time,only India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bronxbull

p(-)0ENiX said:


> The Vedic people established cultural & political dominance over the locals of the Indus, there was no slavery. I haven't heard of any source that indicates that women were enslaved for labor or any other purpose. They may have been taken as wives or concubines, but that's not slavery. It's quite common for elites to marry women from among those they rule over, & the data I have read indicates that any child born to an upper caste father would belong to his or her father's caste.
> 
> There is no doubt the Aryans were eager to preserve their race. Preserving race isn't an issue, but the method they used to preserve it (the caste system) wasn't just. The caste system focuses on occupations, but there is no denying it had a slight racial reason for its existence. As I stated earlier, the Vedic people assigned themselves the positions of higher castes to consolidate their power.



There is no racial reason.the big problem is different,some wars are fought with religious motivation,some with power,land,resource motivation and the losers were thrown to the bottom of their society unless they fought their way up the ladder.

There was no racial preservation,people largely married cross cousins or related tribal people living in another town,I want my kids to look alike as all of us,just a normal thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bronxbull

Tikolo said:


> I believe that present day Hinduism has almost nothing to do with the vedic religion, they completely sound different to me. Present day Hinduism is a mix of Dravdian pagan religions which existed before Vedic religion was brought to south asia.



I pity your small brain and general ignorance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bronxbull

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Who said Aryan women & children didn't migrate with the men? They obviously did migrate with them, otherwise their race would never have survived. I think you have misunderstood my post. I will explain what I meant in detail later when I get the time. The points you have raised are valid, but they require more details & clarification.



No,not necessarily.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

bronxbull said:


> There is no racial reason.the big problem is different,some wars are fought with religious motivation,some with power,land,resource motivation and the losers were thrown to the bottom of their society unless they fought their way up the ladder.
> 
> There was no racial preservation,people largely married cross cousins or related tribal people living in another town,I want my kids to look alike as all of us,just a normal thing.



Of course, it is only natural to desire to have your descendants look like you. If racial preservation was not a minor cause behind the formation of the caste system besides assigning different groups specific occupations, was it simply about political & cultural dominance?



bronxbull said:


> No,not necessarily.



I answered that post in greater detail over here.

[MENTION=39150]Nassr[/MENTION]

I will reply to your post after a while.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## bronxbull

Caste system is very simple and only the untouchables can have qualms about it.

I can show u many Kshatriyas and shudras with sharper features and Brahmins with more Mongolia ones.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Nassr said:


> @p(-)0ENiX
> 
> Please do read your own references before you post them. You referred to a news report which quoted a study, the same study which you referred to later as well. The news report had quoted 3000-8000 year aspect from the same study. I posted the exact paragraph from that study. That study quoted and provided a reference of a book in support. The name of that book is The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe written by Poliakov. Therefore I said that 3000-8000 year aspect was suspect.



I always read my references before posting them, some of the references I have are quite old, including the study of the Pakistani population. In fact, I am the only one that provides sources for my claims, & uses the information provided by them in my posts. Your posts are generally devoid of sources, & contain unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic. Besides, no one remembers every citation in a study anyway. You claimed that I referred to racist sources, & that is why I posted a genuine genetic study as my reference for the claims that I made. The genetic study wasn't a racist source, & the book that they referred to wasn't racist either. It was a book simply discussing racist & nationalist ideas in Europe. It is simply a fact that the Nazis borrowed symbols from the IVC & Vedic civilization such as the Swastika. However, this book aims at refuting the concept of the Aryan race, & that has already been refuted. The Aryans were a group of Indo-Iranian tribes that are a branch of proto-Indo-European tribes. So they weren't a race because they themselves belonged to the Caucasian race. Furthermore, this book's purpose in the case study was only to cite the date of these migrations as well as provide information regarding the caste system. 

Once again, the book wasn't used to promote racist ideas, that's why it's you that needs to learn to read & understand before coming up with false accusations. 

If you had actually bothered to understand the genetic study, then you would have read that the results of this study actually support the idea that Indo-Iranian migrants migrated & setup the caste system. This quote of the results will eliminate your ridiculous attempts at making the genetic study sound nationalistic, biased, or racist.

Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations



> *Analysis of mtDNA Suggests a Proto-Asian Origin of Indians*
> 
> MtDNA HVR1 genetic distances between caste populations and Africans, Asians, and Europeans are significantly different from zero (p < 0.001) and reveal that, regardless of rank, each caste group is most closely related to Asians and is most dissimilar from Africans (Table &#8203;(Table1).1). The genetic distances from major continental populations (e.g., Europeans) differ among the three caste groups, and the comparison reveals an intriguing pattern. *As one moves from lower to upper castes, the distance from Asians becomes progressively larger. The distance between Europeans and lower castes is larger than the distance between Europeans and upper castes, but the distance between Europeans and middle castes is smaller than the upper caste-European distance.* These trends are the same whether the Kshatriya and Vysya are included in the upper castes, the middle castes, or excluded from the analysis. This may be owing, in part, to the small sample size (n = 10) of each of these castes. *Among the upper castes the genetic distance between Brahmins and Europeans (0.10) is smaller than that between either the Kshatriya and Europeans (0.12) or the Vysya and Europeans (0.16). Assuming that contemporary Europeans reflect West Eurasian affinities, these data indicate that the amount of West Eurasian admixture with Indian populations may have been proportionate to caste rank.*



These results actually give credence to the fact that the Indo-Aryans gave themselves positions of power, & were closer to other Europeans genetically instead of the indigenous people. This actually is considered evidence for the Kurgan hypothesis, which is applied with the Paleolithic Continuity Theory to explain the presence of ancient Indo-Europeans in Europe since Paleolithic times.



Nassr said:


> I also state that the people of IVC were not Aryans (Indo or Iranian) and were locals. The reference that I gave earlier was retrospective and contextual with regard to what the particular hued Indians talk about so-called Vedic Aryans who wrote Rig Veda. In my opinion however there were no Vedic Aryans and they never existed.



The people of the IVC were not Indo-Iranians, no one ever denied that. If you think the Indo-Iranians didn't exist, then you disagree with historic & genetic evidence. Do you actually believe that Sanskrit popped out of nowhere, or that the IVC people randomly forgot their previous script, or that they randomly changed their lifestyle & religion? If you truly believe that the Vedic people didn't exist, then you are denying established history. Even the Medians called themselves Aryans. If you are going to deny genetic, historic, linguistic, & archaeological evidence, then this discussion can go no further. So please stop disturbing me. 



Nassr said:


> I am not concerned about Russian linkages to any Vedic literature, though I have read a lot about it. The Russians incidentally also state that river Saraswati is the present Brahmaputra. Anyways that is a separate aspect.



Read the article again, the Vedic scripture accurately describes the rituals the people of those Aryan cities practiced over 4000 years ago. This indicates migration & provides us with proof of the existence of the proto-Indo-Iranian Sintashta culture. Regardless of where the Russians think the Saraswati river is, the discovery of these Aryan cities is reliable & documented.



Nassr said:


> There was no connection between the IVC era and Vedic era, which are two distinctly different entities. After the demise of IVC, the IVC people may have written the Rig Veda as it emanated from the IVC landmass.



Huh? Harappans wrote the Rigveda? That's not true at all, any source could tell you that the Indo-Aryan migrants to northern Punjab wrote the Rigveda & they were extremely similar to Persians. Please refer to the previous sources I provided you with. In any case, your views are extremely different from that which is indicated by historical, genetic, & linguistic sources. I really see no point in carrying out this discussion any further, & as I speculated earlier, all this discussion has done is forced us to repeat the points we discussed earlier in a previous thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Again there are two points of view, neither is accepted as fact. Apart from that the movement were from Pakistan to India and not vice versa as said by ignorant Indic. The exact location of Haplogroup R1a1a which supposedly spread indo-europeans languages origin is still a mystery. So at best they can say near east or Pakistan.

Iran have very limited amount of R1a1a going by genetic studies. 

Before there was possibility of its origin being Eastern Europe but now many have stopped saying that. So at the moment we dont have enough evidence prove either side. Meanwhile Indians continue to fight on blogs saying that R1a1a origin is India sorry i meant Ancient India. lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

p(-)0ENiX said:


> I always read my references before posting them, some of the references I have are quite old, including the study of the Pakistani population. In fact, I am the only one that provides sources for my claims, & uses the information provided by them in my posts. Your posts are generally devoid of sources, & contain unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic. Besides, no one remembers every citation in a study anyway. You claimed that I referred to racist sources, & that is why I posted a genuine genetic study as my reference for the claims that I made. The genetic study wasn't a racist source, & the book that they referred to wasn't racist either. It was a book simply discussing racist & nationalist ideas in Europe. It is simply a fact that the Nazis borrowed symbols from the IVC & Vedic civilization such as the Swastika. However, this book aims at refuting the concept of the Aryan race, & that has already been refuted. The Aryans were a group of Indo-Iranian tribes that are a branch of proto-Indo-European tribes. So they weren't a race because they themselves belonged to the Caucasian race. Furthermore, this book's purpose in the case study was only to cite the date of these migrations as well as provide information regarding the caste system.
> 
> Once again, the book wasn't used to promote racist ideas, that's why it's you that needs to learn to read & understand before coming up with false accusations.
> 
> If you had actually bothered to understand the genetic study, then you would have read that the results of this study actually support the idea that Indo-Iranian migrants migrated & setup the caste system. This quote of the results will eliminate your ridiculous attempts at making the genetic study sound nationalistic, biased, or racist.
> 
> Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations
> 
> 
> 
> These results actually give credence to the fact that the Indo-Aryans gave themselves positions of power, & were closer to other Europeans genetically instead of the indigenous people. This actually is considered evidence for the Kurgan hypothesis, which is applied with the Paleolithic Continuity Theory to explain the presence of ancient Indo-Europeans in Europe since Paleolithic times.
> 
> 
> 
> The people of the IVC were not Indo-Iranians, no one ever denied that. If you think the Indo-Iranians didn't exist, then you disagree with historic & genetic evidence. Do you actually believe that Sanskrit popped out of nowhere, or that the IVC people randomly forgot their previous script, or that they randomly changed their lifestyle & religion? If you truly believe that the Vedic people didn't exist, then you are denying established history. Even the Medians called themselves Aryans. If you are going to deny genetic, historic, linguistic, & archaeological evidence, then this discussion can go no further. So please stop disturbing me.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the article again, the Vedic scripture accurately describes the rituals the people of those Aryan cities practiced over 4000 years ago. This indicates migration & provides us with proof of the existence of the proto-Indo-Iranian Sintashta culture. Regardless of where the Russians think the Saraswati river is, the discovery of these Aryan cities is reliable & documented.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Harappans wrote the Rigveda? That's not true at all, any source could tell you that the Indo-Aryan migrants to northern Punjab wrote the Rigveda & they were extremely similar to Persians. Please refer to the previous sources I provided you with. In any case, your views are extremely different from that which is indicated by historical, genetic, & linguistic sources. I really see no point in carrying out this discussion any further, & as I speculated earlier, all this discussion has done is forced us to repeat the points we discussed earlier in a previous thread.



You did not understand my post in which I mentioned the referred book and I responded to your response, unnecessarily though for which I apologize. 

It was only meant to underline the dubious nature of the source of 3000-8000 and certainly not meant to highlight the Nazi mention in the book title. 

About Swastika. You may like to reassess your claim that Swastika was copied by the Europeans from the IVC. A couple of years ago, a Swastika was recovered from a site in Northwestern Bulgaria Balkan Travellers - Archaeologists Unearth 7,000-Year-Old Swastika in North-western Bulgaria. Here is a pic of some Swastika images from different regions and beliefs. 





I read the report and could not find a reference to Indo-Iranians in it. As the script of IVC has not been deciphered so far despite many many attempts, any attempt to link it with Sanskrit or any language before that may be highly suspect. I have strong belief through long set of studies that the IVC was not Vedic and I am convinced in this fact. Naming a certain set of people Aryans has been debated since long, particularly after the Nazi emergence in Germany. And I am rather skeptical along with many more skeptics who have written much more about naming various people around the world as Aryans. You may not agree with me. 

The people of IVC were not Harappans only. And yes, there are many scholars who believe that the people of IVC wrote the Rig Veda. Punjab was part of the IVC as Harappa is located in Punjab alongwith many more IVC sites and so was KPK and Sindh and Balochistan. 

Actually, if we grow out of our rigid beliefs and understandings through reading what others have written, we may remain here in the same well. If we carryout our own analysis and reach our own conclusions, no matter how wrong may these sound to others, we can improve our understanding of the IVC and the area it spreads over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

shan said:


> Again there are two points of view, neither is accepted as fact. Apart from that the movement were from Pakistan to India and not vice versa as said by ignorant Indic. The exact location of Haplogroup R1a1a which supposedly spread indo-europeans languages origin is still a mystery. So at best they can say near east or Pakistan.
> 
> Iran have very limited amount of R1a1a going by genetic studies.
> 
> Before there was possibility of its origin being Eastern Europe but now many have stopped saying that. So at the moment we dont have enough evidence prove either side. Meanwhile Indians continue to fight on blogs saying that R1a1a origin is India sorry i meant Ancient India. lol



The Indo-Iranian migrations remained focused towards the north western & northern regions of the Sub-Continent. Any further migration that occurred took place from the Indus towards India obviously. Based on my knowledge, the haplogroup R1a is supposedly the parent of R1a1a which is a further mutation. The origins of R1a at this point remain Central Asia or Southern Russia or some place near the Black Sea. The origins of R1a1a may be Pakistan, but it's definitely a subclade of R1a.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

shan said:


> Again there are two points of view, neither is accepted as fact. Apart from that the movement were from Pakistan to India and not vice versa as said by ignorant Indic. The exact location of Haplogroup R1a1a which supposedly spread indo-europeans languages origin is still a mystery. So at best they can say near east or Pakistan.
> 
> Iran have very limited amount of R1a1a going by genetic studies.
> 
> Before there was possibility of its origin being Eastern Europe but now many have stopped saying that. So at the moment we dont have enough evidence prove either side. Meanwhile Indians continue to fight on blogs saying that R1a1a origin is India sorry i meant Ancient India. lol



A very well laid out explanation. I learn a lot from you and @p(-)0ENiX. Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tikolo

bronxbull said:


> There was no Pakistan at that time,only India.



there was no such thing is India, this is a historical fact, India is a modern country. There were ancient kingdoms back then, no modern countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

p(-)0ENiX said:


> The Indo-Iranian migrations remained focused towards the north western & northern regions of the Sub-Continent. Any further migration that occurred took place from the Indus towards India obviously. Based on my knowledge, the haplogroup R1a is supposedly the parent of R1a1a which is a further mutation. The origins of R1a at this point remain Central Asia or Southern Russia or some place near the Black Sea. The origins of R1a1a may be Pakistan, but it's definitely a subclade of R1a.



R1a origin is still a mystery, one cant pin point exact location. But its between near east or Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

shan said:


> R1a origin is still a mystery, one cant pin point exact location. But its between near east or Pakistan.



To be honest all sources I have referred to point to the Black Sea region, Southern Russia, or Central Asia. These regions are towards the *east* of mainland Europe. I doubt its source of origin would be Pakistan, because Pakistanis carry a mutated subclade of it which is either R1a1a or another variation of it that is R1a1a1b2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tikolo

^ I personally think, it's in the region north of the Caspian sea, that the best possible location for it's origin. some European nationalistic are trying to put the origin in central europe, I dont believe that. It could also very well be central asia, because R1a1a seems to be totally absent from there, suggesting that people from there moved all over in all directions

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Nassr said:


> You did not understand my post in which I mentioned the referred book and I responded to your response, unnecessarily though for which I am apologize.
> 
> It was only meant to underline the dubious nature of the source of 3000-8000 and certainly not meant to highlight the Nazi mention in the book title.



Well that book was only cited twice in the genetic study if I am correct. The first citation was to refer to migration dates, & the other was regarding the caste system. It didn't mention "Nazi" in the title, but its title indicates that it was meant to discuss nationalistic or possibly racist ideas in Europe. Regardless, that book is irrelevant now because the genetic study that cites it only referred to it for information regarding the caste system & migration dates. I thought you referred to that book to make the genetic study sound racist, which it most certainly is not as proven by its content. The study is legitimate, & its results are without a doubt interesting.



Nassr said:


> About Swastika. You may like to reassess your claim that Swastika was copied by the Europeans from the IVC. A couple of years ago, a Swastika was recovered from a site in Northwestern Bulgaria Balkan Travellers - Archaeologists Unearth 7,000-Year-Old Swastika in North-western Bulgaria. Here is a pic of some Swastika images from different regions and beliefs.



Alright, that's my mistake. I was aware that the Swastika was used in European cultures as well. The only reason I associated the Nazi Swastika with Harappa is because of the similarity in their appearance & design, but that Bulgarian Swastika is undoubtedly closer to the Nazi one, especially because of the circle around it. However, it should be noted that the word "swastika" is of Sanskrit in origin, & so is the word "Arya".



Nassr said:


> I read the report and could not find a reference to Indo-Iranians in it. As the script of IVC has not been deciphered so far despite many many attempts, any attempt to link it with Sanskrit or any language before that may be highly suspect. I have strong belief through long set of studies that the IVC was not Vedic and I am convinced in this fact. Naming a certain set of people Aryans has been debated since long, particularly after the Nazi emergence in Germany. And I am rather skeptical along with many more skeptics who have written much more about naming various people around the world as Aryans. You may not agree with me.



Actually, the Indo-Iranians are a branch of Indo-European tribes that spoke Avestan & Sanskrit originally. If you are referring to that genetic study, then any mention of similarity to European DNA is in fact Indo-Iranian DNA because there were no migrations from mainland Europe to the Indus, Afghanistan, or Iran. Yeah, the IVC & Vedic people are not related but they did interact later on. Sanskrit & Harappan languages were different, but Sanskrit borrowed many loanwords from other languages, some of which are lost today. Understanding the Harappan script is a must in my opinion, & it will broaden our understanding of those people greatly. 

Let's ignore the Nazis, I honestly have no clue as to how they referred to themselves as Aryans. The ancient Greek & Roman people never called themselves Aryans, in fact it was the Medians that called themselves Aryans with a lot of pride. The Greeks however referred to the Medians as "Medians". Historically, it was only the Indo-Aryans & Indo-Iranians that called themselves "Aryans", the term originally referred to the Indo-Iranian tribes, but later on expanded to include people that followed Aryan culture. You might find this quote below from Darius the Great interesting.

Inscription of Darius the Great at Naqsh-e-Rostam



> *I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings*, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, *a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage*.





Nassr said:


> The people of IVC were not Harappans only. And yes, there are many scholars who believe that the people of IVC wrote the Rig Veda. Punjab was part of the IVC as Harappa is located in Punjab alongwith many more IVC sites and so was KPK and Sindh and Balochistan.
> 
> Actually, if we grow out of our rigid beliefs and understandings through reading what others have written, we may remain here in the same well. If we carryout our own analysis and reach our own conclusions, no matter how wrong may these sound to others, we can improve our understanding of the IVC and the area it spreads over.



It's true that the IVC covered pretty much all of Pakistan. However, I still maintain that the Vedic people were different from the Harappans on account of the genetic, historic, cultural, & linguistic evidence we have available. Let's not forget about the evidence provided to us from the Iranian civilizations either. The writers of the Rigveda were Indo-Aryans & they were related to the Indo-Iranian tribes that wrote the Avesta. I would also like to apologize if my post #153 sounded rude. I was simply trying to explain that the genetic study was a legitimate & neutral source.



Tikolo said:


> ^ I personally think, it's in the region north of the Caspian sea, that the best possible location for it's origin. some European nationalistic are trying to put the origin in central europe, I dont believe that. It could also very well be central asia, because R1a1a seems to be totally absent from there, suggesting that people from there moved all over in all directions



I am not sure about the Caspian Sea, but Central Asia is a likely possibility. Hopefully, future research & studies will clarify this issue.



bronxbull said:


> Caste system is very simple and only the untouchables can have qualms about it.



What I meant was, why was the caste system created apart from assigning different groups different jobs?



bronxbull said:


> I can show u many Kshatriyas and shudras with sharper features and Brahmins with more Mongolia ones.



That's not necessary, I do not require any pictures, neither am I interested in them. Based on what you have stated, the castes in India have probably mixed up, thus their appearance is bound to vary.


----------



## bronxbull

Tikolo said:


> there was no such thing is India, this is a historical fact, India is a modern country. There were ancient kingdoms back then, no modern countries.



Those kingdoms formed an ecosystem and were inter connected culturally from even Iran & Arabia,So it was a relevant political entity.

Your historical facts count for nothing.


----------



## eastwatch

p(-)0ENiX said:


> *The Vedic people established cultural & political dominance over the locals of the Indus, there was no slavery. I haven't heard of any source that indicates that women were enslaved for labor or any other purpose*. They may have been taken as wives or concubines, but that's not slavery. It's quite common for elites to marry women from among those they rule over, & the data I have read indicates that any child born to an upper caste father would belong to his or her father's caste.
> 
> There is no doubt the Aryans were eager to preserve their race. Preserving race isn't an issue, but the method they used to preserve it (the caste system) wasn't just. The caste system focuses on occupations, but there is no denying it had a slight racial reason for its existence. As I stated earlier, the Vedic people assigned themselves the positions of higher castes to consolidate their power.



Bold part: You are perhaps comparing with US slavery. But, in any old society a vanquished group of people or race would become *virtual slave* of the victor. There are hundreds of example for which I do not think you need citation. 

The victors imposed their will on the vanquished. The women were enslaved even in Arab when Muhamed (saw) was there. The Muslim victors virtually enslaved the women of vanquished Arab tribes. In order to save your face as a Muslim, you will protest by saying that the Muslim men married those women. But, the marriages were forced or you can say those were rapes by today's standard.

Similar things also happened in the long past in India when the locals were subjugated by the fair skinned immigrant Aryans. This is what I said was slavery. The polygamist Aryan men took wives for many centuries from the locals. This is how the blood has mixed, and Y-chromosome of many low caste Hindu men of today directs to Aryan ancestors.

History was always like this. In every society similar things happened. And after a few thousand years of similar type of mixings mankind has evolved today to a level that we are now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

Tikolo said:


> there was no such thing is India, this is a historical fact, India is a modern country. There were ancient kingdoms back then, no modern countries.



Indian civilization is historically documented both by Indians sources and foreigners like Greeks, Persians, Romans, Arabs and Chinese. Your history revisionism is not true.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> Indian civilization is historically documented both by Indians sources and foreigners like Greeks, Persians, Romans, Arabs and Chinese. Your history revisionism is not true.



Lol

Greeks never entered India, Arabs and Chinese travellers described current day Pakistan. You guys are basically proud of our ancestors, you were not one of them. "India" is product of British colonization, Greeks said "Indoi" because of Indus river. 

One can say all India history is product of foreign people, from Vedic aryans to British people. Because you guys are not proud of your own people history.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## dravidianhero

shan said:


> Lol
> 
> Greeks never entered India, Arabs and Chinese travellers described current day Pakistan. You guys are basically proud of our ancestors, you were not one of them. "India" is product of British colonization, Greeks said "Indoi" because of Indus river.
> 
> One can say all India history is product of foreign people, from Vedic aryans to British people. Because you guys are not proud of your own people history.



nobody will buy ur concocted theory.it might be true the vedic ppl were from pak;but how many historians mention the word pakistan instead of india when they write or talk about vedas or ivc civilization?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Lol
> 
> *Greeks never entered India, Arabs and Chinese travellers described current day Pakistan. You guys are basically proud of our ancestors, you were not one of them.*



Have you ever read the accounts by Greeks, Arabs, Chinese or Persian before posting this.  



shan said:


> Greeks said "Indoi" because of Indus river.



Ever heard of the book named 'Indica' by Megasthanes, the Greek Ambassador to Chandragupta Maurya's court in Patliputra. They have clearly defined who constituted Indian people and Indian civilization. 





shan said:


> One can say all India history is product of *foreign people*, from Vedic aryans to British people.



Everyone can be traced back to Africa. 



shan said:


> Because you guys are not proud of your own people history.



This comment seems like pot calling the kettle black.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

dravidianhero said:


> nobody will buy ur concocted theory.it might be true the vedic ppl were from pak;but how many historians mention the word pakistan instead of india when they write or talk about vedas or ivc civilization?



Actually many have already started mentioning Pakistan instead of ancient-India. The latest report which debunked Sarasvati river myth never once said Ancient India or Harappa being in India. Thats how neutral historians will write history going forward.



INDIC said:


> Have you ever read the accounts by Greeks, Arabs, Chinese or Persian before posting this.
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of the book named 'Indica' by Megasthanes, the Greek Ambassador to Chandragupta Maurya's court in Patliputra. They have clearly defined who constituted Indian people and Indian civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone can be traced back to Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> This comment seems like pot calling the kettle black.



Yes i have read them and they all describe current day Pakistan which was known by his river Indus. So Hind, Al-Sindh, Indoi and other names all are from Indus river.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

@shan is right. 'India' never existed. It was always Pakistan. A gentleman just remembered the old name of Pakyavarta/Pakivarsha and styled it into 'Pakistan'. @shan - don't mind these evil bigot yindoo bigots. The whole world know that 'Indians' have no civilization. From Sanskrit to Panini, Chanakya to Aryabhatta - all where either Pakistanis or their descendents. It is time to remove the blot on history and restore the truth. Even Hinduism is a Pakistani faith. How dare the evil baniyas call themselves Hindus! As far as the historical monuments are concerned, I suggest the Government of Pakistan(inheritor of the Pre historic Government of Pakistan) to copyright them so that no one else can claim them again.
@Gautam - I guess you will also agree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Yes i have read them and they *all describe current day Pakistan* which was known by his river Indus. So Hind, Al-Sindh, Indoi and other names all are from Indus river.



Then you didn't read it properly. moreover, current India inherits these names. Pakistan created out of that historical India by a Gujarati man non-native to current Pakistani territory.

Arabic and Persian name Yunan for Greeks and Sanskrit names Yona/Yavana for Greeks came from the ancient Greek territory of Ionia. Megasthanes was too a native of Ionia. But Ionia is no more in Greece, it lies in Western Turkey now.


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Actually many have already started mentioning Pakistan instead of ancient-India. The latest report which debunked Sarasvati river myth never once said Ancient India or Harappa being in India. Thats how neutral historians will write history going forward.



The latest report you quoted only debunked that Saraswati was glacier fed river, it still accept the possibility that Gaggar-Hakra being the ancient Saraswati river.


----------



## Gautam

SarthakGanguly said:


> @shan is right. 'India' never existed. It was always Pakistan. A gentleman just remembered the old name of Pakyavarta/Pakivarsha and styled it into 'Pakistan'. @shan - don't mind these evil bigot yindoo bigots. The whole world know that 'Indians' have no civilization. From Sanskrit to Panini, Chanakya to Aryabhatta - all where either Pakistanis or their descendents. It is time to remove the blot on history and restore the truth. Even Hinduism is a Pakistani faith. How dare the evil baniyas call themselves Hindus! As far as the historical monuments are concerned, I suggest the Government of Pakistan(inheritor of the Pre historic Government of Pakistan) to copyright them so that no one else can claim them again.
> @Gautam - I guess you will also agree.



Please dont try to play smart and steal Pakistan's history. I am going to share information from a documentary which could not be released because of RAW. They did not let the truth out. 

According to my secret sources in RAW, The excavation in Uganda, Somalia and North Pole has proved that there were people in "ancient Pakistan" who used to go there for BIJNESS. Those ancient Pakistanis also had some Scriptures along with them which mentions the name "Landoos, The Land Of Indus." Yes, that's right. It mentioned the name in English. May be because Ancient Pakistanis knew that English was going to be a global language. 

You will be surprised to know that even Neil Armstrong found these scriptures on the moon. But because of India's pressure, he did not utter a word. Obviously India don't want these info coming out, hindis wanna keep this a secret as it will burst their bubble and destroy their so called ancient history.

I could have shared more info, but it would be very offensive to all Indians here. Moreover, it would not serve any cause to Dalits.

as for topic, No comments!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

eastwatch said:


> Bold part: You are perhaps comparing with US slavery. But, in any old society a vanquished group of people or race would become *virtual slave* of the victor. There are hundreds of example for which I do not think you need citation.
> 
> The victors imposed their will on the vanquished. The women were enslaved even in Arab when Muhamed (saw) was there. The Muslim victors virtually enslaved the women of vanquished Arab tribes. In order to save your face as a Muslim, you will protest by saying that the Muslim men married those women. But, the marriages were forced or you can say those were rapes by today's standard.
> 
> Similar things also happened in the long past in India when the locals were subjugated by the fair skinned immigrant Aryans. This is what I said was slavery. The polygamist Aryan men took wives for many centuries from the locals. This is how the blood has mixed, and Y-chromosome of many low caste Hindu men of today directs to Aryan ancestors.
> 
> History was always like this. In every society similar things happened. And after a few thousand years of similar type of mixings mankind has evolved today to a level that we are now.



I am not trying to defend any society here, & there is no doubt that the conquerors took the women of the conquered. That was common in warfare throughout history. I was actually comparing Vedic society to Greco-Roman & Arab societies where slavery was common. In that sense, slavery was absent from the Sub-Continent. What you are referring to is in fact political, cultural, & military dominance, that is what allowed the Vedic people to marry lots of indigenous women. I simply do not consider that slavery in any sense unless those indigenous wives were lacking certain crucial rights. It would be a generalization to assume that every marriage during conquests was forced, there must have been consensual marriages as well. Of course there is the possibility that consent may have been provided under coercion. The Vedic people & other immigrants did indeed mix with the locals, but their main regions of settlement remained the north western & to an extent the northern regions of the Sub-Continent. 

**********​
Anyway, here is some interesting information from Wikipedia regarding the city of Balkh in Afghanistan.

Balkh



> Balkh is one of the oldest cities in the world and is considered to be the first city to which the Indo-Iranian tribes moved from the North of Amu Darya, between 2000 - 1500 BC. The Arabs called it Umm Al-Belaad or Mother of Cities due to its antiquity. The city was traditionally a center of Zoroastrianism. The name Zariaspa, which is either an alternate name for Balkh or a term for part of the city, may derive from the important Zoroastrian fire temple Azar-i-Asp. Balkh was regarded as the first place where Zoroaster first preached his religion, as well as the place where he died.
> 
> Since the Indo-Iranians built their first kingdom in Balkh (Bactria, Daxia, Bukhdi) some scholars believe that it was from this area that different waves of Indo-Iranians spread to north-east Iran and Seistan region, where they, in part, became today's Persians, Pashtuns, and Baluch people of the region.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nassr

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Well that book was only cited twice in the genetic study if I am correct. The first citation was to refer to migration dates, & the other was regarding the caste system. It didn't mention "Nazi" in the title, but its title indicates that it was meant to discuss nationalistic or possibly racist ideas in Europe. Regardless, that book is irrelevant now because the genetic study that cites it only referred to it for information regarding the caste system & migration dates. I thought you referred to that book to make the genetic study sound racist, which it most certainly is not as proven by its content. The study is legitimate, & its results are without a doubt interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, that's my mistake. I was aware that the Swastika was used in European cultures as well. The only reason I associated the Nazi Swastika with Harappa is because of the similarity in their appearance & design, but that Bulgarian Swastika is undoubtedly closer to the Nazi one, especially because of the circle around it. However, it should be noted that the word "swastika" is of Sanskrit in origin, & so is the word "Arya".
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Indo-Iranians are a branch of Indo-European tribes that spoke Avestan & Sanskrit originally. If you are referring to that genetic study, then any mention of similarity to European DNA is in fact Indo-Iranian DNA because there were no migrations from mainland Europe to the Indus, Afghanistan, or Iran. Yeah, the IVC & Vedic people are not related but they did interact later on. Sanskrit & Harappan languages were different, but Sanskrit borrowed many loanwords from other languages, some of which are lost today. Understanding the Harappan script is a must in my opinion, & it will broaden our understanding of those people greatly.
> 
> Let's ignore the Nazis, I honestly have no clue as to how they referred to themselves as Aryans. The ancient Greek & Roman people never called themselves Aryans, in fact it was the Medians that called themselves Aryans with a lot of pride. The Greeks however referred to the Medians as "Medians". Historically, it was only the Indo-Aryans & Indo-Iranians that called themselves "Aryans", the term originally referred to the Indo-Iranian tribes, but later on expanded to include people that followed Aryan culture. You might find this quote below from Darius the Great interesting.
> 
> Inscription of Darius the Great at Naqsh-e-Rostam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that the IVC covered pretty much all of Pakistan. However, I still maintain that the Vedic people were different from the Harappans on account of the genetic, historic, cultural, & linguistic evidence we have available. Let's not forget about the evidence provided to us from the Iranian civilizations either. The writers of the Rigveda were Indo-Aryans & they were related to the Indo-Iranian tribes that wrote the Avesta. I would also like to apologize if my post #153 sounded rude. I was simply trying to explain that the genetic study was a legitimate & neutral source.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure about the Caspian Sea, but Central Asia is a likely possibility. Hopefully, future research & studies will clarify this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> What I meant was, why was the caste system created apart from assigning different groups different jobs?
> 
> 
> 
> That's not necessary, I do not require any pictures, neither am I interested in them. Based on what you have stated, the castes in India have probably mixed up, thus their appearance is bound to vary.



When I look at any such study critically, I also look at the non-genetic/non-scientific references which are apparently cited to justify a particular viewpoint which may not justifiable through the scientific data output or may need emphasis in presenting certain conclusions. Such non-genetic/non-scientific references in many cases are required as well, to make sense of the study and unless selected carefully do colour the conclusions that are drawn. To me, the study may have coloured itself towards a particular hue by citing those references and thus inferred inappropriate aspects. And it was not the racist content which was cited but a quoted opinion which was doubtful. At least this is how I function. 

Here I would like to quote from a very interesting book written by a Russian, Elena E. Kuz'mina, The Origin of the Indo-Iranians, edited by J. P. Mallory. 

*Quotes*:

A triumph of Russian Indo-Iranian studies was the international symposium of 1977 in Dushanbe on Ethnic problems of the history of Central Asia in the early period. Among its participants were leading linguists, historians and archaeologists: I. Dyakonov, V. Abaev, V. Livshits, I. Steblin-Kamensky, G. Bongard-Levin, B. Litvinsky, E. Grantovsky, I. Aliev, M. Pogrebova, K.
Smirnov, E. Kuzmina, V. Sarianidi, V. Gening, A. Askarov, I. Masimov, the anthropologist V. Alekseev and others. The general thrust of these studies was the localization of the Indo-Iranian homeland in the steppes and their subsequent migration to Central Asia (Asimov 1981: 44-52).

Also in attendance were Indian scholars, S. S. Misra, B. B. Lal, B. K. Thapar, R. C. Gaur, L. Gopal, and A. H. Dani (Pakistan), and European researchers, B. and R. Allchin, R. Ghirshman, K. Jettmar and V. Brentjes. The idea of an Indo-Iranian migration from the north predominated and the Aryans culture after their arrival in India was correlated with the Painted Gray Ware culture. The establishment of this hypothesis for an Indo-Iranian migration was a break-through in Russian science which had for years labored with the concept of autochthonous development. The symposium of 1977 brought euphoria. The Indo-Iranian attribution of the Timber-grave and Andronovo cultures received universal recognition. 

However, 1980 saw the beginning of a heated discussion about the new concept formulated already in 1972 by the prominent linguists T. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov (1980; 1984). Assuming connections between the IE languages and those of the Caucasus and ancient Near East, they moved the original homeland to 4th millennium BC Eastern Anatolia, whence the Indo-Aryans (IA) went to Mitanni and India, and the Iranian Scythians, not until in the 8th century BC passed through Central Asia northwards into the steppes following the other Indo-Europeans. This hypothesis was dismissed by Soviet archaeologists. Many Near-Eastern borrowings were called into question by I. Dyakonov (1980). 

Proceeding from completely different considerations, C. Renfrew in 1987 localized the Proto-Indo-Europeans in Anatolia, a center of inception of the Neolithic economy from where they passed in the 7th6th millennium BC through the Balkans to settle in Europe bringing along farming and cattlebreeding skills. In doing so, according to his Model A, they immediately went eastwards to India, while according to Model B the original homeland of all the Indo-Iranians was localized in the steppes whence they later moved into Iran and India. C. Renfrews critics pointed out that the distribution of cultural innovations is often conditioned not by migration of a new population but by cultural borrowings. 

A. and S. Sherratt (1988) expressed an alternative opinion holding that IE settlement and the Anatolian-Pontic interaction took place not in the 6th millennium BC but only after the secondary products revolution of the 4th millennium BC. In 1990 I. M. Dyakonov (Dyakonov 1990: 53-65) also placed the original homeland of the pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans in the 6th millennium BC in the Near East believing that S. Starostin had established ancient ties with the Caucasian languages and those of the Near East. He assumed a migration of the Proto-Indo-Europeans through the Balkans and Danube and linked it with the distribution of Linearbandkeramik culture. The Indo-Europeans continued to develop in Europe, and as for the Indo-Iranians, I. M. Dyakonov (1995: 123-130) acknowledged them to be the creators of the Andronovo culture linking their migration with the spread of this culture over the south of Central Asia. 

In 1989 J. P. Mallory published In Search of Indo-Europeans, in which he most strictly and with much reasoning advocated the concept, expressed as early as the 19th century, of the localization of the IE original homeland in Europe, underlining the role of the Pontic steppes, the place of domestication of the horse. 

*In 1990 in Delhi, a conference was held at which a group of nationalistically charged intelligentsia declared that the hypothesis of the Aryans migration was created by imperialists, whereas India was the original homeland of the Indo-Aryans and that these were the founders of the high civilization of Harappa. This hypothesis is widely discussed and very popular in todays India. *

Continuing further from ^^^^^^

She also highlight some of the important hypotheses:

*Hypothesis I*: T. Gamkrelidze (1990: 5-14) apparently adheres to his previousstandpoint. But V. V. Ivanov in his report at the presidium of the Academy of Science in Moscow on 11 Sept. 2001 suggested that the Indo-Europeans did not penetrate through the Trans-Caspian deserts, but around the Pontic and he suggested that Marija Gimbutas&#8217;s hypotheses were no longer relevant, the range of the early Indo-Europeans being greater than the territory of the Pit-grave culture and that it coincided with the range of the horse in which he includes the Near East. Moreover, he emphasizes the importance of the horse and chariot in Arkaim, but assumes a migration of the founders of this culture from the south, from Mitanni where horse-training was for the first time developed by the Mitanni Aryans (Ivanov 1997: 22, 23). 

In his article of 2002 he made the next important step. He speaks of Irano-Finno-Ugrian connections in the names of metals, admits the Yenisean or Tocharian, but predominantly (Indo-Iranian or Eastern Iranian Proto-Scythian attribution of Sintashta, yet he cites very interesting not only Iranian but Indo-Aryan etymologies, e.g., Dary-al, Ur-al, Ar-al. 

*Hypothesis II*: The hypothesis of C. Renfrew (1990; 1999; 2002a, b) has also undergone a transformation. He has accepted some objections of his critics, linked the most ancient events of IE history with the Balkano-Danubian and North-Pontic region, underlined that M. Gimbutas&#8217; hypothesis supported by D. Anthony (1986; 1995) for the role of the warrior-horsemen as the distributors of the IE speech in Europe has been questioned, and he flatly rejects the IE migration suggested by V. V. Ivanov and T. Gamkrelidze from the south-east through the Trans-Caspian deserts. Most importantly, C. Renfrew observed that he &#8220;no longer argues the case for hypothesis A&#8221; (Renfrew 2002b): &#8220;elements of consensus seem to be emerging. There is wide agreement with Kuz&#8217;mina&#8217;s view (1994) of the significance of Andronovo culture&#8221;, which &#8220;very probably represents the distribution of Indo-Iranian speech in the early second millennium BC&#8221; (2002: fig. 5). This marked the crossing of the second or Ural fault line (Mallory 1998b: 188) &#8220;and the steppes zone became a bridge across the Eurasian continent&#8221; (2002: 15). But further C. Renfrew emphasized that in the way of the final solution to the Indo-Iranian problem was &#8220;the third of Mallory&#8217;s &#8216;fault lines&#8217;, the Central Asian line&#8221;, as long as &#8220;archaeologically there is all too little trace of the &#8216;coming&#8217; of the Indo-Iranians to the Iranian Plateau and to India&#8221; (Renfrew 2002: 15, 16). 

*Hypothesis III*: J. P. Mallory (1996; 1997; 1998a, b; 2001; 2002; Mallory and Mair 2000), in a range of works focusing on the origin of the IE peoples, paid much attention to the Indo-Iranian ethnogenesis. He looked into the general theoretic problems and methods and from this standpoint gave a critical analysis of the proposed models. He underlined that the previously suggested dates of the break-up of the IE community were groundless since the terms related to the wheeled transport and the horse were common Indo-European (Mallory 1996: 8-11), but noticed at the same time that &#8220;the specific model proposed by Marija Gimbutas could also stand some readjustment&#8221; (Mallory 2002: 3, fig. 7). 

*While Summarizing she says*, it should be noted that in spite of the serious disagreement, the Andronovan hypothesis gains an increasingly wide acceptance. However, not only its opponents, but also its adherents stress the &#8220;absence of distinct traces of the Andronovans&#8217; migration outside the boundaries of Bactria and Margiana&#8221; and regard it as &#8220;a kind of movement very unlikely to have had artifactual correlates&#8221; (Burney 1999: 8), since the pastoralists from the north brought the Indo-Aryan language but not the pots. What are then the perspectives of Vedic archaeology?
__________________

She mentions Vedic Archeology. Lets see what is Vedic Archeology. 

In his book Traditional India, O. L. Chavarria-Aguilar writes of Indians: "A more unhistorical people would be difficult to find." Vedic civilization believed in recording the eternal and infinite. The ephemeral details of daily life (so much the concern of contemporary people) need not be recorded, since they had so little bearing on the larger, more significant goals of human life. Leisure time was to be used for self-realization, cultural pursuits, and worship of God&#8211;not rehashing current events or the past. Therefore, practically no histories, according to the Western concept of history, exist today about ancient India, because none were written. 

@ p(-)0ENiX, You said I did not quote references &#8211; so I quoted a few.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

In 1990 in Delhi, a conference was held at which a group of nationalistically charged intelligentsia declared that the hypothesis of the Aryans&#8217; migration was created by imperialists, whereas India was the original homeland of the Indo-Aryans and that these were the founders of the high civilization of Harappa. This hypothesis is widely discussed and very popular in today&#8217;s India. 


So Indians on PDF are product of that generation?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tikolo

shan said:


> In 1990 in Delhi, a conference was held at which a group of nationalistically charged intelligentsia declared that the hypothesis of the Aryans&#8217; migration was created by imperialists, whereas India was the original homeland of the Indo-Aryans and that these were the founders of the high civilization of Harappa. This hypothesis is widely discussed and very popular in today&#8217;s India.
> 
> 
> So Indians on PDF are product of that generation?



The problem is indians always try to mix science with their own religion, that's why I will never trust any scientific or historical news coming out of India

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LaBong

Somebody save us from these quack geneticists !


----------



## Tikolo

LaBong said:


> Somebody save us from these quack geneticists !



harrapa ancestry project is very real, all the percentages and numbers are being quoted from that website

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

SarthakGanguly said:


> @shan is right. 'India' never existed. It was always Pakistan. A gentleman just remembered the old name of Pakyavarta/Pakivarsha and styled it into 'Pakistan'. @shan - don't mind these evil bigot yindoo bigots. The whole world know that 'Indians' have no civilization. From Sanskrit to Panini, Chanakya to Aryabhatta - all where either Pakistanis or their descendents. It is time to remove the blot on history and restore the truth. Even Hinduism is a Pakistani faith. How dare the evil baniyas call themselves Hindus! As far as the historical monuments are concerned, I suggest the Government of Pakistan(inheritor of the Pre historic Government of Pakistan) to copyright them so that no one else can claim them again.
> @Gautam - I guess you will also agree.



There is some reality in it.  



> A Text Book of Pakistan Studies claims that Pakistan "came to be established for the first time when the Arabs under Mohammad bin Qasim occupied Sindh and Multan'; by the thirteenth century 'Pakistan had spread to include the whole of Northern India and Bengal' and then under the Khiljis, Pakistan moved further south-ward to include a greater part of Central India and the Deccan'. [...] The spirit of Pakistan asserted itself', and under Aurangzeb the 'Pakistan spirit gathered in strength'; his death 'weakened the Pakistan spirit'."
> Pakistani textbooks controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LaBong

I just checked the harappa project and found out I have Siberian trace in me! Although I wished for viking, viking nahi milega kya ?


----------



## INDIC

Tikolo said:


> The problem is indians always try to mix science with their own religion, that's why I will never trust any scientific or historical news coming out of India



History of India from 1500BC-700BC is mostly preserved in Hindu religious texts. Historians mainly take the help of Vedas to study history of that period. After 700BC there are various archeological sites and manuscripts to study the history of India and additional Jain and Buddhist religious texts.


----------



## farhan_9909

i could be wrong


But arent the oldest and most historic sites of south asia located in Pakistan?
be it IVC/Gandhara or mehrgarh in balochistan

And be it the Great Rig veda being written in Pakistani but ancient Pakistanis..


----------



## INDIC

farhan_9909 said:


> i could be wrong
> But arent the oldest and most historic sites of south asia located in Pakistan?
> be it IVC/Gandhara or mehrgarh in balochistan



Pakistan, North and West India.



farhan_9909 said:


> And be it the Great Rig veda being written in Pakistani but ancient Pakistanis..



Rigveda was written in plains of Punjab(Punjab of British India) between Indus and Yamuna river. You know where is Yamuna flows.


----------



## farhan_9909

INDIC said:


> Pakistan, North and West India.



Well a quick search on google about IVC and found out that atleast 80% of Pakistan was under IVC influence







Mehrgarh
Harrap
Mohenjdoro

are in pakistan though lothal in indian gujarat



> Rigveda was written in plains of Punjab(Punjab of British India) between Indus and Yamuna river. You know where is Yamuna flows.



but many internet sources mention that the start was in Present Day Pakistan.

can we assume that modern Pakistan are the only indigenous people of IVC?
do we have any records of how the indigenous people of IVC looked like.because i have feeling that the people of punjab and sindh could be the indigenous people of IVC


----------



## INDIC

farhan_9909 said:


> Well a quick search on google about IVC and found out that atleast 80% of Pakistan was under IVC influence
> 
> Mehrgarh
> Harrap
> Mohenjdoro
> 
> are in pakistan though lothal in indian gujarat



This one gives more detail of Indus valley sites.









farhan_9909 said:


> but many internet sources mention that the start was in Present Day Pakistan.



Rigveda was composed in plains of Punjab between Indus and Yamuna. Punjab that once extended from Attock to Delhi during British time.



farhan_9909 said:


> can we assume that modern Pakistan are the only indigenous people of IVC?
> do we have any records of how the indigenous people of IVC looked like.because i have feeling that the people of punjab and sindh could be the indigenous people of IVC



Culture of Indus valley Civilization still exist among the Hindus of India and Pakistan. Yoga said to be originated from Indus valley, the custom of wearing bangles also started from Indus valley. The designs of great bath of Indus valley shows resemblances to Hindu ghats.

Yoga Posture from Indus valley





Folded Hands resembling Namaskar from Indus valley.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pk_baloch

farhan_9909 said:


> i could be wrong
> 
> 
> But arent the oldest and most historic sites of south asia located in Pakistan?
> be it IVC/Gandhara or mehrgarh in balochistan
> 
> And be it the Great Rig veda being written in Pakistani but ancient Pakistanis..


 @farhan_9909 *read it carefully u will get ur all answer *
*Some called it an artificial creation while others grieved on the vivisection of an ancient land. Yet, no one realized on that fateful night of 14th of August in 1947, that an ancient land has resurrected itself from the ashes of a lost civilization. That night the people of Meluhha came to life again as Pakistan. It was celebrated as an emergence of a new nation on the world map, least realizing that with minor differences in boundaries, the map which housed the people of Meluhha for over 9000 years, simply reclaimed its heritage as Pakistan. Meluhha were the people of Indus Valley Civilization.

The sub-continent has geographically been divided into two major regions since thousands of years; the Indus Valley with its tributaries and the Ganges Valley with its tributaries, separated by the watershed created by Gurdaspur-Kathiawar Salient. The maps of these two regions roughly align with the maps of present day Pakistan and India.*

Historically also these two regions have remained separate entities for most part of known history. The only period when these two regions even remained as one political unit in over 9000 years of known history, were during the era of Mauryan, Muslim and British rule. The major historic difference between the two regions was that while the people of Indus Valley created one of the oldest unified civilizations of the world and those of Ganges Valley remained separated and segregated. The Two Nations Theory which became one of the founding principles of creation of Pakistan and partition of British India in 1947, in historical hindsight, helped create status quo ante where history merely repeated itself.

*During 1920s when the excavations at Harappa (Punjab, Pakistan) began, despite the veil of obscurity, British Indian establishment called Indus Valley Civilization as Indian civilization. However, later research and emergence of additional archeological, geological, historical and genetic evidence cleared much of the ambiguity. It was confirmed that not only the core of this civilization lay in modern day Pakistan but the civilization itself had its mooring deeply embedded there. And therefore it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the people of Pakistan are the true embodiment of the ancient Meluhha.*

The true impact of this great civilization can not be ascertained only through its intrinsic and internal virtues. The influence it had, which profoundly impacted and transformed the later world, can only be understood in its entirety through identifying and recognizing its linkages with religio-political evolutionary progression and subsequent development and growth. The linkages of Indus Valley Civilization with Sumer (Mesopotamia), ancient Egypt and Central Asia are accepted archeological and historical facts as does the overlap in time period of existence of these civilizations. Thus the occurrence of major events of historical impact and value related to that era can not be isolated to only one of these civilizations alone.

*Major events of religio-political virtue impacted the period of existence of Indus Valley Civilization (7000 &#8211; 1300) which peaked between 3000 &#8211; 2000 BC and having declined from 1900 BC onwards till losing its trace around 1300 BC. This time period was laden with probable emergence of Prophets Nuh (Noah), Hud (Eber), Saleh (Shela) and certainly according to most scholars, the emergence of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) around 2000 BC, till Prophets Musa (Moses) 1436 &#8211; 1316 BC and Haroon (Aaron) 1439 &#8211; 1317 BC. All these Prophets spread the belief in one God (monotheism) and interestingly, as accepted by most scholars, the people of Indus Valley Civilization were the only ones who believed in monotheism out of the three contemporary civilizations.*

The unified system of governance and integrated and fused economic system, peaceful nature of living and lack of identifiable war fighting and war material, the remarkably similar construction and construction methodology and unified measuring system, all point towards a unitary and inclusive way of life. In addition to this, the absence of religious places and temples, lack of clearly identifiable deities and other polytheist artifacts are but some of the examples that make Indus Valley Civilization one of the few known civilizations of that era to have practiced monotheism. This also is reflective of the fact that monotheism acted as a unifying, integrated and a cohesive societal influence impacting the people of Indus Valley Civilization.

The linkages and influence, people of this civilization had with Sumer (Mesopotamia) are fairly well pronounced. Surprisingly though, such influences are also more pronounced by the absence of Mesopotamian linkages with Indus Valley. This is reflective of their maturity and also highlights their resolve in maintaining societal independence against foreign influences, wherein the practice of monotheism was upheld against polytheism practiced in the adjoining contemporary civilizations, despite the regular contacts and interactions even through enhanced trade linkages.

This also brings out the question as to why these people practiced monotheism when the other contemporary civilizations practiced polytheism. One may find the answer within the known historical aspects related to the spread of early monotheism. The time period of its emergence, its precursor, the peak and the decline of Indus Valley Civilization clearly relates it to the probable known historical influence of Prophets of that era, who spread monotheism. The possibility that there may have been a Prophet present amongst them, whose influence chartered the course of this remarkable civilization, can not be thus completely ruled out.

These societal influences may also help solve the riddle as to why this civilization started declining after 1900 BC. Were there any linkages between the birth of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) around 2000 BC in Sumer (Mesopotamia), who also spread monotheism. If such a probability has a measure of belief, the priests, the governing elite and a part of the population may have migrated to Sumer (Mesopotamia) after the news of Prophet Ibrahim&#8217;s (Abraham) proclamations would have reached Indus Valley. The remaining population, leaving those who could not and did not follow them to Sumer in search of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham), were left ungoverned and thus initiated the gradual collapse of Indus Valley Civilization which many have attributed to various natural calamities, indications of which have never been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.

After the decline and fading out of Indus Valley Civilization, it took many more centuries in formation of an alternative local culture and life style. This apparently took the form of ancient Vedic Hindu culture which emerged during its declining period or after the civilization had faded out. The influence was quite apparent in the then emerging Vedic Hindu culture and was pronounced by the fact that it also propagated monotheism in its earlier instance, which however was later diluted to polytheism.

It took many more centuries to bring the Ganges Valley and its adjoining planes under this new found influence. Monotheism, though in a different format, did stretch its wings again and again during the course of later history, in the form of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, though majority continued to revert back or follow Vedic Hindu culture. The arrival of Muslims however, effected a gradual and major change and the people of Indus Valley Civilization again accepted the virtues of monotheism which they had followed thousands of years earlier.

It was this civilizational clash between monotheism and polytheism which brought to fore the Meluhha in the form of Pakistan in 1947 and re-enacted it as an embodiment of a long lost great civilization.




The vision of Pakistan&#8217;s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in the 1940s did not only constitute creation of a Muslim political entity at the expense of India&#8217;s Hindu domination. It was also embedded in thousands of years of historical and geographical realities. These aspects clearly emerge from Jinnah&#8217;s interviews given to foreign correspondents where he described the geopolitical importance of Pakistan. The two nation reality also did not emerge only because of the differences between Hindu and Muslim peoples. It was an outcome of thousands of years of historical, geographical and genetic distinction between the peoples of Indus Valley Civilization and those occupying the Gangetic plains.

The existence of Indus Valley Civilization emerged though the ruins at Harappa in Punjab, Pakistan which were first described by Charles Masson in 1842, in his &#8220;Narrative of Various Journeys in Balochistan, Afghanistan, and the Punjab.&#8221; Though the site was visited by General Alexander Cunningham in 1856, who later headed the archeological survey of northern India, it was in 1921-22 that the excavations began which unearthed the great civilization buried under the sand for thousands of years.

The irony of it all was that it was General Alexander Cunningham who allowed East Indian Railways which was constructing railway line between the cities of Lahore and Karachi, to use the ancient bricks recovered from these sites as track ballast for the 150 kilometers of nearby stretch and thus destroyed much of the city of Harappa (3300 BC &#8211; 1300 BC). Mohenjodaro (2600 BC &#8211; 1900 BC) in Sindh, Pakistan was excavated by 1931. Mehrgarh (7000 BC -. 2500 BC) in Balochistan, Pakistan was discovered in 1974 and the excavations continued from 1974-86 and again from 1997-2000. Rehman Dheri (4000 BC) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was excavated from 1976-1980. Based on recent evidence and analyses, archeologists and historians have proclaimed that Indus Valley Civilization is over 9000 years old, making it one of the oldest civilizations of the world.

The South Asian subcontinent is principally divided into two major geographical regions; the Indus Valley and its westerly inclined tributaries, and the Ganges Valley with its easterly inclined tributaries. In his book, &#8220;The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan,&#8221; Aitzaz Ahsan identifies the geographical divide between these two regions as the Gurdaspur-Kathiawar salient, a watershed which is southwesterly inclined down to the Arabian Sea. This watershed also depicted the dividing line between the peoples of Indus Valley Civilization and those of Gangetic plains and also corresponds almost exactly with the current day Pakistan-India border.

Historically, only the Mauryas, Muslims and the British amalgamated these two regions as a unified state. For most of the remaining history, when one empire did not rule both the regions as a unified state, the Indus Valley Civilizational domain was always governed as one separate political entity.

Rather than an unnatural creation as propounded by many, Pakistan much more than the Gangetic plains, is an appropriate and modern embodiment of thousands of years old Indus Valley Civilization. The historical, geographical and its people&#8217;s organic linkages with Arab, Persian, Turkic and South Central Asian populace also clearly differentiates it as a distinct and definite independent identity as compared to the rest of India.

The discovery of Indus Valley Civilization in the run up to 1947 independence of Pakistan and India provided Indian nationalist Hindus an opportunity, to embed their Vedic Hindu cultural identity in a civilization, which was one of the oldest civilizations on earth and also predated emergence of Islam. However, the later identification of emergence of Vedic Hindu cultural traditions between 1500 &#8211; 600 BC, discounted such linkages. Also, the fact that Indus Valley Civilization&#8217;s cultural moorings were discovered mainly in the Indus River Valley, and partly in Ghaggar-Hakra basin and in the Doab, these cultural moorings did not find an extension into the central and lower Ganges Valley in the eastern and central Indian plains. The presence of fortified cities, town planning and drainage system, depiction of specialized epic art form and the architecture of burnt bricks, sea trade, use of seals, weights, measures and script and the custom of burying the dead in cemeteries, presented clear differentiation because of the absence of such depiction in Vedic Hindu literature and culture.

Many adherents of Indian Hindu nationalist ideology believed that India was and is a primarily Hindu nation and has Hindu religious culture in continuity from Vedic Aryans. The mosaic of cultures of the past evolving into composite Indian Hindu culture through the process of history was not based on archeological evidence but what they essentially believed in. In many cases distorting and manipulating or even forging the mute archaeological evidence through depiction of fire places as fire altars, waste pits as sacrificial pits in Harappan era sites and the imaginary reading of Sanskrit legends, was quoted in order to suit their pseudo-ideological and opportunistic interests.

Between 1900-1300 BC the civilization declined and there were no more references to Meluhha (Mesopotamian name for Indus Valley Civilization landmass) in Mesopotamian finds. However, the people who made up this great civilization continued living in places like Mehrgarh, Harappa, Mohenjodaro and other settlements long after that.

The legacy of Indus Valley Civilization lives on in present day Pakistan. Amongst some of the aspects that can still be traced to this legacy are the trade and commerce routes developed by the mentors of this great civilization. Ships from Meluhha regularly sailed from locations near modern day city of Karachi for the ports of Babylon. And they evidently made stops all along the way, as indicated through discovery of seals found in Oman, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain as well.

The city of Peshawar lies on what is thought to have been one of their main overland trade routes. That route is now a major highway that constitutes the eastern approach to the Khyber Pass and links the northwestern Indus River Plain to the highlands of Afghanistan and Central Asia. An old branch of the route runs from Peshawar, south into rugged tribal territory, through the Pakistani cities of Kohat and Bannu and the foothills of the Suleiman Mountains down across the Gomal Plain to the early historical site of Rehman Dheri.

After the decline of this civilization, the religion and language of which has still not been deciphered, at different times these people followed Vedic Hindu culture and traditions, also adopted Buddhism and in the end embraced Islam and are now overwhelmingly Muslim.

The core spread of Indus Valley Civilization primarily lay in Pakistan. The three major cities and many other sites which represent the core of Indus Valley Civilization are all located in Pakistan. However, the Indians still refer to India as the &#8220;Home of Indus Valley Civilization,&#8221; which is surprising and indeed a misnomer. India needs to realign its history and should seek its identity in its own legacy instead of claiming something to which they do not belong to.

It is the people of Pakistan who represent one of the oldest civilizations on earth. Indus Valley Civilization&#8217;s legacy is linked to Pakistan and this fact cannot be denied. The people of Pakistan thus rightly claim to be the true heirs of Indus Valley Civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

farhan_9909 said:


> i could be wrong
> 
> 
> But arent the oldest and most historic sites of south asia located in Pakistan?
> be it IVC/Gandhara or mehrgarh in balochistan
> 
> And be it the Great Rig veda being written in Pakistani but ancient Pakistanis..



RV was written in north Punjab, Pakistan. No one disputes that, not even Indians. Thats why there is big empasis on akhand bharat.


----------



## pk_baloch

@farhan_9909 always read the posts of @shan @Nassr @Ticker ticker is another forum.

open all posts of shan and nassr


----------



## farhan_9909

INDIC said:


> This one gives more detail of Indus valley sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigveda was composed in plains of Punjab between Indus and Yamuna. Punjab that once extended from Attock to Delhi during British time.
> 
> 
> 
> Culture of Indus valley Civilization still exist among the Hindus of India and Pakistan. Yoga said to be originated from Indus valley, the custom of wearing bangles also started from Indus valley. The designs of great bath of Indus valley shows resemblances to Hindu ghats.
> 
> Yoga Posture from Indus valley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folded Hands resembling Namaskar from Indus valley.



even from your link/image..majority of the major sites are within the present day Pakistan.incluidng the early farming cultures
though gujarat also has major influence of indus valley civilization

IVC culture might exist throughout india.and hindus throughout the world.

what i meant is that the Pakistani punjabi and sindhi might be muslim and had left the IVC cultures long back.
But dont you think the punjabi and sindhi are the indigenous people of IVC?

do we have any genetic evidence of IVC people and comparsion with the people of sindh,punjab and indian gujarat?



shan said:


> RV was written in north Punjab, Pakistan. No one disputes that, not even Indians. Thats why there is big empasis on akhand bharat.



Akhant bharat dream is only by some hardcore nationalist.

No one on pakistan and on indian side want to merge with each other.

Rig veda is one of the greatest book written in the history ever.i am proud of my punjabi and sindhi's for doing so. 



pk_baloch said:


> @farhan_9909 always read the posts of @shan @Nassr @Ticker ticker is another forum.
> 
> open all posts of shan and nassr



I do have some sort of knowledge regarding IVC.

but i want to be neutral.

there is no doubt in the fact that Hindus has more claim over the IVC today than even the indigenous people of IVC like Punjabi,sindhi and gujarat people of indian gujarat


----------



## pk_baloch

farhan_9909 said:


> Akhant bharat dream is only by some hardcore nationalist.
> 
> No one on pakistan and on indian side want to merge with each other.
> 
> Rig veda is one of the greatest book written in the history ever.i am proud of my punjabi and sindhi's for doing so.



vedic civilization has nothing to do with hindusium ......


----------



## farhan_9909

pk_baloch said:


> vedic civilization has nothing to do with hindusium ......



indeed.Hinduism is relatively a new name

IVC has to do more with sanatana dharma a birth name of hinduism.

Hinduism is rather a religion of merging of many south asian religions together.ancient south asian religions combination.

the ancient hindu of Pakistan and north india had different religion than those to the central india or south india.though they indeed were more than half identicle.


----------



## INDIC

farhan_9909 said:


> even from your link/image..majority of the major sites are within the present day Pakistan.incluidng the early farming cultures
> though gujarat also has major influence of indus valley civilization
> 
> IVC culture might exist throughout india.and hindus throughout the world.
> 
> what i meant is that the Pakistani punjabi and sindhi might be muslim and had left the IVC cultures long back.
> But dont you think the punjabi and sindhi are the indigenous people of IVC?
> 
> do we have any genetic evidence of IVC people and comparsion with the people of sindh,punjab and indian gujarat?




Current People of North India and Pakistan shows mixing with number of the people from the native people of IVC, the Indo-Aryans, Later Greeks, Scythians, Kushans, Huns etc. Rajputs, Jaats, Gujjar etc. originated when the migrants from Central Asia post Mauryan period intermarried with the earlier native population of the region.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

Some Indian posters are stating that Pakistani school books teach incorrect history. Lets see how Indian school books spread communal hatred through incorrect history taught in Indian schools. 

For many years now, the RSS, for example, has through its Saraswati Shishu Mandirs and Vidya Bharati primary and secondary schools, and through its Shakhas undertaken this project. They have, for example, in books published by Saraswati Shishu Mandir Prakashan *for classes four and five, portrayed all communities other than the Hindus as foreigners in India, wrongly described the medieval period as the Muslim period and, following the footsteps of the British, portrayed the period as one of great oppression and decline. These books, in the name of instilling patriotism and valour among Indians, spread falsehoods, treat mythological religious figures like actual historical figures and make absurd claims such as that the Qutab Minar was built by Samudragupta. They claim that Ashokas advocating of Ahimsa (non-violence) spread cowardice and that the struggle for Indias freedom became a religious war against Muslims*, and so on. (It is not surprising that Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence and the builder of the freedom struggle as a common struggle of the Hindus and Muslims against British imperialism gets described in their lexicon as a Dushtatma.) Quite understandably, the National Steering Committee on Textbook Evaluation (consisting of a large number of experts from all over the country) appointed by the NCERT itself, a few years ago, came to the conclusion that *the main purpose which these books would serve is to gradually transform the young children into bigoted morons in the garb of instilling in them patriotism*. One may emphasise here that the communalists have focused attention on history because it is on a particular distorted and often totally fabricated presentation of history that the communal ideology is hinged. 

Communalisation of Education | Mridula Mukherjee, Aditya Mukherjee

Some examples from Indian government official school text books. 

A sweeping statement at the beginning of the new Medieval India textbook incorporates both Buddhism and Jainism within the fold of Hinduism, in the medieval period. This was also a period of interaction between Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. Buddhism and Jainism were for all practical purposes absorbed into Hinduism and virtually ceased to lead an independent existence in the country. Medieval India: A Textbook for Class XI (NCERT, 2002), p. 3 

There are two deletions, from the Grade XI book by R.S. Sharma and the Grade VI book by Romila Thapar, regarding the practice of beef eating in the Vedic times. The reason cited for this deletion is that historians, indologists, archaeologists and sanskritists have different views on this issue. All of them hold that the cow was regarded [as] sacred and held a place of pride in Rig Vedic society. It is further stated that there is almost-definitive proof against the notion of beef eating in the Vedic period. It is cited that in the Rigveda there are twenty-one references where the cow has been termed as aghnya (not to be killed).

The Politics of Hindutva and the NCERT Textbooks

There are numerous other examples which can be quoted. Lets leave it here.


----------



## INDIC

pk_baloch said:


> vedic civilization has nothing to do with hindusium ......



Vedas are the foundation of Hinduism and considered supreme scriptures. Central feature of Hindu tradition is the Hindu trinity seeing God with three natures- Creator, Preserver and the destroyer.



pk_baloch said:


> *That night the people of Meluhha came to life again as Pakistan.* It was celebrated as an emergence of a new nation on the world map, least realizing that with *minor differences in boundaries*, the map which housed the people of Meluhha for over 9000 years, simply reclaimed its heritage as Pakistan. Meluhha were the people of Indus Valley Civilization.



Half of the population of the Pakistan created on 14th august 1947 was living outside Meluhha in East Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

pk_baloch said:


> vedic civilization has nothing to do with hindusium ......



what ????????

think before you shoot..


----------



## Nassr

pk_baloch said:


> @farhan_9909 *read it carefully u will get ur all answer *
> *Some called it an artificial creation while others grieved on the vivisection of an ancient land. Yet, no one realized on that fateful night of 14th of August in 1947, that an ancient land has resurrected itself from the ashes of a lost civilization. That night the people of Meluhha came to life again as Pakistan. It was celebrated as an emergence of a new nation on the world map, least realizing that with minor differences in boundaries, the map which housed the people of Meluhha for over 9000 years, simply reclaimed its heritage as Pakistan. Meluhha were the people of Indus Valley Civilization.
> 
> The sub-continent has geographically been divided into two major regions since thousands of years; the Indus Valley with its tributaries and the Ganges Valley with its tributaries, separated by the watershed created by Gurdaspur-Kathiawar Salient. The maps of these two regions roughly align with the maps of present day Pakistan and India.*
> 
> Historically also these two regions have remained separate entities for most part of known history. The only period when these two regions even remained as one political unit in over 9000 years of known history, were during the era of Mauryan, Muslim and British rule. The major historic difference between the two regions was that while the people of Indus Valley created one of the oldest unified civilizations of the world and those of Ganges Valley remained separated and segregated. The Two Nations Theory which became one of the founding principles of creation of Pakistan and partition of British India in 1947, in historical hindsight, helped create status quo ante where history merely repeated itself.
> 
> *During 1920s when the excavations at Harappa (Punjab, Pakistan) began, despite the veil of obscurity, British Indian establishment called Indus Valley Civilization as Indian civilization. However, later research and emergence of additional archeological, geological, historical and genetic evidence cleared much of the ambiguity. It was confirmed that not only the core of this civilization lay in modern day Pakistan but the civilization itself had its mooring deeply embedded there. And therefore it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the people of Pakistan are the true embodiment of the ancient Meluhha.*
> 
> The true impact of this great civilization can not be ascertained only through its intrinsic and internal virtues. The influence it had, which profoundly impacted and transformed the later world, can only be understood in its entirety through identifying and recognizing its linkages with religio-political evolutionary progression and subsequent development and growth. The linkages of Indus Valley Civilization with Sumer (Mesopotamia), ancient Egypt and Central Asia are accepted archeological and historical facts as does the overlap in time period of existence of these civilizations. Thus the occurrence of major events of historical impact and value related to that era can not be isolated to only one of these civilizations alone.
> 
> *Major events of religio-political virtue impacted the period of existence of Indus Valley Civilization (7000 &#8211; 1300) which peaked between 3000 &#8211; 2000 BC and having declined from 1900 BC onwards till losing its trace around 1300 BC. This time period was laden with probable emergence of Prophets Nuh (Noah), Hud (Eber), Saleh (Shela) and certainly according to most scholars, the emergence of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) around 2000 BC, till Prophets Musa (Moses) 1436 &#8211; 1316 BC and Haroon (Aaron) 1439 &#8211; 1317 BC. All these Prophets spread the belief in one God (monotheism) and interestingly, as accepted by most scholars, the people of Indus Valley Civilization were the only ones who believed in monotheism out of the three contemporary civilizations.*
> 
> The unified system of governance and integrated and fused economic system, peaceful nature of living and lack of identifiable war fighting and war material, the remarkably similar construction and construction methodology and unified measuring system, all point towards a unitary and inclusive way of life. In addition to this, the absence of religious places and temples, lack of clearly identifiable deities and other polytheist artifacts are but some of the examples that make Indus Valley Civilization one of the few known civilizations of that era to have practiced monotheism. This also is reflective of the fact that monotheism acted as a unifying, integrated and a cohesive societal influence impacting the people of Indus Valley Civilization.
> 
> The linkages and influence, people of this civilization had with Sumer (Mesopotamia) are fairly well pronounced. Surprisingly though, such influences are also more pronounced by the absence of Mesopotamian linkages with Indus Valley. This is reflective of their maturity and also highlights their resolve in maintaining societal independence against foreign influences, wherein the practice of monotheism was upheld against polytheism practiced in the adjoining contemporary civilizations, despite the regular contacts and interactions even through enhanced trade linkages.
> 
> This also brings out the question as to why these people practiced monotheism when the other contemporary civilizations practiced polytheism. One may find the answer within the known historical aspects related to the spread of early monotheism. The time period of its emergence, its precursor, the peak and the decline of Indus Valley Civilization clearly relates it to the probable known historical influence of Prophets of that era, who spread monotheism. The possibility that there may have been a Prophet present amongst them, whose influence chartered the course of this remarkable civilization, can not be thus completely ruled out.
> 
> These societal influences may also help solve the riddle as to why this civilization started declining after 1900 BC. Were there any linkages between the birth of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) around 2000 BC in Sumer (Mesopotamia), who also spread monotheism. If such a probability has a measure of belief, the priests, the governing elite and a part of the population may have migrated to Sumer (Mesopotamia) after the news of Prophet Ibrahim&#8217;s (Abraham) proclamations would have reached Indus Valley. The remaining population, leaving those who could not and did not follow them to Sumer in search of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham), were left ungoverned and thus initiated the gradual collapse of Indus Valley Civilization which many have attributed to various natural calamities, indications of which have never been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> After the decline and fading out of Indus Valley Civilization, it took many more centuries in formation of an alternative local culture and life style. This apparently took the form of ancient Vedic Hindu culture which emerged during its declining period or after the civilization had faded out. The influence was quite apparent in the then emerging Vedic Hindu culture and was pronounced by the fact that it also propagated monotheism in its earlier instance, which however was later diluted to polytheism.
> 
> It took many more centuries to bring the Ganges Valley and its adjoining planes under this new found influence. Monotheism, though in a different format, did stretch its wings again and again during the course of later history, in the form of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, though majority continued to revert back or follow Vedic Hindu culture. The arrival of Muslims however, effected a gradual and major change and the people of Indus Valley Civilization again accepted the virtues of monotheism which they had followed thousands of years earlier.
> 
> It was this civilizational clash between monotheism and polytheism which brought to fore the Meluhha in the form of Pakistan in 1947 and re-enacted it as an embodiment of a long lost great civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vision of Pakistan&#8217;s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in the 1940s did not only constitute creation of a Muslim political entity at the expense of India&#8217;s Hindu domination. It was also embedded in thousands of years of historical and geographical realities. These aspects clearly emerge from Jinnah&#8217;s interviews given to foreign correspondents where he described the geopolitical importance of Pakistan. The two nation reality also did not emerge only because of the differences between Hindu and Muslim peoples. It was an outcome of thousands of years of historical, geographical and genetic distinction between the peoples of Indus Valley Civilization and those occupying the Gangetic plains.
> 
> The existence of Indus Valley Civilization emerged though the ruins at Harappa in Punjab, Pakistan which were first described by Charles Masson in 1842, in his &#8220;Narrative of Various Journeys in Balochistan, Afghanistan, and the Punjab.&#8221; Though the site was visited by General Alexander Cunningham in 1856, who later headed the archeological survey of northern India, it was in 1921-22 that the excavations began which unearthed the great civilization buried under the sand for thousands of years.
> 
> The irony of it all was that it was General Alexander Cunningham who allowed East Indian Railways which was constructing railway line between the cities of Lahore and Karachi, to use the ancient bricks recovered from these sites as track ballast for the 150 kilometers of nearby stretch and thus destroyed much of the city of Harappa (3300 BC &#8211; 1300 BC). Mohenjodaro (2600 BC &#8211; 1900 BC) in Sindh, Pakistan was excavated by 1931. Mehrgarh (7000 BC -. 2500 BC) in Balochistan, Pakistan was discovered in 1974 and the excavations continued from 1974-86 and again from 1997-2000. Rehman Dheri (4000 BC) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was excavated from 1976-1980. Based on recent evidence and analyses, archeologists and historians have proclaimed that Indus Valley Civilization is over 9000 years old, making it one of the oldest civilizations of the world.
> 
> The South Asian subcontinent is principally divided into two major geographical regions; the Indus Valley and its westerly inclined tributaries, and the Ganges Valley with its easterly inclined tributaries. In his book, &#8220;The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan,&#8221; Aitzaz Ahsan identifies the geographical divide between these two regions as the Gurdaspur-Kathiawar salient, a watershed which is southwesterly inclined down to the Arabian Sea. This watershed also depicted the dividing line between the peoples of Indus Valley Civilization and those of Gangetic plains and also corresponds almost exactly with the current day Pakistan-India border.
> 
> Historically, only the Mauryas, Muslims and the British amalgamated these two regions as a unified state. For most of the remaining history, when one empire did not rule both the regions as a unified state, the Indus Valley Civilizational domain was always governed as one separate political entity.
> 
> Rather than an unnatural creation as propounded by many, Pakistan much more than the Gangetic plains, is an appropriate and modern embodiment of thousands of years old Indus Valley Civilization. The historical, geographical and its people&#8217;s organic linkages with Arab, Persian, Turkic and South Central Asian populace also clearly differentiates it as a distinct and definite independent identity as compared to the rest of India.
> 
> The discovery of Indus Valley Civilization in the run up to 1947 independence of Pakistan and India provided Indian nationalist Hindus an opportunity, to embed their Vedic Hindu cultural identity in a civilization, which was one of the oldest civilizations on earth and also predated emergence of Islam. However, the later identification of emergence of Vedic Hindu cultural traditions between 1500 &#8211; 600 BC, discounted such linkages. Also, the fact that Indus Valley Civilization&#8217;s cultural moorings were discovered mainly in the Indus River Valley, and partly in Ghaggar-Hakra basin and in the Doab, these cultural moorings did not find an extension into the central and lower Ganges Valley in the eastern and central Indian plains. The presence of fortified cities, town planning and drainage system, depiction of specialized epic art form and the architecture of burnt bricks, sea trade, use of seals, weights, measures and script and the custom of burying the dead in cemeteries, presented clear differentiation because of the absence of such depiction in Vedic Hindu literature and culture.
> 
> Many adherents of Indian Hindu nationalist ideology believed that India was and is a primarily Hindu nation and has Hindu religious culture in continuity from Vedic Aryans. The mosaic of cultures of the past evolving into composite Indian Hindu culture through the process of history was not based on archeological evidence but what they essentially believed in. In many cases distorting and manipulating or even forging the mute archaeological evidence through depiction of fire places as fire altars, waste pits as sacrificial pits in Harappan era sites and the imaginary reading of Sanskrit legends, was quoted in order to suit their pseudo-ideological and opportunistic interests.
> 
> Between 1900-1300 BC the civilization declined and there were no more references to Meluhha (Mesopotamian name for Indus Valley Civilization landmass) in Mesopotamian finds. However, the people who made up this great civilization continued living in places like Mehrgarh, Harappa, Mohenjodaro and other settlements long after that.
> 
> The legacy of Indus Valley Civilization lives on in present day Pakistan. Amongst some of the aspects that can still be traced to this legacy are the trade and commerce routes developed by the mentors of this great civilization. Ships from Meluhha regularly sailed from locations near modern day city of Karachi for the ports of Babylon. And they evidently made stops all along the way, as indicated through discovery of seals found in Oman, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain as well.
> 
> The city of Peshawar lies on what is thought to have been one of their main overland trade routes. That route is now a major highway that constitutes the eastern approach to the Khyber Pass and links the northwestern Indus River Plain to the highlands of Afghanistan and Central Asia. An old branch of the route runs from Peshawar, south into rugged tribal territory, through the Pakistani cities of Kohat and Bannu and the foothills of the Suleiman Mountains down across the Gomal Plain to the early historical site of Rehman Dheri.
> 
> After the decline of this civilization, the religion and language of which has still not been deciphered, at different times these people followed Vedic Hindu culture and traditions, also adopted Buddhism and in the end embraced Islam and are now overwhelmingly Muslim.
> 
> The core spread of Indus Valley Civilization primarily lay in Pakistan. The three major cities and many other sites which represent the core of Indus Valley Civilization are all located in Pakistan. However, the Indians still refer to India as the &#8220;Home of Indus Valley Civilization,&#8221; which is surprising and indeed a misnomer. India needs to realign its history and should seek its identity in its own legacy instead of claiming something to which they do not belong to.
> 
> It is the people of Pakistan who represent one of the oldest civilizations on earth. Indus Valley Civilization&#8217;s legacy is linked to Pakistan and this fact cannot be denied. The people of Pakistan thus rightly claim to be the true heirs of Indus Valley Civilization.



These are two excellent works by Khan A. Sufyan. Thank you for highlighting these.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

Ivc map as per Indus valley sites list.


----------



## Nassr

pk_baloch said:


> vedic civilization has nothing to do with hindusium ......



There are many scholars in India who state that one of the major differences between Vedic religion and Hinduism is that Vedic religion in its true essence is monotheistic and Hinduism is polytheistic.


----------



## INDIC

Nassr said:


> There are many scholars in India who state that one of the major differences between Vedic religion and Hinduism is that Vedic religion in its true essence is monotheistic and Hinduism is polytheistic.



Have you ever read Vedas, Rigveda mentions about number of Hindu Gods.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

farhan_9909 said:


> indeed.Hinduism is relatively a new name
> 
> IVC has to do more with sanatana dharma a birth name of hinduism.
> 
> Hinduism is rather a religion of merging of many south asian religions together.ancient south asian religions combination.
> 
> the ancient hindu of Pakistan and north india had different religion than those to the central india or south india.though they indeed were more than half identicle.



The religion of the people of IVC has not been deciphered so far. However, due to absence of any temples in IVC sites, the fact that they buried their dead, the Rig Veda highlights a rural environment and IVC is an urban civilization, the IVC emanated from 7000 BC and was at its peak between 3300-1900 BC and faded out thereafter whereas, Rig Veda is cited to be an emanation of around 1500 BC by most scholars etc etc, the IVC can not be related to Vedic or Hindu religion. At the same time there are scholars who state that the people of IVC followed monotheism and I for one agree with them.


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

p(-)0ENiX said:


> I think it's obvious that Aryan women & children migrated with their men. You probably misunderstood the point that I was trying to imply. The Indo-Iranian migrations occurred in stages as far as we know at the moment. They didn't arrive as a huge group & simply settle next to the Harappans. I think the more accurate statement is that women were slightly fewer in number in comparison to the men as far as the Indo-Aryans are concerned, not the Indo-Iranians as a whole. The Indo-Aryans or the Vedic people weren't exactly an extremely large group when they settled in northern Punjab. However, their birth rates were extremely high later on, & they placed a huge amount of emphasis on having male children as was the case with many patriarchal societies throughout history. This emphasis on male children may also have resulted from a desire to build a large army for self-defense. Both the Indo-Iranian & Indo-Aryan people migrated as a whole, as in including men, women, & children. Some sources postulate that those migrations were extremely rough due to the terrain & weather conditions in the region. Let's not forget that climatic changes are considered one of the factors leading to the decline of the Harappans themselves.
> 
> Even though most of these Indo-Iranian settlements remained in the north western & northern regions of the Sub-Continent, there were some albeit lesser migrations to other portions of the Sub-Continent. To some extent genetic evidence does indicate that according to this study focused on India alone.
> 
> Genetic evidence suggests European migrants may have influenced
> the origins of India's caste system
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that this study focused on modern day India as a whole. It does not take in to consideration that the majority of those settlements were in the north western (Indus) & norther regions of the Sub-Continent. So we can conclude that men & women were present in proportional amounts in the primary regions of their settlement, but other minor migrations deeper in to the Sub-Continent were carried out by men that ended up marrying local women. That probably explains the results from this study.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure about the status of Aryan in case of birth from non-Aryan women, but if men married women from lower castes, their children would have belonged to the caste of their fathers. Those people would naturally not be Aryans racially, but as the term "Aryan" evolved to refer to people following Vedic culture, then those people may have been considered as cultural Aryans. Some of the migrants that traveled deeper in to the Sub-Continent mixed with the locals there, including women from lower castes, that wiped them out, but their descendants naturally carry traces of their DNA. To be honest, the caste system focused more on occupations, but there was without a doubt a racial twist to it. The Aryans desired to consolidate their power & thus assigned themselves higher castes. Personally, I do not disagree with their desire to preserve their race or heritage, every people has the right to do that. I just think that the caste system wasn't the appropriate method to preserve race, & let's not forget that the rigidity of occupations is unfair as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You may continue to believe whatever you want. Unfortunately, historic, linguistic, & genetic evidence doesn't support your view. Races have migrated for centuries, not just in the Sub-Continent, but in other lands too. The Phoenicians for instance migrated to North Africa & setup the Carthaginian empire, & were the source of their culture & society.



Why do people have a forceful urge to prove that Aryans came from outside Indian subcontinent ?........i do believe that people from west Asia might have settled in India .....they would have made marriages with local population ......down the line they got totally amalgamated among locals .......

On the contrary ......it might have happened that Aryans moved from western India and into the west Asia .???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

INDIC said:


> Have you ever read Vedas.



I may not be an expert, but yes I have, including the Mahabharata and selectively, some puranas and a bit of other related scriptures. I would not like to respond to you any further.


----------



## freshmint

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Why do people have a forceful urge to prove that Aryans came from outside Indian subcontinent ?........i do believe that people from west Asia might have settled in India .....they would have made marriages with local population ......down the line they got totally amalgamated among locals .......
> 
> On the contrary ......it might have happened that Aryans moved from western India and into the west Asia .???





Very well said. one of the very few and rare sensible posts on this site.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Why do people have a forceful urge to prove that Aryans came from outside Indian subcontinent ?........i do believe that people from west Asia might have settled in India .....they would have made marriages with local population ......down the line they got totally amalgamated among locals .......
> 
> On the contrary ......it might have happened that Aryans moved from western India and into the west Asia .???





freshmint said:


> Very well said. one of the very few and rare sensible posts on this site.



This is a discussion related to historical facts without any "forceful urge," whatever that may be.


----------



## INDIC

Nassr said:


> I may not be an expert, but yes I have, including the Mahabharata and selectively, some puranas and a bit of other related scriptures. I would not like to respond to you any further.



Rigveda mentions about number of Hindu Gods. Vedic period means when all four Vedas were composed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

Nassr said:


> This is a discussion related to historical facts without any "forceful urge," whatever that may be.



1 . Aryan is a name given by western historians ....that doesn't mean that there was no civilization at all Indian subcontinent and people from outside Indian must have settled here . The people were already there. However , the intermingling with west Asians is quite possible .

2. Africa is not the only place where human beings were evolved . The evolution started simultaneously at different places . The local environment conditions made somebody fair and somebody black , somebody tall and somebody small .

3. There is very little resemblance in the languages spoken by west Asians and that by Indian subcontinents . Sanskrit is more aligned towards Tamil than its to arabic . However , it might have happened that newer languages like Hindi, Punjabi , Urdu evolved because of combination of arabic with Devanagari .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Nassr said:


> When I look at any such study critically, I also look at the non-genetic/non-scientific references which are apparently cited to justify a particular viewpoint which may not justifiable through the scientific data output or may need emphasis in presenting certain conclusions. Such non-genetic/non-scientific references in many cases are required as well, to make sense of the study and unless selected carefully do colour the conclusions that are drawn. To me, the study may have coloured itself towards a particular hue by citing those references and thus inferred inappropriate aspects. And it was not the racist content which was cited but a quoted opinion which was doubtful. At least this is how I function.



Let me repeat a portion of one of my previous posts as a response below.



p(-)0ENiX said:


> Well that book was only cited twice in the genetic study if I am correct. The first citation was to refer to migration dates, & the other was regarding the caste system. It didn't mention "Nazi" in the title, but its title indicates that it was meant to discuss nationalistic or possibly racist ideas in Europe. Regardless, that book is irrelevant now because the genetic study that cites it only referred to it for information regarding the caste system & migration dates. I thought you referred to that book to make the genetic study sound racist, which it most certainly is not as proven by its content. The study is legitimate, & its results are without a doubt interesting.



Apart from that, the genetic study I referred to proves the claims of historic civilizations, & the evidence provided by the Vedic & Avestan scriptures. Linguistic, genetic, historic, & cultural, & now even archaeological evidence is pointing to an Indo-Iranian migration. I don't even know why their migration was ever doubt seeing as plenty of civilizations in Iran including the Medians & Persians were aware of their Aryan identity. The quote below is evidence of that.

Inscription of Darius the Great at Naqsh-e-Rostam



> *I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings*, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, *a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage*.



Besides, the genetic study was completely neutral & showed absolutely no signs of bias or racism, & has been proven legitimate taking in to consideration that other studies point to similar results. Researchers often refer to a wide variety of sources including neutral & biased ones for the sake of acquiring as much information as possible from all kinds of sources. This does not indicate any bias, & the genetic study was undoubtedly legitimate. A variety of other genetic studies also provide credence to the Indo-Iranian migrations.



Nassr said:


> *In 1990 in Delhi, a conference was held at which a group of nationalistically charged intelligentsia declared that the hypothesis of the Aryans migration was created by imperialists, whereas India was the original homeland of the Indo-Aryans and that these were the founders of the high civilization of Harappa. This hypothesis is widely discussed and very popular in todays India. *





The only reason this propaganda is popular in India is because the idea that the Indo-Iranians were immigrants discourages unity between the different ethnic groups in India. In modern times some idiots go to great lengths to encourage unity by denying the existence of race. The fact remains that denying a difference doesn't eliminate it. The only way true unity could ever be achieved is by accepting, acknowledging, & respecting the differences among mankind. Blaming imperialists is pointless because the concept of Indo-Iranian migration has been proven by a variety of sources. 



Nassr said:


> Here I would like to quote from a very interesting book written by a Russian, Elena E. Kuz'mina, The Origin of the Indo-Iranians, edited by J. P. Mallory.
> 
> *Quotes*:
> 
> A triumph of Russian Indo-Iranian studies was the international symposium of 1977 in Dushanbe on Ethnic problems of the history of Central Asia in the early period. Among its participants were leading linguists, historians and archaeologists: I. Dyakonov, V. Abaev, V. Livshits, I. Steblin-Kamensky, G. Bongard-Levin, B. Litvinsky, E. Grantovsky, I. Aliev, M. Pogrebova, K.
> Smirnov, E. Kuzmina, V. Sarianidi, V. Gening, A. Askarov, I. Masimov, the anthropologist V. Alekseev and others. The general thrust of these studies was the localization of the Indo-Iranian homeland in the steppes and their subsequent migration to Central Asia (Asimov 1981: 44-52).
> 
> Also in attendance were Indian scholars, S. S. Misra, B. B. Lal, B. K. Thapar, R. C. Gaur, L. Gopal, and A. H. Dani (Pakistan), and European researchers, B. and R. Allchin, R. Ghirshman, K. Jettmar and V. Brentjes. The idea of an Indo-Iranian migration from the north predominated and the Aryans culture after their arrival in India was correlated with the Painted Gray Ware culture. The establishment of this hypothesis for an Indo-Iranian migration was a break-through in Russian science which had for years labored with the concept of autochthonous development. The symposium of 1977 brought euphoria. The Indo-Iranian attribution of the Timber-grave and Andronovo cultures received universal recognition.
> 
> However, 1980 saw the beginning of a heated discussion about the new concept formulated already in 1972 by the prominent linguists T. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov (1980; 1984). Assuming connections between the IE languages and those of the Caucasus and ancient Near East, they moved the original homeland to 4th millennium BC Eastern Anatolia, whence the Indo-Aryans (IA) went to Mitanni and India, and the Iranian Scythians, not until in the 8th century BC passed through Central Asia northwards into the steppes following the other Indo-Europeans. This hypothesis was dismissed by Soviet archaeologists. Many Near-Eastern borrowings were called into question by I. Dyakonov (1980).
> 
> Proceeding from completely different considerations, C. Renfrew in 1987 localized the Proto-Indo-Europeans in Anatolia, a center of inception of the Neolithic economy from where they passed in the 7th6th millennium BC through the Balkans to settle in Europe bringing along farming and cattlebreeding skills. In doing so, according to his Model A, they immediately went eastwards to India, while according to Model B the original homeland of all the Indo-Iranians was localized in the steppes whence they later moved into Iran and India. C. Renfrews critics pointed out that the distribution of cultural innovations is often conditioned not by migration of a new population but by cultural borrowings.
> 
> A. and S. Sherratt (1988) expressed an alternative opinion holding that IE settlement and the Anatolian-Pontic interaction took place not in the 6th millennium BC but only after the secondary products revolution of the 4th millennium BC. In 1990 I. M. Dyakonov (Dyakonov 1990: 53-65) also placed the original homeland of the pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans in the 6th millennium BC in the Near East believing that S. Starostin had established ancient ties with the Caucasian languages and those of the Near East. He assumed a migration of the Proto-Indo-Europeans through the Balkans and Danube and linked it with the distribution of Linearbandkeramik culture. The Indo-Europeans continued to develop in Europe, and as for the Indo-Iranians, I. M. Dyakonov (1995: 123-130) acknowledged them to be the creators of the Andronovo culture linking their migration with the spread of this culture over the south of Central Asia.
> 
> In 1989 J. P. Mallory published In Search of Indo-Europeans, in which he most strictly and with much reasoning advocated the concept, expressed as early as the 19th century, of the localization of the IE original homeland in Europe, underlining the role of the Pontic steppes, the place of domestication of the horse.





Nassr said:


> Continuing further from ^^^^^^
> 
> She also highlight some of the important hypotheses:
> 
> *Hypothesis I*: T. Gamkrelidze (1990: 5-14) apparently adheres to his previousstandpoint. But V. V. Ivanov in his report at the presidium of the Academy of Science in Moscow on 11 Sept. 2001 suggested that the Indo-Europeans did not penetrate through the Trans-Caspian deserts, but around the Pontic and he suggested that Marija Gimbutass hypotheses were no longer relevant, the range of the early Indo-Europeans being greater than the territory of the Pit-grave culture and that it coincided with the range of the horse in which he includes the Near East. Moreover, he emphasizes the importance of the horse and chariot in Arkaim, but assumes a migration of the founders of this culture from the south, from Mitanni where horse-training was for the first time developed by the Mitanni Aryans (Ivanov 1997: 22, 23).
> 
> In his article of 2002 he made the next important step. He speaks of Irano-Finno-Ugrian connections in the names of metals, admits the Yenisean or Tocharian, but predominantly (Indo-Iranian or Eastern Iranian Proto-Scythian attribution of Sintashta, yet he cites very interesting not only Iranian but Indo-Aryan etymologies, e.g., Dary-al, Ur-al, Ar-al.
> 
> *Hypothesis II*: The hypothesis of C. Renfrew (1990; 1999; 2002a, b) has also undergone a transformation. He has accepted some objections of his critics, linked the most ancient events of IE history with the Balkano-Danubian and North-Pontic region, underlined that M. Gimbutas hypothesis supported by D. Anthony (1986; 1995) for the role of the warrior-horsemen as the distributors of the IE speech in Europe has been questioned, and he flatly rejects the IE migration suggested by V. V. Ivanov and T. Gamkrelidze from the south-east through the Trans-Caspian deserts. Most importantly, C. Renfrew observed that he no longer argues the case for hypothesis A (Renfrew 2002b): elements of consensus seem to be emerging. There is wide agreement with Kuzminas view (1994) of the significance of Andronovo culture, which very probably represents the distribution of Indo-Iranian speech in the early second millennium BC (2002: fig. 5). This marked the crossing of the second or Ural fault line (Mallory 1998b: 188) and the steppes zone became a bridge across the Eurasian continent (2002: 15). But further C. Renfrew emphasized that in the way of the final solution to the Indo-Iranian problem was the third of Mallorys fault lines, the Central Asian line, as long as archaeologically there is all too little trace of the coming of the Indo-Iranians to the Iranian Plateau and to India (Renfrew 2002: 15, 16).
> 
> *Hypothesis III*: J. P. Mallory (1996; 1997; 1998a, b; 2001; 2002; Mallory and Mair 2000), in a range of works focusing on the origin of the IE peoples, paid much attention to the Indo-Iranian ethnogenesis. He looked into the general theoretic problems and methods and from this standpoint gave a critical analysis of the proposed models. He underlined that the previously suggested dates of the break-up of the IE community were groundless since the terms related to the wheeled transport and the horse were common Indo-European (Mallory 1996: 8-11), but noticed at the same time that the specific model proposed by Marija Gimbutas could also stand some readjustment (Mallory 2002: 3, fig. 7).
> 
> *While Summarizing she says*, it should be noted that in spite of the serious disagreement, the Andronovan hypothesis gains an increasingly wide acceptance. However, not only its opponents, but also its adherents stress the absence of distinct traces of the Andronovans migration outside the boundaries of Bactria and Margiana and regard it as a kind of movement very unlikely to have had artifactual correlates (Burney 1999: 8), since the pastoralists from the north brought the Indo-Aryan language but not the pots. What are then the perspectives of Vedic archaeology?
> __________________
> 
> She mentions Vedic Archeology. Lets see what is Vedic Archeology.
> 
> In his book Traditional India, O. L. Chavarria-Aguilar writes of Indians: "A more unhistorical people would be difficult to find." Vedic civilization believed in recording the eternal and infinite. The ephemeral details of daily life (so much the concern of contemporary people) need not be recorded, since they had so little bearing on the larger, more significant goals of human life. Leisure time was to be used for self-realization, cultural pursuits, and worship of Godnot rehashing current events or the past. Therefore, practically no histories, according to the Western concept of history, exist today about ancient India, because none were written.



Most of the text you have quoted actually points towards Indo-Iranian migrations. The paragraphs below discuss the most credible & modern theories regarding the proto-Indo-Europeans & are a modified version of a section of my previous post discussing a similar topic.

There are 3 major hypothesis regarding the spread of proto-Indo-Europeans in Europe. The Kurgan hypothesis, the Anatolian hypothesis, & the Paleolithic continuity theory. The Kurgan hypothesis suggests that proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from a region above Anatolia towards Europe, Central Asia, & eventually our lands. It initially suggested some sorts of invasions as Indo-European horse riders spread their patriarchal & warfare filled culture. While there is genetic & to some extent historic & archaeological evidence for this theory, there is no archaeological evidence of major wars, that suggests what was more likely to have occurred is migration. The Anatolian hypothesis refers to Indo-Europeans expanding for agricultural reasons, but the theory fails linguistically due to differences in vocabulary between Indo-European languages for agricultural terms. 

The Paleolithic Continuity Theory focuses on Europe & determines that 80% of European genetic stock has existed since Paleolithic times. This suggests that there were other Indo-Europeans that lived in Europe before the expansion of other proto-Indo-Europeans from Central Asia & the East. Uralic people & the speakers of Uralic languages are evidence of the fact that Indo-Europeans had been present in Europe since Paleolithic times. The problem with this theory is that there are considerable genetic variations in Europe itself. So as far as Europe is concerned, the population's origins are a mix of Indo-Europeans from Paleolithic times combined with certain migrations from Central Asia in Eastern Europe. The proof of those migrations comes from the genetic study regarding Croatians that I mentioned previously. However, as far as our lands are concerned, the Indo-Iranians arrived in Afghanistan, Iran, & Indus from Central Asia, Southern Russia, or Andronovo.



Nassr said:


> @ p(-)0ENiX, You said I did not quote references  so I quoted a few.



Those paragraphs are from the book called "The Origin of the Indo-Iranians" right? A preview of that book is available online, & it confirms the migration of Indo-Iranian tribes for the most part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Why do people have a forceful urge to prove that Aryans came from outside Indian subcontinent ?........i do believe that people from west Asia might have settled in India .....they would have made marriages with local population ......down the line they got totally amalgamated among locals .......
> 
> On the contrary ......it might have happened that Aryans moved from western India and into the west Asia .???



First of all genetic studies have proven that India isn't possible origin of Aryans. There are only two possible theory going around. Maybe they originated in Pakistan, possibly around hindu kush mountains or near east.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Why do people have a forceful urge to prove that Aryans came from outside Indian subcontinent ?........i do believe that people from west Asia might have settled in India .....they would have made marriages with local population ......down the line they got totally amalgamated among locals .......
> 
> On the contrary ......it might have happened that Aryans moved from western India and into the west Asia .???



Indo-Iranian tribes migrated from Andronovo to Afghanistan, Iran, & the Indus Valley. Many people try to falsify history either out of ignorance or for their own agenda, & we are against anyone that attempts to do either of that. The discussion being carried out by us is for the purpose of providing truthful information regarding our history & land based on the genetic, historic, cultural, linguistic, & archaeological evidence available to us. Many Indo-Iranian people that migrated in to modern day India were eventually wiped out because of intermarriage. That however does not hold true for the north western regions of the Sub-Continent, neither does it hold true for modern day Iran & Afghanistan.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> 1 . Aryan is a name given by western historians ....that doesn't mean that there was no civilization at all Indian subcontinent and people from outside Indian must have settled here . The people were already there. However , the intermingling with west Asians is quite possible .
> 
> 2. Africa is not the only place where human beings were evolved . The evolution started simultaneously at different places . The local environment conditions made somebody fair and somebody black , somebody tall and somebody small .
> 
> 3. There is very little resemblance in the languages spoken by west Asians and that by Indian subcontinents . Sanskrit is more aligned towards Tamil than its to arabic . However , it might have happened that newer languages like Hindi, Punjabi , Urdu evolved because of combination of arabic with Devanagari .



1. There isn't even possibility of that.

2. Every modern human moved out of eastern africa to all over the world.

3. Arabs are not central asians. Punjabi is ancient language but have huge amount of influence from arabic/persian just like hindi7urdu which are newer languages.


----------



## INDIC

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Indo-Iranian tribes migrated from Andronovo to Afghanistan, Iran, & the Indus Valley. Many people try to falsify history for their own agenda. The discussion being carried out by us is for the purpose of providing truthful information regarding our history & land based on the genetic, historic, cultural, linguistic, & archaeological evidence available to us. Many Indo-Iranian people that migrated in to modern day India were eventually wiped out because of intermarriage. That however does not hold true for the north western regions of the Sub-Continent, neither does it hold true for modern day Iran & Afghanistan.



Iranian Branch of Indo-Iranians intermarried with Elamite people. Indo-Iranian people no more exist in most of Central Asia, the land was replaced by Turkic people.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

INDIC said:


> Iranian Branch of Indo-Iranians intermarried with Elamite people. Indo-Iranian people no more exist in most of Central Asia, the land was replaced by Turkic people.



I never claimed that modern day Central Asians are Indo-Iranians. It's obvious that the demographics of ancient & modern Central Asia are different & when a reference is made to Indo-Iranian migrations, it naturally refers to ancient times. Everyone knows that the majority of the people residing in Central Asia today are of Turkic origin, but there are pretty large Russian communities in modern Central Asian countries as well. That is because of the influence of the USSR. The Indo-Iranians in Iran were influenced by Elamites & they did mix with them, but that does not imply that every ethnic group in Iran is mixed.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

genmirajborgza786 said:


> yup the Mongols were among the yellow race
> 
> in south Asia the closest people that comes to them ethnically are the Tibeto-Burman race eg: the Assamese ,Ghurkhas, Chakmas some Kashmiris also ( from gilgit-baltistan, laddak & leh rgions) & to some extent the Bengalis



The closet to them are the Hazara people ... the descendants of the mongol soldiers...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> The closet to them are the Hazara people ... the descendants of the mongol soldiers...



100% correct.


----------



## Nassr

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Let me repeat a portion of one of my previous posts as a response below.
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from that, the genetic study I referred to proves the claims of historic civilizations, & the evidence provided by the Vedic & Avestan scriptures. Linguistic, genetic, historic, & cultural, & now even archaeological evidence is pointing to an Indo-Iranian migration. I don't even know why their migration was ever doubt seeing as plenty of civilizations in Iran including the Medians & Persians were aware of their Aryan identity. The quote below is evidence of that.
> 
> Inscription of Darius the Great at Naqsh-e-Rostam
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, the genetic study was completely neutral & showed absolutely no signs of bias or racism, & has been proven legitimate taking in to consideration that other studies point to similar results. Researchers often refer to a wide variety of sources including neutral & biased ones for the sake of acquiring as much information as possible from all kinds of sources. This does not indicate any bias, & the genetic study was undoubtedly legitimate. A variety of other genetic studies also provide credence to the Indo-Iranian migrations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason this propaganda is popular in India is because the idea that the Indo-Iranians were immigrants discourages unity between the different ethnic groups in India. In modern times some idiots go to great lengths to encourage unity by denying the existence of race. The fact remains that denying a difference doesn't eliminate it. The only way true unity could ever be achieved is by accepting, acknowledging, & respecting the differences among mankind. Blaming imperialists is pointless because the concept of Indo-Iranian migration has been proven by a variety of sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the text you have quoted actually points towards Indo-Iranian migrations. The paragraphs below discuss the most credible & modern theories regarding the proto-Indo-Europeans & are a modified version of a section of my previous post discussing a similar topic.
> 
> There are 3 major hypothesis regarding the spread of proto-Indo-Europeans in Europe. The Kurgan hypothesis, the Anatolian hypothesis, & the Paleolithic continuity theory. The Kurgan hypothesis suggests that proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from a region above Anatolia towards Europe, Central Asia, & eventually our lands. It initially suggested some sorts of invasions as Indo-European horse riders spread their patriarchal & warfare filled culture. While there is genetic & to some extent historic & archaeological evidence for this theory, there is no archaeological evidence of major wars, that suggests what was more likely to have occurred is migration. The Anatolian hypothesis refers to Indo-Europeans expanding for agricultural reasons, but the theory fails linguistically due to differences in vocabulary between Indo-European languages for agricultural terms.
> 
> The Paleolithic Continuity Theory focuses on Europe & determines that 80% of European genetic stock has existed since Paleolithic times. This suggests that there were other Indo-Europeans that lived in Europe before the expansion of other proto-Indo-Europeans from Central Asia & the East. Uralic people & the speakers of Uralic languages are evidence of the fact that Indo-Europeans had been present in Europe since Paleolithic times. The problem with this theory is that there are considerable genetic variations in Europe itself. So as far as Europe is concerned, the population's origins are a mix of Indo-Europeans from Paleolithic times combined with certain migrations from Central Asia in Eastern Europe. The proof of those migrations comes from the genetic study regarding Croatians that I mentioned previously. However, as far as our lands are concerned, the Indo-Iranians arrived in Afghanistan, Iran, & Indus from Central Asia, Southern Russia, or Andronovo.
> 
> 
> 
> Those paragraphs are from the book called "The Origin of the Indo-Iranians" right? A preview of that book is available online, & it confirms the migration of Indo-Iranian tribes for the most part.



By quoting directly from the book, what I wanted to highlight was that there are many well known archeologists and historians who hold different views about Indo-Iranian migrations, to or from Andronovo, and that there are many theories that are being propounded in this regard. The divergent views can only emanate when there still remain aspects which are contentious and can be challenged. This in fact is the beauty of all this discussion, every time one reads something different, one learns something different. 

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nassr

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> The closet to them are the Hazara people ... the descendants of the mongol soldiers...



These are excerpts from a paper titled, The Inquiry into the History of the Hazara Mongols of Afghanistan, written by Elizabeth E. Bacon in 1951. 

*About Hazara of Afghanistan:*

The most circumstantial tradition is that recorded by N Elias in 1898 as:

the view of the origin of his people which was held by a chief of the Hazara of Turbat-i-Jam, who died in 1894 . . . [that] the present Hazara belonged to one of the chief sections, or largest tribes, of the Moghuls. They rebelled against Chingiz Khan, who ordered them to be removed from Moghulistan to the Kohistan of Kabul. This order was being carried out, but Chingiz died just as the Hazara had crossed the Oxus. One of Chingiz's sons [descendant may be meant] moved art of them to the Kohistan of Kabul; but some effected their escape and settled in Badghis. When one turns to historical records, there seems little basis for the often reported statement that the Hazaras are descendants of military colonists planted in Afghanistan by Chinggis Khan at the beginning of the thirteenth century. This statement may be traced back to the so-called Tarikh-i Wassaf, written by 'Abdullah b. Fadlullah of Shiraz at the beginning of the fourteenth century. 

According to d'Ohsson it was in the summer of 1223 that Ogotai for the first time appointed civil governors, dorogas, to the conquered cities, but no mention is made of garrisons assigned to support these civil governors. Shortly thereafter Ogotai rejoined his father on the upper Indus. After an unsuccessful attempt to return to Mongolia by way of Tibet, the Mongol armies returned to Peshawar and proceeded north across the Hindu Kush. Except for a pause at Balkh to slaughter such inhabitants as had returned to the destroyed city, no further campaigns are recorded in Afghanistan for Chinggis Khan and his armies before they crossed the Oxus.29 Early in 1224, while Chinggis Khan was wintering in Samarkand, three Mongol regiments invaded northern Iran from Transoxiana and destroyed a number of cities which had survived or recovered from the earlier depredations of the Mongol generals Chebe and Subutai,30 but following this brief incursion, Chinggis Khan and his armies returned to Mongolia, where the great leader died in 1227 AD. 

There is no indication that any Mongol troops were left south of the Oxus River. 

*About the Pakistani Hazara People:*

At the end of the nineteenth century many Hazaras, consequent on an unsuccessful revolt against the Afghan Government, migrated to Quetta in Baluchistan and Meshed in Iran. Hazara colonies remain in these two areas today. Many, however, returned to Afghanistan and settled in Afghan Turkestan, north of the Hindu Kush, where they were granted land.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eastwatch

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> 1 . *Aryan is a name given by western historians* ....that doesn't mean that there was no civilization at all Indian subcontinent and people from outside Indian must have settled here . The people were already there. However , the intermingling with west Asians is quite possible .



Bold part: Your assumption is not true and is not supported by history. *Aryavarta* was another name of the entire Hindustan in old times many thousands of years before British started to wear clothes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

I think South Indians are Drividians 

Most of the Northern Indians are some what different in appearance so one can say they are not Drividians







There are visible difference in appearance







These appear close to the Aboriginals of Australia

However , I don't know what was the history of the migration of people from EuroAsia to India and how the Drividians got reduced to their state as its now , but certainly they did not adapt to technology or change

But one thing is clear that the original inhabitants of India were pushed aside by incoming invaders.

The food presentation and eating traditions are also very different


----------



## Tikolo

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I think South Indians are Drividians , untouchable class in India
> 
> Most of the Northern Indians are some what different in appearance so one can say they are not Drividians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are visible difference in appearance



yes, but most of the time the differences between north and south indians is not that big like the pics you posted, I have seen very very darkskinned punjabis and sikhs also who can easily fit in Tamil Nadu, while I have seen some south indians who are as light skinned as pakistanis


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

But with that stated beauti lies in all colors and shapes

Recommended study : 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_peoples


----------



## eastwatch

Tikolo said:


> yes, but most of the time the differences between north and south indians is not that big like the pics you posted, I have seen very very darkskinned punjabis and sikhs also who can easily fit in Tamil Nadu, while I have seen some south indians who are as light skinned as pakistanis



I think, you are putting unreal emphasize on the colour of skin to differentiate between ethnicity. A man or his descendants can become dark-skinned if they keep on working under the open sun for many generations.

However, other physical features such as the shape of head, sharpness of nose, length of limbs, density of body hair, color of eyes etc. etc. will not change as fast as the skin color changes unless there are mixed marriages.

Skin color changes faster in hot and *humid* weather than it changes in hot and *dry* weather. Skin burns more because of humidity. So, you have to see all other physical features of two different groups of people to understand their ethnicity.

You will note at a close look that the very very dark-skinned Punjabis (probably from Multan) that you have mentioned have similar physical features as other Punjabis. However, Punjabis are also not pure blooded Aryan. It has an admixture of other nearby races. It is similarly true for all the people of old Hindustan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Water Car Engineer

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I think South Indians are Drividians
> 
> Most of the Northern Indians are some what different in appearance so one can say they are not Drividians




This is way over exaggerated. I mean, go to any main cities in North India or Pakistan people do not look like that Sikh guy for the most part.



> However , I don't know what was the history of the migration of people from EuroAsia to India and how the Drividians got reduced to their state as its now ,* but certainly they did not adapt to technology or change*



UMMMMM... South India is a head of North, East India, etc in terms of social changes...


----------



## genmirajborgza786

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> The closet to them are the Hazara people ... the descendants of the mongol soldiers...



yeh hazara's are also quiet close 


basically the people closest to the *Cyrillic mongloid* in asia are the people from the Tibetan barman also known as the *Sino-Tibetan * race, both geographically & genetically

*here is a map of Mongolia itself *






*& this is the Tibetan barman or Sino-Tibetan region *

http://ethne-intl-inc.com/sitebuild...aphical_Map_with_countries_and_TB-756x516.jpg 

http://starling.rinet.ru/maps/maps/Sino-Tibetan.gif 

note that these people of south east asia are fundamentally different from both the Aryans (Indo-European) or the Dravidians 

here are the *Cyrillic mongloid * Mongolian people from Mongolia it self






Mongolian army 










*& here is Sino-Tibetan people*

here a is the famous British Ghurkha soldier 

http://www.specijalac.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/the_gurkhas.jpg 

here are few chakmas of people of Bangladesh 

















Thailand 
fomous om bak actror tony jaa






Myanmar

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8YzPUv-2Lys/T2Gv0m1r0VI/AAAAAAAACE0/2Z9r0OV28wc/s400/358.jpg 

the word *ong* *ang * *ung **ing* are integeral part of these people's language .names etc 

M*ong*olia or mongol
bayanh*ong*or , mongolia
ovorh*ang*ay , mongolia
ula*ang*om , mongolia
sheny*ang*, china 
zheji*ang* , china 
shand*ong* , china 
gu*ang*d*ong*, china
h*ong* k*ong* , china 
sh*ang*rila , east Asian folk fore city
Py*ong*y*ang*, north korea capital

saga*ing* , Myanmar 

lamp*ang*, Thailand

b*ang*kok , Thailand 

chittag*ong* , B*an*gladesh 

b*ong*o, b*ang*la ,b*ang*ladesh

shill*ong*, west B*eng*al india 

kalimp*ong*, Sikkim north east india 
t*ang*ail, Bangladesh 
chua d*ang*a, Bangladesh 
Tsh*ang*la language of Bhutan 
man*ang*,Nepal 
must*ang*, Nepal 
bugl*ung*, Nepal 
d*ang*, Nepal 
bajh*ang* , Nepal


----------



## genmirajborgza786

eastwatch said:


> Bold part: Your assumption is not true and is not supported by history. *Aryavarta* was another name of the entire Hindustan in old times many thousands of years before British started to wear clothes.



my respect to to you bro, yes in fact was "*Arya*varta" "*Ary*avart", "*Arya*varsh" what people called as Bharata or Bharatvarsha & then much later Bharat were all pronunciation which evolved much later, the original name was "*Arya*varta" = bharata, 
*Ary*avarth =Bharat or Aryavarsh = Bharatvarsh 

after all both the four main language of south Asia Hindi, Urdu,Punjabi & Bengali (a crossbreed of both indo European & the Sino-Tibetan language, because of its geographic proximity with the Sino-Tibetan region) of south Asia are 
Indo-European= Indo-Iranian= Indo-Aryan language

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> There are visible difference in appearance.



You can see the same level of difference between Punjabis and Saraikis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## curioususer

genmirajborgza786 said:


> my respect to to you bro, yes in fact was "*Arya*varta" "*Ary*avart", "*Arya*varsh" what people called as Bharata or Bharatvarsha & then much later Bharat were all pronunciation which evolved much later, the original name was "*Arya*varta" = bharata,
> *Ary*avarth =Bharat or Aryavarsh = Bharatvarsh
> 
> after all both the four main language of south Asia Hindi, Urdu,Punjabi & Bengali (a crossbreed of both indo European & the Sino-Tibetan language, because of its geographic proximity with the Sino-Tibetan region) of south Asia are
> Indo-European= Indo-Iranian= Indo-Aryan language



You don't understand. It wasn't a mispronunciation, it was called Bharat after a king.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bang Galore

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Apart from that, the genetic study I referred to proves the claims of historic civilizations, & the evidence provided by the Vedic & Avestan scriptures. Linguistic, genetic, historic, & cultural, & now even archaeological evidence is pointing to an Indo-Iranian migration. I don't even know why their migration was ever doubt seeing as plenty of civilizations in Iran including the Medians & Persians were aware of their Aryan identity. The quote below is evidence of that.
> 
> Inscription of Darius the Great at Naqsh-e-Rostam



What vedic scriptures points to a migration?The Avesta is not even aware of western Iran and is aware of the Punjab as one of the Iranian homelands. Suggests what? Of course the Iranians & Indians are related, the entire mythology is testimony to that. The vedic Aryans & the Iranians tell the same story, only from opposite sides. The question is not of the connection but of the seperation and the dates/place related to that movement.





> Besides, the genetic study was completely neutral & showed absolutely no signs of bias or racism, & has been proven legitimate taking in to consideration that other studies point to similar results. Researchers often refer to a wide variety of sources including neutral & biased ones for the sake of acquiring as much information as possible from all kinds of sources. This does not indicate any bias, & the genetic study was undoubtedly legitimate. A variety of other genetic studies also provide credence to the Indo-Iranian migrations.




Everyone migrated, the question is when. There are studies that you have now been aware of that discusses ANI-ASI presence. The nature of that presence is what is in question. The studies suggest a much older presence for the ANI than any Aryan migration theory provides for and an even older presence for the ASI. Of course there have been migration but the key to a supposed Aryan migration is the dates. The Aryan migration theory(or more specifically the AIT) requires Aryan presence in the sub continent not much earlier than 1500 BCE. If the dates are changed to an older one_(as you might be open to)_, the entire theory collapses because the orther groups cannot be dated to their homelands much before this period. By linguistic neccesity , the Indo-Iranians have to be the last to leave any original homeland. There have been plenty of migrations of groups post 1000 BCE and that will certainly account for some genetic difference, though the ASI-ANI stuy shows that to be not very significant. Archeaologists of any standing rubbish any idea of mass migration to the sub-continent between 4000 and 1000 BCE. Do not confuse migrations that happened before or after that with the AIT.






> The only reason this propaganda is popular in India is because the idea that the Indo-Iranians were immigrants discourages unity between the different ethnic groups in India. In modern times some idiots go to great lengths to encourage unity by denying the existence of race. The fact remains that denying a difference doesn't eliminate it. The only way true unity could ever be achieved is by accepting, acknowledging, & respecting the differences among mankind. Blaming imperialists is pointless because the concept of Indo-Iranian migration has been proven by a variety of sources.



Not as simple as you make it out to be. You, as do many Indians rubbish the many theories being out by "nationalists" on the ground that they have an agenda. That undoubtedly is true in most cases _(and i personally believe that a idea of a conspiracy theory of western scholars is unwarranted)_ but it still takes nothing away from the fact that both archaeologists & RG vedic scholars have punched massive holes in the tradotional AIT, so much so as to have the theory been completely altered. Regardless of motives, it is best to understand that some questions & points being raised are legitimate. Merely calling them names does not solve any issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Nassr said:


> This is a discussion related to historical facts without any "forceful urge," whatever that may be.



That is unfortunately not very evident. One must be open minded with arguments not of one's own persuasion to make the claim that you did.



INDIC said:


> Have you ever read Vedas, Rigveda mentions about number of Hindu Gods.




Why read the Vedas. You can say whatever you want. No Bharata in the Rg veda.....no gods....monotheistic..... anything goes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Bang Galore said:


> What vedic scriptures points to a migration?The Avesta is not even aware of western Iran and is aware of the Punjab as one of the Iranian homelands. Suggests what? Of course the Iranians & Indians are related, the entire mythology is testimony to that. The vedic Aryans & the Iranians tell the same story, only from opposite sides. The question is not of the connection but of the seperation and the dates/place related to that movement.



Didn't we have a discussion on Vedic scriptures & migrations before? Once again you have misunderstood my reference to the Vedic & Avestan scriptures. The Vedic scriptures & Avesta describe the same places initially before the people separated, this naturally implies a migration. That is interesting because apart from geographic names, even the names of deities are similar. If what some sources say regarding the city of Balkh is true, then that in itself is further proof of migration. Apart from that, I shared an article regarding the unearthing of Aryan cities that I will quote from below.

The place where Europe began: Spiral cities built on remote Russian plains by swastika-painting Aryans 



> 'These ancient Indian texts and hymns describe sacrifices of horses and burials and the way the meat is cut off and the way the horse is buried with its master.
> 
> 'If you match this with the way the skeletons and the graves are being dug up in Russia, they are a millimetre-perfect match.'



That archaeological evidence provides us proof that a similar culture existed in Andronovo in the past, & could easily be interpreted as further proof of migration alongside the genetic evidence we have. As far as the dates are concerned, further genetic & archaeological studies shall hopefully provide us with more precise dates in the future.

Avestan geography



> Avestan geography, is the geographical references in the Avesta, which are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau up to Indo-Iranian border. It was common among the Indo-Iranians to identify concepts or features of traditional cosmography&#8212;mountains, lakes, rivers, etc.&#8212;with their concrete historical and geographical situation as they migrated and settled in various places.





> The historical location of Airyanem Vaejah is still uncertain, but most historians believe this location is Chorasmia or northeast iran around Aral sea and Oxus river , such as: Joseph Markwart, Walter Bruno Henning, Henrik Samuel Nyberg, Walther Hinz, Mary Boyce and etc. The fact that Airyana Va&#275;&#496;ah is situated in a mountainous region explains its severe climate (Vd. 1.2.3) better than does its supposed location in Chorasmia Although the Pahlavi and Sassanid book introduced Airyanem Vaejah in around Azerbaijan and Some historians also believe the location of Airyanem Vaejah is Azerbaijan, in around Caucasus such as : James Darmesteter, Ernst Herzfeld, Ebrahim Pourdavoud, Johannes Hertel[6] According to Skjærvø, and Gnoli it was situated between the Helmand River and the Hindu Kush Mountains;





> If we compare the first chapter of the Vid&#275;vd&#257;d with the passages of geographical interest that we come across mainly in the great yashts, we can conclude that the geographical area of Avesta was dominated by the Hindu Kush range at the northeast, the western boundary being marked by the districts of Rey ,possibly gilan = Var&#601;na and Alborz mountains. The Margiana, Hyrcania, Areia, and Drangiana in central, the eastern one by the Indo-Iranian frontier regions such as Gandh&#257;ra, Bun&#275;r, the land of the &#8220;Seven Rivers.&#8221; Sogdiana and, possibly, Chorasmia (which, however, is at the extreme limits) mark the boundary to the north, S&#299;st&#257;n and Baluchistan to the south.



The link below also discusses the Indo-Iranian migration by referencing to the Avesta & Vedic scriptures.

Aryan Homeland & Neighbouring Lands in the Avesta



Bang Galore said:


> Everyone migrated, the question is when. There are studies that you have now been aware of that discusses ANI-ASI presence. The nature of that presence is what is in question. The studies suggest a much older presence for the ANI than any Aryan migration theory provides for and an even older presence for the ASI. Of course there have been migration but the key to a supposed Aryan migration is the dates. The Aryan migration theory(or more specifically the AIT) requires Aryan presence in the sub continent not much earlier than 1500 BCE. If the dates are changed to an older one_(as you might be open to)_, the entire theory collapses because the orther groups cannot be dated to their homelands much before this period. By linguistic neccesity , the Indo-Iranians have to be the last to leave any original homeland. There have been plenty of migrations of groups post 1000 BCE and that will certainly account for some genetic difference, though the ASI-ANI stuy shows that to be not very significant. Archeaologists of any standing rubbish any idea of mass migration to the sub-continent between 4000 and 1000 BCE. Do not confuse migrations that happened before or after that with the AIT.



The dates from Max Mueller's discredited Aryan Invasion theory shouldn't be referred to. I have explained that the dates he came up with were meant to conform to his Biblical beliefs regarding the existence of the world or humanity or something. Which theory collapses? The Aryan Invasion theory? That has already been debunked. At this point there is no conflict between the genetic evidence & the accounts of migration by the Indo-Iranian people, neither is there any conflict with linguistic evidence. In fact, the origins of haplogroup R1a as per other studies is Central Asia or the region of the Black Sea, & the fact remains that R1a haplogroups in the Indus region are subclades of the original. Any problem that arises exists because of the Invasion Theory & there is no point in discussing something that has been discredited. The immigration occurred in stages, & archaeologists have no trouble with the recent genetic & archaeological evidence that has been found, including the unearthing of the cities I mentioned previously. 



Bang Galore said:


> Not as simple as you make it out to be. You, as do many Indians rubbish the many theories being out by "nationalists" on the ground that they have an agenda. That undoubtedly is true in most cases _(and i personally believe that a idea of a conspiracy theory of western scholars is unwarranted)_ but it still takes nothing away from the fact that both archaeologists & RG vedic scholars have punched massive holes in the tradotional AIT, so much so as to have the theory been completely altered. Regardless of motives, it is best to understand that some questions & points being raised are legitimate. Merely calling them names does not solve any issue.



The Western scholars have no conspiracy theory against the Indo-Aryans, & their views are definitely not a result of imperialism. I did not call anyone names, it's usually Indian sources that claim imperialists are interfering with the origins of Indo-Iranians. Theories aren't just discredited on the basis of having an agenda, in fact archaeological, linguistic, & genetic evidence needs to be considered. No reliable evidence points to Vedic Aryans being of Harappan origin. Scholars discrediting the Aryan Invasion theory doesn't mean anything seeing as I have already clarified that Max Mueller's theory is incorrect. There was no massive invasion or subjugation, there was simply an Indo-Iranian migration.

This book that was mentioned earlier in this thread is also worth reading. 

The Origin of the Indo-Iranians


----------



## genmirajborgza786

curioususer said:


> You don't understand. It wasn't a mispronunciation, it was called Bharat after a king.



I understand bro & trust me I myself don't like this Aryan vs Dravidian stigma that haunts the scholar's & historian on both sides of the camps, to me Aryan is not necessarily the fair skinned, blue eyed tall guys vs the natives, rather an evolving process where different trans continental language groups intermingled to produce a culture I do not believe that Aryans were superior , because Aryans it self was a culture & not a particular race. there was just too many crossbreeding's involving multiple different races through out history & not just one or two groups, but multiples to be described as a single race ,however that doesn't mean that there were no Aryan , there were & also believe that there were & there is , but as a *culture* & *not* as a *race*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Nassr said:


> By quoting directly from the book, what I wanted to highlight was that there are many well known archeologists and historians who hold different views about Indo-Iranian migrations, to or from Andronovo, and that there are many theories that are being propounded in this regard. The divergent views can only emanate when there still remain aspects which are contentious and can be challenged. This in fact is the beauty of all this discussion, every time one reads something different, one learns something different.
> 
> Cheers.



I agree, difference of opinions should always be tolerated, that is after all what leads to a healthy debate. Researchers obviously need to learn more about the Indo-Iranian people, but the fact that our knowledge regarding those ancient people & their links to Andronovo is improving as time goes by is a good sign.


----------



## dravidianhero

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I think South Indians are Drividians
> 
> Most of the Northern Indians are some what different in appearance so one can say they are not Drividians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are visible difference in appearance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These appear close to the Aboriginals of Australia
> 
> However , I don't know what was the history of the migration of people from EuroAsia to India and how the Drividians got reduced to their state as its now , but certainly they did not adapt to technology or change
> 
> But one thing is clear that the original inhabitants of India were pushed aside by incoming invaders.
> 
> The food presentation and eating traditions are also very different





many pakistanis have access to indian DTHs .every dth provides more than 70 south indian channels.take ur time and watch those channels.then tell me if u can really see big differences between the facial features of north and south indians.not all north inds look like tht sikh and not all south indians look like tht south indian.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

dravidianhero said:


> many pakistanis have access to indian DTHs .every dth provides more than 70 south indian channels.take ur time and watch those channels.then tell me if u can really see big differences between the facial features of north and south indians.not all north inds look like tht sikh and not all south indians look like tht south indian.



Not much difference between North Indian and South Indian since both look pretty much the same. The only difference is between punjabis and non punjabis, watch bollywood and tamil movies for confirmation.


----------



## PARAS

shan said:


> Not much difference between North Indian and South Indian since both look pretty much the same. The only difference is between punjabis and non punjabis, watch bollywood and tamil movies for confirmation.



Most bollywood actors are not punjabis and bollywood portrays the language and culture of states of hindi belt not punjab


----------



## Bang Galore

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Didn't we have a discussion on Vedic scriptures & migrations before? Once again you have misunderstood my reference to the Vedic & Avestan scriptures. The Vedic scriptures & Avesta describe the same places initially before the people separated, this naturally implies a migration. That is interesting because apart from geographic names, even the names of deities are similar. If what some sources say regarding the city of Balkh is true, then that in itself is further proof of migration.



I have no problem with any conjecture, including yours. My point is to the reference to the vedas. The Rg veda knows no land outside the subcontinent_(including Afghanistan)_. Period. Any other supposed references are simply not supported by evidence from the Rg veda. The Avesta does show an indication of some migration but please remember that they knew of the Punjab(Hapta-HAndu) as one of their home lands, something that would be very odd in a straightforward migration from central Asia. They also knew nothing of western Iran. Essentially they shared a portion of the homeland with the vedic Aryans before moving further west with vedic aryans occupying the Punjab. Does not prove any great migration from elsewhere. As far as separation from the vedic Aryans goes, please note that the separation seems to be post a major part of the Rg veda. Every scholar has noted that the language of the 8th Mandala of the Rg veda, a late part is similar to the language of the Iranians. Had a separation taken place elsewhere, surely you would expect the commonality in the early part of the Rg veda and not in those parts which are pretty much accepted as having been composed in the vedic heartland.

_*
Helmut Humbach, the eminent Avestan scholar has this to say:*_

_



It must be emphasised that the process of polarisation of relations between the Ahuras and the DaEvas is already complete in the GAthAs, whereas, in the Rigveda, the reverse process of polarisation between the Devas and the Asuras, which does not begin before the later parts of the Rigveda, develops as it were before our very eyes, and is not completed until the later Vedic period. Thus, it is not at all likely that the origins of the polarisation are to be sought in the prehistorical, the Proto-Aryan period. More likely, Zarathushtra&#8217;s reform was the result of interdependent developments, when Irano-Indian contacts still persisted at the dawn of history. With their Ahura-DaEva ideology, the Mazdayasnians, guided by their prophet, deliberately dissociated themselves from the Deva-Asura concept which was being developed, or had been developed, in India, and probably also in the adjacent Iranian-speaking countries&#8230; All this suggests a synchrony between the later Vedic period and ZarathuStra&#8217;s reform in Iran.

Click to expand...

_



> Apart from that, I shared an article regarding the unearthing of Aryan cities that I will quote from below.
> 
> The place where Europe began: Spiral cities built on remote Russian plains by swastika-painting Aryans
> 
> 
> 
> That archaeological evidence provides us proof that a similar culture existed in Andronovo in the past, & could easily be interpreted as further proof of migration alongside the genetic evidence we have. As far as the dates are concerned, further genetic & archaeological studies shall hopefully provide us with more precise dates in the future.



This is not proof of an aryan migration to India, far from it. No archaeologist has accepted any theory of Aryan migration into the sub continent and this remains the single most problem for any version of the AIT. Dates are important because without the acceptances of the dates proposed by the AIT scholars, the whole edifice collapses. No matter that you are open to other dates, they simply cannot be accepted & still argue for any version of the AIT including migration. The linguistic evidence requires the Indo-Iranians to be the last to leave the homeland. An early date kills the support of the migration in every other area.





> The dates from Max Mueller's discredited Aryan Invasion theory shouldn't be referred to. I have explained that the dates he came up with were meant to conform to his Biblical beliefs regarding the existence of the world or humanity or something. Which theory collapses? The Aryan Invasion theory? That has already been debunked. At this point there is no conflict between the genetic evidence & the accounts of migration by the Indo-Iranian people, neither is there any conflict with linguistic evidence. In fact, the origins of haplogroup R1a as per other studies is Central Asia or the region of the Black Sea, & the fact remains that R1a haplogroups in the Indus region are subclades of the original. Any problem that arises exists because of the Invasion Theory & there is no point in discussing something that has been discredited. The immigration occurred in stages, & archaeologists have no trouble with the recent genetic & archaeological evidence that has been found, including the unearthing of the cities I mentioned previously.



Please note, I did refer to genetic studies of the ANI_ASI which suggests their presence in India for a fairly long period. Please also note no archaeological evidence exists for any migration to India in the period of 4000BCE & 1000 BCE. Forget Max Mueller, the linguistic connection as proof of migration fails if earlier dates are accepted. As it stands this theory remains just that a theory. Genetic studies have given us an enormous amount of data but it is certainly not cut & dry as you suggest. The evidence of the Harvard study of the ANI-ASI has been used to debunk the AIT by many. The readings are simply not definite with people picking what suits them.

There is little to suggest for any migration and the earlier evidence of scriptures quoted_(both vedic & Iranian) _have been debunked pretty conclusively. This is not to suggest no migration ever took place, people have been migrating for millenia. Just that there is no evidence of any supposed Aryan migration.Only an unexplained linguistic connection. _(A variation of the AIT suggests that only languages migrated, not the people but that too remains a unproven though a possible theory.)_





> The Western scholars have no conspiracy theory against the Indo-Aryans, & their views are definitely not a result of imperialism. I did not call anyone names, it's usually Indian sources that claim imperialists are interfering with the origins of Indo-Iranians. Theories aren't just discredited on the basis of having an agenda, in fact archaeological, linguistic, & genetic evidence needs to be considered. No reliable evidence points to Vedic Aryans being of Harappan origin. Scholars discrediting the Aryan Invasion theory doesn't mean anything seeing as I have already clarified that Max Mueller's theory is incorrect. There was no massive invasion or subjugation, there was simply an Indo-Iranian migration.



As I said I subscribe to no conspiracy theory even if sometimes the so-called western scholars have twisted themselves into knots trying to prove what they already assume to be true i.e. the conclusion choosing the facts rather than the other way around. The name calling of the other side is well known & many have taken refuge in name calling to dismiss a hard to prove case.

_(Btw, many thanks for the civility of the discourse, it is not very common here. I have no problem in any conjectures being supported because in the end, I have little hard evidence & no interest in offering any alternate theory. My brief is simply to point out that the supposed indisputable evidence is very supposed & hardly indisputable. How we read the evidence available may depend on what conclusion we are inclined to support. Still a very pleasant change from many others here)_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

Bang Galore said:


> *That is unfortunately not very evident. One must be open minded with arguments not of one's own persuasion to make the claim that you did.*
> 
> Why read the Vedas. You can say whatever you want. No Bharata in the Rg veda.....no gods....monotheistic..... anything goes.



I am not open minded if my persuasion does not does not collude with your persuasion. If this is what you intend to state, it indeed is a rather surprising argument.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

PARAS said:


> Most bollywood actors are not punjabis and bollywood portrays the language and culture of states of hindi belt not punjab



Name non Punjabi-pathan leading actors of bollywood if you can. 

Culture: Bollywood has run out of Punjabis by Aakar Patel

"They rule Bollywood and always have. To see why this is unusual, imagine a Pakistan film industry set in Karachi but with no Pashtuns or Mohajirs or Sindhis. Instead the actors are all Tamilian and the directors all Bengalis. Imagine also that all Pakistan responds to their Tamil superstars as the nation's biggest heroes. That is how unusual the composition of Bollywood is."

Communities which makes just 2.5% of population dominates Indian biggest film industry.


----------



## Bang Galore

Nassr said:


> I am not open minded if my persuasion does not does not collude with your persuasion. If this is what you intend to state, it indeed is a rather surprising argument.




That is not what I am saying, merely that any opposing argument must be met only by force of facts, not of innuendo & name calling to dismiss debating the argument_(Hindu nationalists etc..etc...). A predetermined conclusion cannot then be sought to be supported by evidence, it must be the other way around._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

Bang Galore said:


> Why read the Vedas. You can say whatever you want. No Bharata in the Rg veda.....no gods....monotheistic..... anything goes.



I sensed somebody is trying to insult our religion by saying Vedas are not Hindu scriptures.


----------



## Azizam

PARAS said:


> Most bollywood actors are not punjabis and bollywood portrays the language and culture of states of hindi belt not punjab



Which communities or ethnic groups in India speak Hindi?


----------



## Azizam

dravidianhero said:


> many pakistanis have access to indian DTHs .every dth provides more than 70 south indian channels.take ur time and watch those channels.then tell me if u can really see big differences between the facial features of north and south indians.not all north inds look like tht sikh and not all south indians look like tht south indian.



Well, many of those TV stars artificially whiten their skin colour. They are not naturally light skinned buddy. I have also seen some Tamils with a lighter skin colour but I suspect they were also Aryan migrants who accepted the Tamil culture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PARAS

shan said:


> Name non Punjabi-pathan leading actors of bollywood if you can.
> 
> Culture: Bollywood has run out of Punjabis by Aakar Patel
> 
> "They rule Bollywood and always have. To see why this is unusual, imagine a Pakistan film industry set in Karachi but with no Pashtuns or Mohajirs or Sindhis. Instead the actors are all Tamilian and the directors all Bengalis. Imagine also that all Pakistan responds to their Tamil superstars as the nation's biggest heroes. That is how unusual the composition of Bollywood is."
> 
> Communities which makes just 2.5% of population dominates Indian biggest film industry.



Biggest superstar of Bollywood is Amitabh Bachchan and he is not punjabi . The punjabis mentioned in the article are still just a few and almost all actors and no actresses. Except for the few kapoors etc no one is punjabi and none of the khans are pure pathans . They are more Indian than afghan . Also almost all but a few actresses are non punjabis as well .


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Name non Punjabi-pathan leading actors of bollywood if you can.
> 
> Culture: Bollywood has run out of Punjabis by Aakar Patel
> 
> "They rule Bollywood and always have. To see why this is unusual, imagine a Pakistan film industry set in Karachi but with no Pashtuns or Mohajirs or Sindhis. Instead the actors are all Tamilian and the directors all Bengalis. Imagine also that all Pakistan responds to their Tamil superstars as the nation's biggest heroes. That is how unusual the composition of Bollywood is."
> 
> Communities which makes just 2.5% of population dominates Indian biggest film industry.



During 50-70s most of the popular Hindi movie actors were Bengalis. Amitabh Bachchan is from East UP, Shatrughn Sinha is from Bihar. 

Hindus dominated the movie industry of Punjab before partition, most of the studios in Lahore was owned by them but partition came as a disaster for Punjabi film industry and Pakistan never had a vibrant movie industry. Punjabis came to rule Bollywood with migration of Kapoor family(Prithviraj Kapoor and their sons) from Peshawar. Bollywoods most favorite villian Pran Sikand was a popular movie actor of Punjabi movies in Lahore but partition ruined his career in Punjabi movies and he started afresh in Bollywood.


----------



## PARAS

Azizam said:


> Which communities or ethnic groups in India speak Hindi?









The people of the red region speak proper hindi or its varieties.

The Hindi languages predominate in the Indian states and union territories of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

Azizam said:


> Which communities or ethnic groups in India speak Hindi?



These areas speak Hindi

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Azizam

PARAS said:


> The people of the red region speak proper hindi or its varieties.
> 
> The Hindi languages predominate in the Indian states and union territories of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.



What are the Ethnic groups that speak Hindi?


----------



## Nassr

Bang Galore said:


> That is not what I am saying, merely that any opposing argument must be met only by force of facts, not of innuendo & name calling to dismiss debating the argument_(Hindu nationalists etc..etc...). A predetermined conclusion cannot then be sought to be supported by evidence, it must be the other way around._


_

I agree with you. However, identifying a person or a set of people as Hindu nationalists or Hindu/Muslim fundamentalists due to a particular thinking or ideology is certainly not name calling or an innuendo, unless deliberately used in the manner. I am not saying that it is not used as such, what I am saying is that it is for the person to identify the sense of such usage and then respond. Though in the mass that express their views here or other such forums, the sense looses to senselessness._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PARAS

Azizam said:


> What are the Ethnic groups that speak Hindi?



Except for the few tribals of bihar, jharkhand and madhya pradesh and the mongoloids in uttarakhand and himachal pradesh all others are almost the same people and can't really be classified into different ethnicities .


----------



## eastwatch

genmirajborgza786 said:


> note that these people of south east asia are fundamentally different from both the Aryans (Indo-European) or the Dravidians
> 
> *here are few chakmas of people of Bangladesh*



The top photo is of two Bangladeshi models wearing Lungi. They are not Chakma tribal people.

The 2nd photo is of a group of Chakma women.

The 3rd photo is of a Bangladeshi woman or model. She is not a Chakma.


----------



## dravidianhero

shan said:


> Not much difference between North Indian and South Indian since both look pretty much the same. The only difference is between punjabis and non punjabis, watch bollywood and tamil movies for confirmation.



stop ur crap...i admit there is a difference between most punjabis and most tamils.but i dont agree most paak punjabis look any diff from indians(most ind punjabis look a bit diff though).
Nawaz sharif,mustaq ahmed,shoaia malik,saqlain mustaq,shoaib akhtar,hafeez,amir sohail,saeed anwar ;the list goes on.
Do anyone among them look any diff from any indian?if u say yes,i can only laugh at you.


----------



## Azizam

PARAS said:


> Except for the few tribals of bihar, jharkhand and madhya pradesh and the mongoloids in uttarakhand and himachal pradesh all others are almost the same people and can't really be classified into different ethnicities .



So who developed Hindi language? It is still a puzzle to me. Even I couldn't find an ethnicity that speaks Hindi language as their primary language. Everyone has their own language like Biharis have Bihari and Punjabis have Punjabi.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

shan said:


> Not much difference between North Indian and South Indian since both look pretty much the same. The only difference is between punjabis and non punjabis, watch bollywood and tamil movies for confirmation.



Uncle is that you in your avatar? Somebody show uncle some pics of pakistani Punjabis. Uncle forgot to watch the mirror it seems!


----------



## PARAS

Azizam said:


> So who developed Hindi language? It is still a puzzle to me. Even I couldn't find an ethnicity that speaks Hindi language as their primary language. Everyone has their own language like Biharis have Bihari and Punjabis have Punjabi.



There is no language such as bihari . There are number of dialects of hindi such as khariboli or standardised hindi , haryanvi , kanauji , braj , awadhi , malwi , marwari etc and most of them are not mutually intelligible . 

Hindi in its standardised form i.e, khariboli originated in western uttar pradesh from the local dialects and it is used by speakers of other dialects for conversation and is taught in schools .

Urdu , which is a sister language of Hindi , also originated in western UP


----------



## LaBong

dravidianhero said:


> stop ur crap...i admit there is a difference between most punjabis and most tamils.but i dont agree most paak punjabis look any diff from indians(most ind punjabis look a bit diff though).
> Nawaz sharif,mustaq ahmed,shoaia malik,saqlain mustaq,shoaib akhtar,hafeez,amir sohail,saeed anwar ;the list goes on.
> Do anyone among them look any diff from any indian?if u say yes,i can only laugh at you.


Nawaz Shrif is Kashmiri btw. I agree pakistani Punjabis look different than Indian Punjabis. At least their cricketers do.


----------



## dravidianhero

Azizam said:


> Well, many of those TV stars artificially whiten their skin colour. They are not naturally light skinned buddy. I have also seen some Tamils with a lighter skin colour but I suspect they were also Aryan migrants who accepted the Tamil culture.





man y dont u shut ur mouth instead of exposing ur stupidity.there are news channels in which you can see many laymen.moreover the color of the skin has nothing to do with facial features.havent u seen michael jackson?did he look like a white even after bleaching?


----------



## INDIC

LaBong said:


> Nawaz Shrif is Kashmiri btw. I agree pakistani Punjabis look different than Indian Punjabis. At least their cricketers do.



When Pakistanis claims someone is Kashmiri it can include any ethnicity from Jammu and Kashmir outside the valley like Mirpuri, Pahari-Pothwari, Dogra.


----------



## dravidianhero

INDIC said:


> When Pakistanis claims someone is Kashmiri it can include any ethnicity from Jammu and Kashmir outside the valley like Mirpuri, Pahari-Pothwari, Dogra.



never thought nawaz is a kashmiri.it shows even kashmiris have 30 percent dravidian genes in them like punjabis or is it just like pak kashmiris look like him(just like how pak punjabis look diff from indian ones).the indian kashmiris i regularly watch on tv look like afghans.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

PARAS said:


> Biggest superstar of Bollywood is Amitabh Bachchan and he is not punjabi . The punjabis mentioned in the article are still just a few and almost all actors and no actresses. Except for the few kapoors etc no one is punjabi and none of the khans are pure pathans . They are more Indian than afghan . Also almost all but a few actresses are non punjabis as well .



Amitabh is Punjabi. Please name another non-punjabi-pathan leading actor. Actresses of South Indian origin with plastic surgery get in to Bollywood, case in point Asin. Actors cant do that since it will turn them in to michael jackson. 

Just tell me why there is huge difference in looks of Bollywood actors and other indian industries? 

Amitabh Bachchan&#39;s Part 1 interview in Punjabi on PAA with Shingara Singh for Punjab2000.com - YouTube


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

LaBong said:


> Uncle is that you in your avatar? Somebody show uncle some pics of pakistani Punjabis. Uncle forgot to watch the mirror it seems!



No that avatar is of famous Pakistani Scholar from Karachi. I dont need to watch pics of punjabis to know the difference. The bollywood is proof of that. 

Mr Aamir Liaquat exposed aamir liaquat funn video ghalib film aalim online aamir liaquat scandal - YouTube



LaBong said:


> Nawaz Shrif is Kashmiri btw. I agree pakistani Punjabis look different than Indian Punjabis. At least their cricketers do.



Nawaz is Punjabi ethnically, his family moved to Kashmir and then back to Punjab.


----------



## INDIC

dravidianhero said:


> never thought nawaz is a kashmiri.it shows even kashmiris have 30 percent dravidian genes in them like punjabis or is it just like pak kashmiris look like him(just like how pak punjabis look diff from indian ones).the indian kashmiris i regularly watch on tv look like afghans.



Jawaharlal Nehru and his wife Kamla Kaul both were Kashmiri Pandits.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

dravidianhero said:


> stop ur crap...i admit there is a difference between most punjabis and most tamils.but i dont agree most paak punjabis look any diff from indians(most ind punjabis look a bit diff though).
> Nawaz sharif,mustaq ahmed,shoaia malik,saqlain mustaq,shoaib akhtar,hafeez,amir sohail,saeed anwar ;the list goes on.
> Do anyone among them look any diff from any indian?if u say yes,i can only laugh at you.



You said that we need to watch Indian channels and tell the difference. Well why Indian channel when Bollywood is there? Now you will tell me there is no difference between bollywood actors and other indian industries.


----------



## dravidianhero

shan said:


> Amitabh is Punjabi. Please name another non-punjabi-pathan leading actor. Actresses of South Indian origin with plastic surgery get in to Bollywood, case in point Asin. Actors cant do that since it will turn them in to michael jackson.
> Btw Is priyanka chopra upper caste punjabi?
> Just tell me why there is huge difference in looks of Bollywood actors and other indian industries?
> 
> Amitabh Bachchan's Part 1 interview in Punjabi on PAA with Shingara Singh for Punjab2000.com - YouTube



we indians also admit that most of the indian punjabis look a bit diff from other indians(mainly upper caste punjabis)..but most punjabis of pak look indian as they were low caste converts.i gave ample examples and i can give u more if u want.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Azizam said:


> So who developed Hindi language? It is still a puzzle to me. Even I couldn't find an ethnicity that speaks Hindi language as their primary language. Everyone has their own language like Biharis have Bihari and Punjabis have Punjabi.



Hindi language have 70% of Arabic/Persian vocabulary just like Urdu. Both these languages are pretty much the same apart from one uses little more Sanskrit words then the other and the other compensate with using more arabic/persian words then Sanskrit.


----------



## LURKER

shan said:


> Amitabh is Punjabi. Please name another non-punjabi-pathan leading actor. Actresses of South Indian origin with plastic surgery get in to Bollywood, case in point Asin. Actors cant do that since it will turn them in to michael jackson.
> 
> Just tell me why there is huge difference in looks of Bollywood actors and other indian industries?
> 
> Amitabh Bachchan's Part 1 interview in Punjabi on PAA with Shingara Singh for Punjab2000.com - YouTube



Amitabh is a Srivastava Kayastha from Allahabad, his ancestral village is Babupatti village in Pratapgarh district UP near Allahabad. If i learn and start speaking Punjabi today that wont make me a Punjabi.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

dravidianhero said:


> we indians also admit that most of the indian punjabis look a bit diff from other indians(mainly upper caste punjabis)..but most punjabis of pak look indian as they were low caste converts.i gave ample examples and i can give u more if u want.



lol

The low caste of Punjab Chura comunity converted to Christianity and Sikhism from Hinduism. 

Chura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes Chura was the lowest caste in Punjab, Dalits. Anyway most of the bollywood actors have origin in Pakistan. lol



LURKER said:


> Amitabh is a Srivastava Kayastha from Allahabad, his ancestral village is Babupatti village in Pratapgarh district UP near Allahabad. If i learn and start speaking Punjabi today that wont make me a Punjabi.



Punjabi is his mother tongue, Punjabi isn't lingua franca like English which you have to learn out side Punjab.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Azizam said:


> Well, many of those TV stars artificially whiten their skin colour. They are not naturally light skinned buddy. I have also seen some Tamils with a lighter skin colour but I suspect they were also Aryan migrants who accepted the Tamil culture.



Case in point, Asin first movie in south india







Now in bollywood

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

shan said:


> You said that we need to watch Indian channels and tell the difference. Well why Indian channel when Bollywood is there? Now you will tell me there is no difference between bollywood actors and other indian industries.


----------



## dravidianhero

shan said:


> lol
> 
> The low caste of Punjab Chura comunity converted to Christianity and Sikhism from Hinduism.
> 
> Chura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yes Chura was the lowest caste in Punjab, Dalits. Anyway most of the bollywood actors have origin in Pakistan. lol
> 
> 
> 
> Punjabi is his mother tongue, Punjabi isn't lingua franca like English which you have to learn out side Punjab.



and to what religion low castes converted b4 the arrival of christianity?islam.it is a well known fact.later they got mixed with immigrant iranis and arabs and got their color and features a bit changed.even now most pak punjabis look like indians.i dont have any problem to admit tht pashtoons look diff than indians.we must accept the truth.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

LaBong said:


>



I dont understand this at all. Who is he?


----------



## LURKER

shan said:


> lol
> 
> The low caste of Punjab Chura comunity converted to Christianity and Sikhism from Hinduism.
> 
> Chura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yes Chura was the lowest caste in Punjab, Dalits. Anyway most of the bollywood actors have origin in Pakistan. lol
> 
> 
> 
> Punjabi is his mother tongue, Punjabi isn't lingua franca like English which you have to learn out side Punjab.



Many Indians are multi-lingual. His father is from UP. His mother was a punjabi.He has never lived in Punjab . His ancestral village is in UP and that makes him a UPwallah and not punjabi .


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

dravidianhero said:


> and to what religion low castes converted b4 the arrival of christianity?islam.it is a well known fact.later they got mixed with immigrant iranis and arabs and got their color and features a bit changed.even now most pak punjabis look like indians.i dont have any problem to admit tht pashtoons look diff than indians.we must accept the truth.



DNA studies have debunked theory of intermixing between Iranis/arabs with Pakistanis after arrival of Islam. Not even Pakistani syeds have arabic ancestry let alone normal population. Going by your post it seem that you believe higher the caste more fair he/she will be. Then Pakistanis should be highest caste of all South Asians.


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Hindi language have 70% of Arabic/Persian vocabulary just like Urdu.



I once corrected you, even Urdu has only 35% Arabic/Persian words.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> I once corrected you, even Urdu have only 35% Arabic/Persian words.



When did you correct me? Both languages have 70%, urdu little more and hindi little less.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

shan said:


> I dont understand this at all. Who is he?



They are three different non Punjabi dravidian actors who never acted in Bollywood however won several high profile awards both in India and abroad.


----------



## LaBong

shan said:


> When did you correct me? Both languages have 70%, urdu little more and hindi little less.



There are farsi loanwords in Hindi, but only an idiot would claim 70% vocab are foreign. Hindi like all other north indic languages is predominantly prakrit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> When did you correct me? Both languages have 70%, urdu little more and hindi little less.



If it had been 70%, Persians or Indians won't be needing translations to understand each other's languages.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

LaBong said:


> There are farsi loanwords in Hindi, but only an idiot would claim 70% vocab are foreign. Hindi like all other north indic languages is predominantly prakrit.



Not really, there are huge amount of Arabic words in Hindi. Infact the list is so huge i will crash this page if posted, you can google it. And even that list isn't complete.


----------



## DarkPrince

LaBong said:


> There are farsi loanwords in Hindi, but only an idiot would claim 70% vocab are foreign. Hindi like all other north indic languages is predominantly prakrit.



dada he's talking about modern hindi not the bookish 1


----------



## dravidianhero

shan said:


> DNA studies have debunked theory of intermixing between Iranis/arabs with Pakistanis after arrival of Islam. Not even Pakistani syeds have arabic ancestry let alone normal population. Going by your post it seem that you believe higher the caste more fair he/she will be. Then Pakistanis should be highest caste of all South Asians.



ok so u dont have recent irani dna(what is the 70 percent aryan blood u r claiming then?ooho i understood,the iranis' of rigvedic times,eh?).then wat might be the reason u ppl are looking like indians and not like east punjabis?when did ur dravidian blood got mixed with aryan blood?


----------



## INDIC

DarkPrince said:


> dada he's talking about modern hindi not the bookish 1



Do you really believe in 70% claims I have read about it, Urdu that was spoken during British time in UP had about 35% Arabic/Persian words.Lots of nouns in Urdu are Arabic/Persian loanwords, Verbs in Urdu are predominantly Prakrit based.


----------



## PARAS

shan said:


> *Amitabh is Punjabi*.



He is only half punjabi and can't even speak punjabi properly .


> Please name another non-punjabi-pathan leading actor



Arjun Rampal , Farhan Akhtar , John Abraham , Saif Ali Khan etc



> Actresses of South Indian origin with plastic surgery get in to Bollywood, case in point Asin



Any proof of that ? anyways thats a very convenient thing to say when you run out of arguments .



> Just tell me why there is huge difference in looks of Bollywood actors and other indian industries?



I don't think they do . Maybe a bit different from tamil industry but that's it .


----------



## LaBong

shan said:


> Not really, there are huge amount of Arabic words in Hindi. Infact the list is so huge i will crash this page if posted, you can google it. And even that list isn't complete.



Please FedEx me the sh!t you have been smoking, must be high quality stuff.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

dravidianhero said:


> ok so u dont have recent irani dna(what is the 70 percent aryan blood u r claiming then?ooho i understood,the iranis' of rigvedic times,eh?).then wat might be the reason u ppl are looking like indians and not like east punjabis?when did ur dravidian blood got mixed with aryan blood?



Dravidian blood? Aryan Blood? You cant be that dumb right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dravidianhero

INDIC said:


> Do you really believe in 70% claims I have read about it, Urdu that was spoken during British time in UP had about 35% Arabic/Persian words.Lots of nouns in Urdu are Arabic/Persian loanwords, Verbs in Urdu are predominantly Prakrit based.



loan words which are mostly nouns dont alter the basic syntax and structure of a language.only verbs,how genders are used classify a language.if loan words are criteria then we are all speaking a different language than what our grandfathers spoke 50 yrs ago as we use many english loan words now.
Urdu is hindi.


----------



## dravidianhero

shan said:


> Dravidian blood? Aryan Blood? You cant be that dumb right?



are u really dumb to not understand wat i mean?ok let us say ASI and caucassian?


----------



## INDIC

dravidianhero said:


> loan words which are mostly nouns dont alter the basic syntax and structure of a language.only verbs,how genders are used classify a language.if loan words are criteria then we are all speaking a different language than what our grandfathers spoke 50 yrs ago as we use many english loan words now.
> Urdu is hindi.



Majority of Pakistanis mainly believe that Urdu was brought from Central Asia to India. They have never heard the names of various dialects of Uttar Pradesh nor they have any idea that Khariboli led to the origin of Urdu. Some guys will even claim that Urdu originated out of Punjabi language to claim Urdu's nativity with Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

PARAS said:


> He is only half punjabi and can't even speak punjabi properly .
> 
> 
> Arjun Rampal , Farhan Akhtar , John Abraham , Saif Ali Khan etc
> 
> 
> 
> Any proof of that ? anyways thats a very convenient thing to say when you run out of arguments .
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they do . Maybe a bit different from tamil industry but that's it .



Arjun Rampal , Farhan Akhtar , John Abraham , Saif Ali Khan etc

So these 4 names you can come up? Saif Ali Khan, the name is a give away he is pathan. Arjun Rampal is punjabi unless he is liar? 

Sanju : arjun are you a punjabi? 

Arjun Rampal : yes im punjabi... thvade ki halchaal

Arjun Rampal chats with his fans... - Oneindia Entertainment

Farhan Akhtar mother is Parsi, maybe Javed Akhtar from UP. Again these are not even leading actors. John mother is also parsi or his father i think.

See you wont find any one from outside these communities which make just 2.5% of population. I mean pathans & parsis are not even 0.01% of Indian population. So even your 4 names have ancestry in those communities which make 2.5%, but keep ignoring everything. 

You can distinguishes between pathan and punjabi on "average". On average they look different and both are neighbours. While you are telling me there is no difference between punjabi and other indians?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

shan said:


> Case in point, Asin first movie in south india
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now in bollywood











Damn she improved alot...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Damn she improved alot...



Terriii sariii attention Bhabi pei honeiii chahiyee warnaa litaaa kar tujheee hum sareiii mareiiin geiii agar kisssi aur larkiii ki tarafff deekhaaa bhi tunneiii !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PARAS

shan said:


> Arjun Rampal , Farhan Akhtar , John Abraham , Saif Ali Khan etc
> 
> So these 4 names you can come up? Saif Ali Khan, the name is a give away he is pathan. Arjun Rampal is punjabi unless he is liar?
> 
> Sanju : arjun are you a punjabi?
> 
> Arjun Rampal : yes im punjabi... thvade ki halchaal
> 
> Arjun Rampal chats with his fans... - Oneindia Entertainment
> 
> Farhan Akhtar mother is Parsi, maybe Javed Akhtar from UP. Again these are not even leading actors. John mother is also parsi or his father i think.
> 
> See you wont find any one from outside these communities which make just 2.5% of population. I mean pathans & parsis are not even 0.01% of Indian population. So even your 4 names have ancestry in those communities which make 2.5%, but keep ignoring everything.



Saif Ali Khan is half bengali and his father also was not pure pathan and hails from pataudi , haryana .

Even shahrukh khan is south Indian . Hrithik roshan is bengali . Salman khan is marathi . They all are Indians . 

And what about actresses . Almost none of them punjabi .


> You can distinguishes between pathan and punjabi on "average". On average they look different and both are neighbours. While you are telling me there is no difference between punjabi and other indians?



Well I see no difference between a punjabi and other northies . A pashtun can easily pass for a rajasthani or upite


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Armstrong said:


> Terriii sariii attention Bhabi pei honeiii chahiyee warnaa litaaa kar tujheee hum sareiii mareiiin geiii agar kisssi aur larkiii ki tarafff deekhaaa bhi tunneiii !



yaar kyun billawaja tension deta hai lala!



PARAS said:


> Saif Ali Khan is half bengali and his father also was not pure pathan and hails from pataudi , haryana .
> 
> Even shahrukh khan is south Indian . Hrithik roshan is bengali . Salman khan is marathi . They all are Indians .
> 
> And what about actresses . Almost none of them punjabi .



what a load of bullsyt..


\m/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Roybot

What the fook is this thread doing in Military History and Strategy sub forum

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

Khan doesn't mean pathan. Lots of khans in INDIA have nothing to do with pathans.


----------



## abhinav.mehrotra

Skallagrim said:


> Why do Indians vehemently protest the Aryan Invasion theory and why does any such thread always get closed?



That is so because invasion implies great and terrible battles are fought, lots of people dying... in reality the so called aryan invasion is nothing but advent of aryans into india through northern India... there coming might not have been peaceful, what with dravidians occupying the upper regions of Indian sub-continent but neither were there massacres of dravidians and aryans.... dravidians just moved/ got displaced towards southern part of India...


----------



## dravidianhero

shan said:


> Case in point, Asin first movie in south india
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now in bollywood





asin's first movie was ullam ketkume and she was beautiful even then.she was thin then and gained weight now which makes her look even more beautiful.she is a syrian christian and has always been as white as milk(i am not equating white with beauty though).everyone can type ullam ketkume and see her images then.most of us become more handsome with age;when we look at our teenage photos many of us laugh at our looks back then.the above photo presents asin uglily but she never looked like that


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Leave Asin alone ok she had a little plastic surgery but that does not mean anything its natural in film industry just look at Priyanka , her lips have certainly gone thru plastic surgery

Those lips are not natural


----------



## dravidianhero

Sorry a small correction.asin is not as white as milk but light skinned.i made a stupid comment.but she has always been beautiful


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

eastwatch said:


> Bold part: Your assumption is not true and is not supported by history. *Aryavarta* was another name of the entire Hindustan in old times many thousands of years before British started to wear clothes.



Going along with your explanations .....it may be understood that one of very first civilizations nurtured in indian subcontinent . So the theory that Aryans come from west Asia is false .


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

shan said:


> 1. There isn't even possibility of that.
> 
> 2. Every modern human moved out of eastern africa to all over the world.
> 
> 3. Arabs are not central asians. Punjabi is ancient language but have huge amount of influence from arabic/persian just like hindi7urdu which are newer languages.



1st . you said that there is not a possibility of that . Why not sir ?.....were you standing all these years and watching things unfold ?

2nd . Thats what western historians assume . Now i can also assume that humans arrived from alien planets . Do we have any proof that humanity was born only in Africa and not anywhere else ?

3rd . Punjabi is not ancient language . Its not like roman or Sanskrit . It is a combination of Devanagari lang with arabic . It kept on changing and very much influenced by incoming Alexander and Arabs .



p(-)0ENiX said:


> Indo-Iranian tribes migrated from Andronovo to Afghanistan, Iran, & the Indus Valley. Many people try to falsify history either out of ignorance or for their own agenda, & we are against anyone that attempts to do either of that. The discussion being carried out by us is for the purpose of providing truthful information regarding our history & land based on the genetic, historic, cultural, linguistic, & archaeological evidence available to us. Many Indo-Iranian people that migrated in to modern day India were eventually wiped out because of intermarriage. That however does not hold true for the north western regions of the Sub-Continent, neither does it hold true for modern day Iran & Afghanistan.



Give me solid proof sir ......all these years i have heard/read only assumptions .


----------



## curioususer

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> 3rd . Punjabi is not ancient language . Its not like roman or Sanskrit . It is a combination of Devanagari lang with arabic . It kept on changing and very much influenced by incoming Alexander and Arabs .



Maybe not Arabic but Persian.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

PARAS said:


> Saif Ali Khan is half bengali and his father also was not pure pathan and hails from pataudi , haryana .
> 
> Even shahrukh khan is south Indian . Hrithik roshan is bengali . Salman khan is marathi . They all are Indians .
> 
> And what about actresses . Almost none of them punjabi .
> 
> 
> Well I see no difference between a punjabi and other northies . A pashtun can easily pass for a rajasthani or upite



WTF did i just lol. Hritish father from Gujrawala, Salman khan marathi  Saif Ali not pure pathan. But good enough to look different then 98% of Indians i guess.



LaBong said:


> Khan doesn't mean pathan. Lots of khans in INDIA have nothing to do with pathans.



Saif have Pashtun ancestry.


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Yeah... and your point being?


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I think South Indians are Drividians
> 
> Most of the Northern Indians are some what different in appearance so one can say they are not Drividians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are visible difference in appearance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These appear close to the Aboriginals of Australia
> 
> However , I don't know what was the history of the migration of people from EuroAsia to India and how the Drividians got reduced to their state as its now , but certainly they did not adapt to technology or change
> 
> But one thing is clear that the original inhabitants of India were pushed aside by incoming invaders.
> 
> The food presentation and eating traditions are also very different



azaadpakistan ...yaar ...dont assume things.....read history to the deep .

1. ) yes . south Indians do call themselves dravidians .....but that doesnot make them any lesser .

2. ) Southern India is very hot and humid and if somebody is living there for generations then he has got to be dark skinned . The body itself produces 'melanine" in skin to protect itself from sunlight and hence people living in hot climate tend to be dark . even if you start living in hot climate , you may also become dark-skinned ( a little bit ) .

3.) south indians were technologically advanced . Read about Vijaynagar empire of South India . Even in current day India , south indians are known to be very studious and intelligent.

4. Eating traditions are different because of climatic conditions .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> 1st . you said that there is not a possibility of that . Why not sir ?.....were you standing all these years and watching things unfold ?
> 
> 2nd . Thats what western historians assume . Now i can also assume that humans arrived from alien planets . Do we have any proof that humanity was born only in Africa and not anywhere else ?
> 
> 3rd . Punjabi is not ancient language . Its not like roman or Sanskrit . It is a combination of Devanagari lang with arabic . It kept on changing and very much influenced by incoming Alexander and Arabs .
> 
> 
> 
> Give me solid proof sir ......all these years i have heard/read only assumptions .



1: The only possible origin of Aryans in South Asia is Pakistan, probably Hindu Kush mountains. So that leaves out India, and i say possible because at the moment there are many theory and non of them put them in India. 

2: There is pretty good evidence of that and not what western historian thinks. 

3: Punjabi is older, no one knows how much. The first poet was Baba Farid in 11th century but punjabi as a language is much older.


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

shan said:


> First of all genetic studies have proven that India isn't possible origin of Aryans. There are only two possible theory going around. Maybe they originated in Pakistan, possibly around hindu kush mountains or near east.



Dear ....the Pakistan you are talking about didnot exist even 70 years ago.That region was totally called as Aryavart ( in ancient times )and later on Bharatvarsh ( on the name of king Bharat) . The word hindustan was given by arabs .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Exactly. We should not steal ancient Pakistani heritage. From Sanskrit to Gurmukhi - Indians have stolen everything that is rightfully of Pakistan. Shame on us yindoo banyas.



shan said:


> 1: The only possible origin of Aryans in South Asia is Pakistan, probably Hindu Kush mountains. So that leaves out India, and i say possible because at the moment there are many theory and non of them put them in India.
> 
> 2: There is pretty good evidence of that and not what western historian thinks.
> 
> 3: Punjabi is older, no one knows how much. The first poet was Baba Farid in 11th century but punjabi as a language is much older.



You are debating with someone who came first in the class of 'Pakistan Studies'. It states Pakistan came into being in 712AD. 


Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Dear ....the Pakistan you are talking about didnot exist even 70 years ago.That region was totally called as Aryavart ( in ancient times )and later on Bharatvarsh ( on the name of king Bharat) . The word hindustan was given by arabs .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

No such thing as the 'Aryan' race it is a linguistic term and the word comes from the root Sanskrit word noble (arya)


----------



## LaBong

shan said:


> WTF did i just lol. Hritish father from Gujrawala, Salman khan marathi  Saif Ali not pure pathan. But good enough to look different then 98% of Indians i guess.
> 
> 
> 
> Saif have Pashtun ancestry.



Saif looks like his Bengali mother, Soha looks like her father.


----------



## PARAS

shan said:


> WTF did i just lol. Hritish father from Gujrawala, Salman khan marathi  Saif Ali not pure pathan. But good enough to look different then 98% of Indians i guess.
> 
> 
> 
> Saif have Pashtun ancestry.



Hrithik's mother is from bengali and salman's mother is marathi hindu . Shahrukh's mom is from hyderabad . 

Do you think their fathers are bisexuals and gave birth to them out of their wombs ? And these guys don't look even half as good as many guys roaming the streets of up and bihar .


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

SarthakGanguly said:


> Exactly. We should not steal ancient Pakistani heritage. From Sanskrit to Gurmukhi - Indians have stolen everything that is rightfully of Pakistan. Shame on us yindoo banyas.
> 
> 
> 
> You are debating with someone who came first in the class of 'Pakistan Studies'. It states Pakistan came into being in 712AD.


 
i see you have an indirect approach to say things .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Dear ....the Pakistan you are talking about didnot exist even 70 years ago.That region was totally called as Aryavart ( in ancient times )and later on Bharatvarsh ( on the name of king Bharat) . The word hindustan was given by arabs .



As expected now everything becomes Akhand Bharat from Kazakhstan to Indonesia when presented with facts. @Nassr have explained the origin of word Bharat and to what it applied.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

Do not believe in 'white mans history too much' I studied a bit of anthropology whilst at Uni and we were taught about how Darwin said 'white people' evolved out of Africa quicker to Asian counterparts this out of Africa theory was later debunked by Bronis&#322;aw Kasper Malinowski the Polish-born British anthropologist. Point I am trying to make is that during the days of the Empire and Victorian era the mindset was always to put down 'coloured folk' and their version of history just like the so called bullshit Aryan invasion/migration theory.


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Yes - all acclaimed historians, eh? Only problem is that when Pakistanis(with notable exception I guess) write history books, they only appear in the *fiction section of bookstores.* 


shan said:


> As expected now everything becomes Akhand Bharat from Kazakhstan to Indonesia when presented with facts. @Nassr have explained the origin of word Bharat and to what it applied.


----------



## Nassr

eastwatch said:


> Bold part: Your assumption is not true and is not supported by history. *Aryavarta* was another name of the entire Hindustan in old times many thousands of years before British started to wear clothes.



The places named directly or indirectly in the Rig Veda can be classified into five basic geographical regions, from west to east, on the basis of present-day terminology: Afghanistan, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Amongst these, Uttar Pradesh of the present-day is more or less equivalent to the land known in ancient literature as *Aryavarta **or Madhyadesa*. Neither the word Aryavarta, nor the word Madhyadesa, is found in the Rig Veda. Nor is there any direct reference in the hymns to any place in Uttar Pradesh. But, the hymns IX.96 and X.179.2 composed by a Bharata Rishi who attributed his compositions to his remote ancestor, Pratardana present an important mention. Pratardana was a king of KASI, which is in eastern Uttar Pradesh. This can only mean that the Bharata Kings of the early period of the Rig Veda were Kings of KASI and, in the light of the other information in the Rig Veda, the land of the Bharatas extended from KASI in the east to Kurukshetra in the west. (This description has been given by Shrikant G. Talageri in his historical analysis of Rig Veda.)

This means that, essentially Uttar Pradesh is what Bharat is referred to in the primary Vedic and Hindu scripture Rig Veda and not the whole of India from north to South.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

shan said:


> As expected now everything becomes Akhand Bharat from Kazakhstan to Indonesia when presented with facts. @Nassr have explained the origin of word Bharat and to what it applied.



Thats what i want to say ......nobody came from outside ....the people were already there . Indo Arayans originated in an area which is now segragated between India , Present day Pakistan , Nepal and Afghanistan .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Thats what i want to say ......nobody came from outside ....the people were already there . Indo Arayans originated in an area which is now segragated between India , Present day Pakistan , Nepal and Afghanistan .




What do you mean by Indo-Aryans originated there? there is no race called that the term is a linguistic term not a group of people is that what u mean to say?


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Now we will see someone editing some previous post    

^^Though this statement of mine might just prevent that   


Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Thats what i want to say ......nobody came from outside ....the people were already there . Indo Arayans originated in an area which is now segragated between India , Present day Pakistan , Nepal and Afghanistan .


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

Nassr said:


> The places named directly or indirectly in the Rig Veda can be classified into five basic geographical regions, from west to east, on the basis of present-day terminology: Afghanistan, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Amongst these, Uttar Pradesh of the present-day is more or less equivalent to the land known in ancient literature as *Aryavarta **or Madhyadesa*. Neither the word Aryavarta, nor the word Madhyadesa, is found in the Rig Veda. Nor is there any direct reference in the hymns to any place in Uttar Pradesh. But, the hymns IX.96 and X.179.2 composed by a Bharata Rishi who attributed his compositions to his remote ancestor, Pratardana present an important mention. Pratardana was a king of KASI, which is in eastern Uttar Pradesh. This can only mean that the Bharata Kings of the early period of the Rig Veda were Kings of KASI and, in the light of the other information in the Rig Veda, the land of the Bharatas extended from KASI in the east to Kurukshetra in the west. (This description has been given by Shrikant G. Talageri in his historical analysis of Rig Veda.)
> 
> This means that, essentially Uttar Pradesh is what Bharat is referred to in the primary Vedic and Hindu scripture Rig Veda and not the whole of India from north to South.



Sir ..i will suggest you to read maharbharat again ......saying that Uttar Pradesh was Bharat is like saying Karachi is Pakistan ..........The Aryavart was composed of India , pakistan , bangladesh , Nepal , Afghanistan . The area of Iran and beyond was called "yavandesh" .

i am not trying to lobby that all these people were hindus ....infact i believe that religion didnot exist ......people followed what the sages said

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Thats what i want to say ......nobody came from outside ....the people were already there . Indo Arayans originated in an area which is now segragated between India , Present day Pakistan , Nepal and Afghanistan .



Thats highly debatable, first of all there origin being South Asia is just a theory and not fact. Even if its fact then India isn't the country they come from.



Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Sir ..i will suggest you to read maharbharat again ......saying that Uttar Pradesh was Bharat is like saying Karachi is Pakistan ..........The Aryavart was composed of India , pakistan , bangladesh , Nepal , Afghanistan . The area of Iran and beyond was called "yavandesh" .
> 
> i am not trying to lobby that all these people were hindus ....infact i believe that religion didnot exist ......people followed what the sages said



Mythical kingdom Bharat according to Indians stretched even to Kazakhstan. So spare us Akhand Bharat crap. If not for British then we wouldn't even been debating this, thats how "akhand" Bharat was.


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Mythical kingdom Bharat according to Indians stretched even to Kazakhstan.



Vishnu Purana accounts the extent of Bharatavarsha,
 

&#2313;&#2340;&#2381;&#2340;&#2352;&#2306; &#2351;&#2340;&#2381;&#2360;&#2350;&#2369;&#2342;&#2381;&#2352;&#2360;&#2381;&#2351; &#2361;&#2367;&#2350;&#2366;&#2342;&#2381;&#2352;&#2375;&#2358;&#2381;&#2330;&#2376;&#2357; &#2342;&#2325;&#2381;&#2359;&#2367;&#2339;&#2350;&#2381; &#2404;
&#2357;&#2352;&#2381;&#2359;&#2306; &#2340;&#2342;&#2381; &#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340;&#2306; &#2344;&#2366;&#2350; &#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340;&#2368; &#2351;&#2340;&#2381;&#2352; &#2360;&#2306;&#2340;&#2340;&#2367;&#2307; &#2404;&#2404;

 

uttara&#7747; yatsamudrasya him&#257;dre&#347;caiva dak&#7779;i&#7751;am
var&#7779;a&#7747; tadbh&#257;rata&#7747; n&#257;ma bh&#257;rat&#299; yatra santati&#7717;

 

"The country (var&#7779;am) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bh&#257;rat; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> Vishnu Purana accounts the extent of Bharatavarsha,
> &#8220;
> 
> &#2313;&#2340;&#2381;&#2340;&#2352;&#2306; &#2351;&#2340;&#2381;&#2360;&#2350;&#2369;&#2342;&#2381;&#2352;&#2360;&#2381;&#2351; &#2361;&#2367;&#2350;&#2366;&#2342;&#2381;&#2352;&#2375;&#2358;&#2381;&#2330;&#2376;&#2357; &#2342;&#2325;&#2381;&#2359;&#2367;&#2339;&#2350;&#2381; &#2404;
> &#2357;&#2352;&#2381;&#2359;&#2306; &#2340;&#2342;&#2381; &#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340;&#2306; &#2344;&#2366;&#2350; &#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340;&#2368; &#2351;&#2340;&#2381;&#2352; &#2360;&#2306;&#2340;&#2340;&#2367;&#2307; &#2404;&#2404;
> &#8221;
> &#8220;
> 
> uttara&#7747; yatsamudrasya him&#257;dre&#347;caiva dak&#7779;i&#7751;am
> var&#7779;a&#7747; tadbh&#257;rata&#7747; n&#257;ma bh&#257;rat&#299; yatra santati&#7717;
> &#8221;
> &#8220;
> 
> "The country (var&#7779;am) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bh&#257;rat; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."









did i left anyone out?

Basically any country who had or have Vedic, Hindusism or Bhudist past is part of Bharat. Similar to Ummah if you combine all the muslims countries.


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> did i left anyone out?



These are the countries once influenced by Indian culture but that doesnot represent the ancient Bharatvarsha.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> These are the countries once influenced by Indian culture but that doesnot represent the ancient Bharatvarsha.



Maybe this is correct map?


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> Maybe this is correct map?



That is british India that has Burma as province. 

I gave you verses directly from our scriptures still you trolling.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> That is british India that has Burma as province.
> 
> I gave you verses directly from our scriptures still you trolling.



I just want to know the exact map of Akhand Bharat. Why didn't Nepal, Burma, SL join India in 1947 even despite them being regions of Dharmic religions?


----------



## INDIC

shan said:


> I just want to know the exact map of Akhand Bharat.



No idea. I never ever wish Pakistan or Bangladesh reintegrating with India. 



> Why didn't Nepal, Burma, SL join India in 1947 even despite them being regions of Dharmic religions?



Neither Indian people had any interest to get them joined nor people of those countries had any interest


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

INDIC said:


> No idea. I never ever wish Pakistan or Bangladesh reintegrating with India.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Indian people had any interest to get them joined nor people of those countries had any interest



But these people are part of Akhand Bharat, remember everyone is the same in Akhand Bharat. And also them being muslims excuse doesnt work in this case. 

And you cant even pin point how far imaginary Akhand Bharat streched?


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

shan said:


> Thats highly debatable, first of all there origin being South Asia is just a theory and not fact. Even if its fact then India isn't the country they come from.
> 
> 
> 
> Mythical kingdom Bharat according to Indians stretched even to Kazakhstan. So spare us Akhand Bharat crap. If not for British then we wouldn't even been debating this, thats how "akhand" Bharat was.



History is very vast ...i cant tell everything here ......The kingdom of Bharat was indeed there ....but later on people segregated as per their religions ......e.g most people in Western India ( present day Pakistan and Afghanistan) embraced Islam because of arabic infulence ......while people of central and southern India kept practicing their religion . It was no religion at all . It was called "sanatan dharma" . The arabs called it Hindusim . These got segragated further into different states . Indeed , British again united the India/Aryavart/Bharatvarsh. 

Then they saw that down the line the people had grown deep separations in terms of their religion . Thus they decided that India should be segregated into present day India and Pakistan .

The historical timelines are too vast and intermingled so as to lead to a particular conclusion .


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

shan said:


> Maybe this is correct map?



You are too preoccupied with 'akhand Bharat '..............just to make things clear .....nobody is asking Pakistan or Bangladesh or Nepal to merge again and make "akhand bharat"..........everyone should remain happy in their own country .


----------



## Water Car Engineer

shan said:


> Case in point, Asin first movie in south india
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now in bollywood



She looks the same, except one is without makeup. That's pretty obvious.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> History is very vast ...i cant tell everything here ......The kingdom of Bharat was indeed there ....but later on people segregated as per their religions ......e.g most people in Western India ( present day Pakistan and Afghanistan) embraced Islam because of arabic infulence ......while people of central and southern India kept practicing their religion . It was no religion at all . It was called "sanatan dharma" . The arabs called it Hindusim . These got segragated further into different states . Indeed , British again united the India/Aryavart/Bharatvarsh.
> 
> Then they saw that down the line the people had grown deep separations in terms of their religion . Thus they decided that India should be segregated into present day India and Pakistan .
> 
> The historical timelines are too vast and intermingled so as to lead to a particular conclusion .



First of all kingdom of Bharat is myth, it didn't actually exist. I though this discussion was about historical and scientific facts?



Water Car Engineer said:


> She looks the same, except one is without makeup. That's pretty obvious.



The first one is from movie and with makeup, seriously even blind person can see the work done on face.



Babbar-Khalsa said:


> You are too preoccupied with 'akhand Bharat '..............just to make things clear .....nobody is asking Pakistan or Bangladesh or Nepal to merge again and make "akhand bharat"..........everyone should remain happy in their own country .



As if Indians have any say in this. The discussion here is about Akhand Bharat which actually never existed in the first place apart from in minds of Hindutvas.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

shan said:


> The first one is from movie and with makeup, seriously *even blind person can see the work done on face.*



Like not at all. The second picture she's done up. The first one looks really regular. That's really it.


----------



## Nassr

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Sir ..i will suggest you to read maharbharat again ......saying that Uttar Pradesh was Bharat is like saying Karachi is Pakistan ..........The Aryavart was composed of India , pakistan , bangladesh , Nepal , Afghanistan . The area of Iran and beyond was called "yavandesh" .
> 
> i am not trying to lobby that all these people were hindus ....infact i believe that religion didnot exist ......people followed what the sages said



I have posted this before as well. 

The shape of India is described in the 'Mahabharata' as an equilateral triangle, which was divided into four smaller equal triangles. The apex of the triangle is Cape Comorin, and the base is formed by the line of the Himalaya mountains. No dimensions are given, and no places are mentioned. 

Another description of India is that of the Nava-Khanda, or Nine-Divisions, which is first described by the astronomers Parasara and Varaha-Mihira, although it was probably older than their time and was later adopted by the authors of several of the Puranas. According to this arrangement, Pdnchdla was the chief district of the central division, Magadha of the east, Kalinga of the south-east, Avanta of the south, Anarta of the south-west, Sindhu-Sauvira of the west, Hdrahaura of the north-west, Madra of the north, and Kauninda of the north-east. But there is a discrepancy between this epitome of Varaha and his details, as Sindhu-Sauvira is assigned to the south-west, along with Anarta. There however is absolutely no agreement among the scholars with regard to deciphering the exact location of Sindhu-Sauvira and different scholar state different locations. 

With regard to the detailed lists of the 'Brihat-Samhita' with those of the Brahmanda, Markandeya, Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas; although there are sundry repetitions and displacements of names, as well as various readings, yet all the lists are substantially the same. Some of them, however, are differently arranged. All of the Puranas, for instance, mention the Nine Divisions and give their names, but only the Brahmanda and Markandeya state the names of the districts in each of the Nine Divisions; as the Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas agree with the Mahabharata in describing only five Divisions in detail, namely, the middle Province and those of the four cardinal points. The names of the Nine Divisions given in the Mahabharata and the Puranas differ entirely from those of Yaraha-Mihira.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nassr

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> History is very vast ...i cant tell everything here ......The kingdom of Bharat was indeed there ....but later on people segregated as per their religions ......e.g most people in Western India ( present day Pakistan and Afghanistan) embraced Islam because of arabic infulence ......while people of central and southern India kept practicing their religion . It was no religion at all . It was called "sanatan dharma" . The arabs called it Hindusim . These got segragated further into different states . Indeed , British again united the India/Aryavart/Bharatvarsh.
> 
> Then they saw that down the line the people had grown deep separations in terms of their religion . Thus they decided that India should be segregated into present day India and Pakistan .
> 
> The historical timelines are too vast and intermingled so as to lead to a particular conclusion .



As the name Bharat has been derived from the Hindu religious scriptures, its emanation essentially formulates itself as a part of the belief system, irrespective of the reality. If some one states that it did not exist, it may also challenge the belief and I would not like to do this, despite many reservations. 

Within the realm of known history, the sub-continent has historically and geographically been divided in to two distinctly different areas namely, the Indus Valley and its adjoining plains, and the Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains. These two areas have been divided by a watershed which separates these areas. The known history of Indus valley and its adjoining plains is over 9000 years old. In those 9000 years, it has been politically united with Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains only three times i.e. during the times of Mauryan, Muslim and the British rule. For the remaining 7000-8000 years, the Indus Valley and its adjoining plains have remained a separate political entity. Therefore, the area where Pakistan exists today, the Meluhhans existed since 9000 years and therefore, the history of Pakistani landmass is also 9000 years old and most of it has been without any unity with India. 

This has also been stated by a number of scholars like Robert Kaplan, Khan A. Sufyan and Aitzaz Ahsan amongst others.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Yes Sapta Sindhu was Uttar Pradesh. We evil yindoos diverted rivers to the west with our evil genius so that we can claim Pakistani territories in 1947. What foresight! Wah! 


Nassr said:


> The places named directly or indirectly in the Rig Veda can be classified into five basic geographical regions, from west to east, on the basis of present-day terminology: Afghanistan, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Amongst these, Uttar Pradesh of the present-day is more or less equivalent to the land known in ancient literature as *Aryavarta **or Madhyadesa*. Neither the word Aryavarta, nor the word Madhyadesa, is found in the Rig Veda. Nor is there any direct reference in the hymns to any place in Uttar Pradesh. But, the hymns IX.96 and X.179.2 composed by a Bharata Rishi who attributed his compositions to his remote ancestor, Pratardana present an important mention. Pratardana was a king of KASI, which is in eastern Uttar Pradesh. This can only mean that the Bharata Kings of the early period of the Rig Veda were Kings of KASI and, in the light of the other information in the Rig Veda, the land of the Bharatas extended from KASI in the east to Kurukshetra in the west. (This description has been given by Shrikant G. Talageri in his historical analysis of Rig Veda.)
> 
> This means that, essentially Uttar Pradesh is what Bharat is referred to in the primary Vedic and Hindu scripture Rig Veda and not the whole of India from north to South.


----------



## Tikolo

dravidianhero said:


> never thought nawaz is a kashmiri.it shows even kashmiris have 30 percent dravidian genes in them like punjabis or is it just like pak kashmiris look like him(just like how pak punjabis look diff from indian ones).the indian kashmiris i regularly watch on tv look like afghans.



nawaz sharif does not look dravidian, his whole family is so fairskinned, his daughter:






most kashmiries in my experience are more similar to afghans in looks, rather then south asians, they lack the typical indid looks which has (veddoid) features


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Tikolo said:


> nawaz sharif does not look dravidian, his whole family is so fairskinned, his daughter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most kashmiries in my experience are more similar to afghans in looks, rather then south asians, they lack the typical indid looks which has (veddoid) features



Nawaz ehinicity is Punjabi and not Kashmiri, anyway that guy is an idiot. Having 30% ASI component doesnt make one Dravidian, even Dravidians dont have 100% ASI genes in them.


----------



## Nassr

SarthakGanguly said:


> Yes Sapta Sindhu was Uttar Pradesh. We evil yindoos diverted rivers to the west with our evil genius so that we can claim Pakistani territories in 1947. What foresight! Wah!



There are many Indian scholars who believe that the so-called Vedic Aryans during the period of Rig Veda were inhabitants of the area called Sapta Sindhu i.e. Punjab. It is further believed by these scholars that the habitat of the so-called Vedic Aryans, during the period of composition of the Rigveda, was the central part of this area, the Sapta Sindhu or Punjab, the Land of the Five Rivers bounded on the east by the Saraswati and on the west by the Indus. Their eastern horizon was western Uttar Pradesh and their western horizon was Afghanistan. The region in Haryana (old Punjab) known as Kurukshetra or Brahmavarta in ancient times was considered to be the holiest place on earth. However, neither the word Kuruksetra, nor the word Brahmavarta, is found in the Rigveda.

However, there are many other scholars who now challenge this assumption and state that the habitat of the so-called Vedic Aryans during the period was considerably to the east of the Punjab. That is why I quoted the source of my post by stating that this description has been given by Shrikant G. Talageri in his historical analysis of Rig Veda. He states and goes to great lengths in his book to highlight that it was Uttar Pradesh where the so-called Vedic Aryans lived. 

You may not agree with Mr Shrikant G. Talageri, with whom many scholars do agree with. Of-course there are many who do not agree with him as well. 

I do not know why are you getting angry with me. Calm down, I never called you anything. I don not even know if Mr Talageri did that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tikolo

shan said:


> Nawaz ehinicity is Punjabi and not Kashmiri, anyway that guy is an idiot. Having 30% ASI component doesnt make one Dravidian, even Dravidians dont have 100% ASI genes in them.



They are kashmiri, but obviously have lived in punjab for a while, read his early life section: Nawaz Sharif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyways you are right, ASI is not even Dravidian, which is a language term, ASI has existed in south asia for well before 40,000 years, they were the first humans to arrive in south asia we before things like aryans, dravdians etc... even came up

but one thing is that having a high ASI does give you some type of look, for example Tamils who have 60% ASI will look different (darker/veddoid) then lets say a punjabi with 30-35% ASI, who will mostly likely look more west asian because of his 65-70% ANI ancestry 

Also for kashmiries, I think only the pandits have been sampled, and they are showing 30% ASI, I think muslims onces have mixed more with outsiders like afghans, so they might have less ASI then pandit kashmiries


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Tikolo said:


> They are kashmiri, but obviously have lived in punjab for a while, read his early life section: Nawaz Sharif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Anyways you are right, ASI is not even Dravidian, which is a language term, ASI has existed in south asia for well before 40,000 years, they were the first humans to arrive in south asia we before things like aryans, dravdians etc... even came up
> 
> but one thing is that having a high ASI does give you some type of look, for example Tamils who have 60% ASI will look different (darker/veddoid) then lets say a punjabi with 30-35% ASI, who will mostly likely look more west asian because of his 65-70% ANI ancestry
> 
> Also for kashmiries, I think only the pandits have been sampled, and they are showing 30% ASI, I think muslims onces have mixed more with outsiders like afghans, so they might have less ASI then pandit kashmiries



Nawaz is ethinically punjabi, they were not Kosher speaking kashmiris. They moved from Punjab to Kashmir and then back to punjab. And yes you are right about ASI component.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Bang Galore said:


> I have no problem with any conjecture, including yours. My point is to the reference to the vedas. The Rg veda knows no land outside the subcontinent_(including Afghanistan)_. Period. Any other supposed references are simply not supported by evidence from the Rg veda. The Avesta does show an indication of some migration but please remember that they knew of the Punjab(Hapta-HAndu) as one of their home lands, something that would be very odd in a straightforward migration from central Asia. They also knew nothing of western Iran. Essentially they shared a portion of the homeland with the vedic Aryans before moving further west with vedic aryans occupying the Punjab. Does not prove any great migration from elsewhere. As far as separation from the vedic Aryans goes, please note that the separation seems to be post a major part of the Rg veda. Every scholar has noted that the language of the 8th Mandala of the Rg veda, a late part is similar to the language of the Iranians. Had a separation taken place elsewhere, surely you would expect the commonality in the early part of the Rg veda and not in those parts which are pretty much accepted as having been composed in the vedic heartland.



What conjecture? You haven't provided any proof & have simply posted source less claims. Genetic evidence does point to a migration, & most of the literature today has no issues with the theory of Indo-Iranian migration. The only people complaining are those that are still obsessed with the old Aryan Invasion Theory. You yourself have been using Max Mueller's debunked theory to derive dates knowing that it's incorrect in the first place. Did you visit the links that I provided you with? The Indo-Iranians may not have known much about Western Iran initially, but as they spread further in to the Iranian plateau, they were aware of it. In fact the Median people who are also Indo-Iranians & referred to themselves as Aryans had an empire stretching all the way to Anatolia. There is no arguing that the Vedic & Avestan scriptures show common geographical names, & the fact that they speak related languages, gives credence to them being related. 

The original speakers of sister languages are always related, as in the case of Arabic & Hebrew. I have heard of the 8th Mandala being the most similar to Avestan, but that isn't a claim by every scholar, it's only a claim made by some. So please do not provide us with false information. Regardless, I doubt any of us are experts in Sanskrit & Avestan, but if it's true that the 8th Mandala is most similar to Avestan, it would make no difference whatsoever. Languages evolve over time, they borrow from each other, & the Indo-Iranian tribes were naturally in contact. Sanskrit borrowed many loan words from unknown languages, the point is that the evolution of a language in no way implies that the Indo-Iranian people didn't go their separate ways. Plenty of evidence points to their similar origins. Another important point to note is that the Median Empire began in 678 BCE, just over 2000 years ago, & there is no mention of them that I know off during the Elamite period. The Elamites are considered Semites by some sources, including the Hebrew scriptures. 

So what if the Vedas does not categorically mention a migration or know off any land outside Afghanistan? Some sources use the Vedas to in fact figure out the Aryan homeland, but it any case I will leave that aside for now. Some of your views give the impression that you are a supporter of the Out of India Theory (OIT). In any case, the quote below should be interesting. *Please note that all of my quotes from other sources in this post are in Italic form.*

The Aryan Migration Theory: Last Word

"_*No memories of an Aryan migration.* Another OIT line. First of all, it is quite typical of most people to have no memories or false memories of wherever they came from. The Romans said they came from Greece. The Gypsies say they came from Egypt.

However, the Vedas do contain vague references to former habitations, such as what appears to be the BMAC and there are references to journeys over mountains and mountain passes. Many place names in Afghanistan are from proto-II words from Central Asia and often lead back to ancient Central Asian enemies of the Arya referred to in the Vedas. One of these is the Parni, associated with the BMAC and later with a northern Iranian group. They had stone forts and well-built cow stables in northern Iran that look a lot like earlier BMAC structures.

The route of migration did not take place over the high passes of the Himalayas and the Pamirs. Few groups have migrated over these treacherous mountains in the last 2000 years. Instead, the migration went from the BMAC down through northern Iran to Herat in West Afghanistan to the Gomal River in near Ghazni in East Afghanistan to the Swat Valley.

There are frequent references in the Vedas to southward and eastward movements of various groups of Arya. There are no references to westward groups as would be required by the OIT. Some of these movements to the south and east are described in military terms as victorious conquests. There are also references in the late Vedas of movements of the Arya east from the Afghan/Pakistan border to Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and all the way to Bihar._"

Language Proximity of Central Asia with the Upper Indus Supported by Archaeology

"_Given that the Rig Veda is commonly thought to have been written in the Upper Indus region, we have yet one more reason to look at the area immediately to the north and north-west of the upper Indus Valley i.e. the Pamir-Badakhshan region as being a strong candidate for the homeland of the ancient Aryans, the so-called Proto Indo-Iranians. 

*The language of the Rig Veda and the Old Avesta are so close that they are commonly thought to be dialects such as that spoken in two neighbouring provinces and that further, they emerged from a common language philologists call Proto Indo-Iranian, another name for the language of united ancient Aryans.* 

Panini, the author of a grammar on Classical Sanskrit which was derived from the Vedic language was a resident of Pushkalavati, Gandhara, which is now part of modern-day Charsadda District in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan and which included the Swat Valley now in northern Pakistan as well. 

In the Swat-Chitral region, numerous archaeological sites have yielded graveyards dating between the second quarter of the second millennium BCE and the late centuries BCE, and with associated features leading the sites to be categorized as the Gandhara Grave Culture. *The artefacts excavated from the sites show similarities and links with Central Asian as well as lower Indus Valley sites. The use of shell, coral and ivory were likely brought in via trade routes from the lower Indus plains and foothills.* 

A significant rock shelter site was excavated in the spring of 1967 near the township of Ghaligai / Ghalegay located on the east bank of the Swat River, some 12-15 km south of Mingora towards Barikot. At Ghaligai, the Swat Valley is a kilometres wide, flat, flood plain. Here, the river has many branches and frequently changes course. The valley itself is well cultivated and the crop fields slope gently down towards the river. Watercress and pumpkins are popular crops. Hills rise sharply for the valley. The eastern hills separate the Swat Valley from the Indus and Buner valleys while on the other side the western hills lie the Dir and Chitral valleys. *The site has provided evidence of uninterrupted occupation for 3500 years starting from the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE. Three Carbon 14 dates of the earliest/lowest level give date from 2970 to 2930 BCE. artefacts from this level include pottery some with their inner surfaces burnished (presumably to make them water-proof from the inside). Some pottery shapes are similar to those found in Turkmenistan sites (Murgab Delta and the Kopet Dag hill base). Other artefacts found at Ghaligai as levell as Kili, Gul Hohammad, Sarai Kala, Jalilpur and Gumla show striking similarities and eveidence of trade of non-native materials primarily within the Aryan nations but also as far as the Arabian peninsula and China. *

*In a valley to the west of Ghaligai, archaeological finds at the Balambat site near Timergara (also spelt Timurgarh/Timargarha) and dated to 1500-600 BCE, show links with artefacts found in the lower Indus Valley site Mehrgarh as well as in Central Asian sites.* [Balambat lies on the west bank of River Panjkora while Timergara lies across the river on the east bank. The name mean Timurgarh place of Timur (the Mohgul king). *The Wikipedia page states that fire altars have also been found at Balambat indicating the resident to be "fire-worshippers" (sic). We are not concerned with the insulting language used in the Wikipedia page - rather, indications of the close links to an early Aryan settlement*._"



Bang Galore said:


> Helmut Humbach, the eminent Avestan scholar has this to say
> 
> "It must be emphasised that the process of polarisation of relations between the Ahuras and the DaEvas is already complete in the GAthAs, whereas, in the Rigveda, the reverse process of polarisation between the Devas and the Asuras, which does not begin before the later parts of the Rigveda, develops as it were before our very eyes, and is not completed until the later Vedic period. Thus, it is not at all likely that the origins of the polarisation are to be sought in the prehistorical, the Proto-Aryan period. More likely, Zarathushtras reform was the result of interdependent developments, when Irano-Indian contacts still persisted at the dawn of history. With their Ahura-DaEva ideology, the Mazdayasnians, guided by their prophet, deliberately dissociated themselves from the Deva-Asura concept which was being developed, or had been developed, in India, and probably also in the adjacent Iranian-speaking countries All this suggests a synchrony between the later Vedic period and ZarathuStras reform in Iran."



What's the purpose of this paragraph? I am assuming this paragraph attempts to highlight religious differences. They don't mean anything either, religious beliefs evolved in the past among many civilizations including the Greeks & Romans. It does nothing to prove that the Indo-Iranian people weren't related. 

The BactriaMargiana Archaeological Complex has been mentioned previously in the sources that I referred to, here is a map of its location in Andronovo. Its proximity to modern day Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Iran should be noted. In fact the city of Balkh in Afghanistan is generally considered to be among the first cities the Indo-Iranian immigrants built or moved to. 



Bang Galore said:


> This is not proof of an aryan migration to India, far from it. No archaeologist has accepted any theory of Aryan migration into the sub continent and this remains the single most problem for any version of the AIT. Dates are important because without the acceptances of the dates proposed by the AIT scholars, the whole edifice collapses. No matter that you are open to other dates, they simply cannot be accepted & still argue for any version of the AIT including migration. The linguistic evidence requires the Indo-Iranians to be the last to leave the homeland. An early date kills the support of the migration in every other area.
> 
> Please note, I did refer to genetic studies of the ANI_ASI which suggests their presence in India for a fairly long period. Please also note no archaeological evidence exists for any migration to India in the period of 4000BCE & 1000 BCE. Forget Max Mueller, the linguistic connection as proof of migration fails if earlier dates are accepted. As it stands this theory remains just that a theory. Genetic studies have given us an enormous amount of data but it is certainly not cut & dry as you suggest. The evidence of the Harvard study of the ANI-ASI has been used to debunk the AIT by many. The readings are simply not definite with people picking what suits them.
> 
> There is little to suggest for any migration and the earlier evidence of scriptures quoted_(both vedic & Iranian) _have been debunked pretty conclusively. This is not to suggest no migration ever took place, people have been migrating for millenia. Just that there is no evidence of any supposed Aryan migration.Only an unexplained linguistic connection. _(A variation of the AIT suggests that only languages migrated, not the people but that too remains a unproven though a possible theory.)_



The unearthing of those ancient cities in Russia, combined with evidence that they are over 4000 years old & that their rituals were similar to those in the Vedas is very important. Your continuous obsession with the Aryan Invasion Theory is infuriating seeing as I already told you that Max Mueller is claimed to have come up with those dates to conform to his Biblical beliefs. The Aryan Invasion Theory has long been discredited. The Aryan Migration Theory that I am discussing should not be considered an off shoot or a variation of the Aryan Invasion Theory. The dates we should focus on are those provided to us by archaeological, linguistic, & genetic researches. I notice that you are also assuming that Andronovo was home to all proto-Indo-Europeans. That isn't correct either. The majority of the Indo-Europeans in Europe have been present there since Paleolithic times. There have been some migrations towards mainland Europe from the east, as noticed by the presence of the R1a haplogroup in Eastern European ethnic groups such as the Croatians. However, as far the Indo-Iranians are concerned, Andronovo was most likely home to mainly the proto-Indo-Iranian people besides a few others. 

You didn't refer to any genetic study, you simply posted your own claims without any source. I am not cherry picking sources, it's you who denied all the genetic evidence I provided you with in the past. I have already provided archaeological evidence in previous posts & in this post, & I will add other sources for archaeological evidence as well. 

Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

"_Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: *Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans*; and *Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent*. *The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history*. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to *estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy*._"

Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, and waves of admixture (migration?)

"_*I want to highlight one aspect which is not in the abstract: the closest population to the Ancestral North Indians, those who contributed the West Eurasian component to modern Indian ancestry, seem to be Georgians and other Caucasians*. Since Reconstructing Indian Population History many have suspected this. I want to highlight in particular two genome bloggers, Dienekes and Zack Ajmal, whove prefigured that particular result. But wait, theres more! The figure which I posted at the top illustrates that it looks like *Indo-European speakers were subject to two waves of admixture, while Dravidian speakers were subject to one*!

The authors were cautious indeed in not engaging in excessive speculation. The term Indo-Aryan only shows up in the notes, not in the body of the main paper. But the historical and philological literature is references:

The dates we report have significant implications for Indian history in the sense that they document a period of demographic and cultural change in which mixture between highly differentiated populations became pervasive before it eventually became uncommon. *The period of around 1,9004,200 years BP was a time of profound change in India, characterized by the deurbanization of the Indus civilization, increasing population density in the central and downstream portions of the Gangetic system, shifts in burial practices, and the likely first appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion in the subcontinent.* The shift from widespread mixture to strict endogamy that we document is mirrored in ancient Indian texts. [notes removed -Razib]_"

"*What these results imply is that there was admixture between very distinct populations in the period between 0 and 2000 B.C. By distinct, I mean to imply that the last common ancestors of the Ancestral North Indians and Ancestral South Indians probably date to ~50,000 years ago. The population in the Reich data set with the lowest fraction of ANI are the Paniya (~20%). One of those with higher fractions of ANI (70%) are Kashmiri Pandits. It does not take an Orientalist with colonial motives to infer that the ancient Vedic passages which are straightforwardly interpreted in physical anthropological terms may actually refer to ethnic conflicts in concrete terms, and not symbolic ones.*_

Finally, the authors note that uniparental lineages (mtDNA and Y) seem to imply that the last common ancestors of the ANI with other sampled West Eurasian groups dates to ~10,000 years before the present. This leads them to suggest that the ANI may not have come from afar necessarily. That is, the Georgian element is a signal of a population which perhaps diverged ~10,000 years ago, during the early period of agriculture in West Asia, and occupied the marginal fringes of South Asia, as in sites such as Mehrgarh in Balochistan. A plausible framework then is that expansion of institutional complexity resulted in an expansion of the agriculture complex ~3,000 B.C., and subsequent admixture with the indigenous hunter-gatherer substrate to the east and south during this period. One of the components that Zack Ajmal finds through ADMIXTURE analysis in South Asia, with higher fractions in higher castes even in non-Brahmins in South India, he terms Baloch, because it is modal in that population. This fraction is also high in the Dravidian speaking Brahui people, who coexist with the Baloch. It seems plausible to me that this widespread Baloch fraction is reflective of the initial ANI-ASI admixture event. In contrast, the Baloch and Brahui have very little of the NE Euro fraction, which is found at low frequencies in Indo-European speakers, and especially higher castes east and south of Punjab, as well as South Indian Brahmins. I believe that this component is correlated with the second, smaller wave of admixture, which brought the Indo-European speaking Indo-Aryans to much of the subcontinent. The Dasas described in the Vedas are not ASI, but hybrid populations. The collapse of the Indus Valley civilization was an explosive event for the rest of the subcontinent, as Moorjani et al. report that all indigenous Indian populations have ANI-ASI admixture (with the exceptions of Tibeto-Burman groups)._"

According to the dates provided by those studies, the mixture of ANI-ASI occurred between 1900 to 4200 years ago. Suddenly, the dates don't seem to conflict with the discovery of the Aryan cities either. The unearthing of Aryan cities article is reliable & I think I remember telling either you or someone else in another thread that the researchers that took part in that excavation aren't frauds. 

Recent findings in Archeogenetics and the Aryan Migration Theory

"_A study conducted by Quintana-Murci [2000] present genetic evidence for the occurrence of two major population movements, supporting a model of demic diffusion of early farmers from southwestern Iranand of pastoral nomads from western and central Asiainto India, associated with Dravidian and Indo-Europeanlanguage dispersals, respectively. 

A study conducted by R Spencer Wells et al focuses on the non-recombining portion of the Y-chromosome and provide an insight into the earliest patterns of settlement of anatomically modern humans on the Eurasian continent. Central Asia is revealed to be an important reservoir of genetic diversity, and the source of at least three major waves of migration leading into Europe, the Americas, and India. The genetic results are interpreted in the context of Eurasian linguistic patterns._"

I don't think there is any need for more genetic studies but I can provide more sources if they are required even though these are accurate as well. By the way, I never suggested that genetic studies were clear-cut, but they do point to a migration. The Sintashta culture is also interesting & is often said to be related to proto-Indo-Iranian people & culture. The relation between Sanskrit & Avestan is already known so there is no need for me to discuss that further. Some archaeological evidence has also been provided below.

BactriaMargiana Archaeological Complex

_*Material culture*

The inhabitants of the BMAC were sedentary people who practised irrigation farming of wheat and barley. With their impressive material culture including monumental architecture, bronze tools, ceramics, and jewellery of semiprecious stones, the complex exhibits many of the hallmarks of civilization. The complex can be compared to proto-urban settlements in the Helmand basin at Mundigak in western Afghanistan and Shahr-i Sh&#333;khta in eastern Iran, or at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley.

Sarianidi regards Gonur as the "capital" of the complex in Margiana throughout the Bronze Age. The palace of North Gonur measures 150 metres by 140 metres, the temple at Togolok 140 metres by 100 metres, the fort at Kelleli 3 125 metres by 125 metres, and the house of a local ruler at Adji Kui 25 metres by 25 metres. Each of these formidable structures has been extensively excavated. While they all have impressive fortification walls, gates, and buttresses, it is not always clear why one structure is identified as a temple and another as a palace. Mallory points out that the BMAC fortified settlements such as Gonur and Togolok resemble the qala, the type of fort known in this region in the historical period. They may be circular or rectangular and have up to three encircling walls. Within the forts are residential quarters, workshops and temples.
Extensive irrigation systems have been discovered at the Geoksiur Oasis.

Models of two-wheeled carts from c. 3000 BCE found at Altyn-Depe are the earliest complete evidence of wheeled transport in Central Asia, though model wheels have come from contexts possibly somewhat earlier. Judging by the type of harness, carts were initially pulled by oxen, or a bull. However camels were domesticated within the BMAC. A model of a cart drawn by a camel of c. 2200 BCE was found at Altyn-Depe.

The discovery of a single tiny stone seal (known as the "Anau seal") with geometric markings from the BMAC site at Anau in Turkmenistan in 2000 led some to claim that the Bactria-Margiana complex had also developed writing, and thus may indeed be considered a literate civilization. It bears five markings strikingly similar to Chinese "small seal" characters, but such characters date from the Qin reforms of roughly 100 AD, while the Anau seal is dated by context to 2,300 BCE. It is therefore an unexplained anomaly. The only match to the Anau seal is a small jet seal of almost identical shape from Niyä (near modern Minfeng) along the southern Silk Road in Xinjiang, assumed to be from the Western Han dynasty.

*Interactions with other cultures*

*BMAC materials have been found in the Indus civilisation, on the Iranian plateau, and in the Persian Gulf. Finds within BMAC sites provide further evidence of trade and cultural contacts. They include an Elamite-type cylinder seal and an Harappan seal stamped with an elephant and Indus script found at Gonur-depe. The relationship between Altyn-Depe and the Indus Valley seems to have been particularly strong. Among the finds there were two Harappan seals and ivory objects. The Harappan settlement of Shortugai in Northern Afghanistan on the banks of the Amu Darya probably served as a trading station.*

There is evidence of sustained contact between the BMAC and the Eurasian steppes to the north, intensifying c. 2000 BCE. In the delta of the River Amu Darya where it reaches the Aral Sea, its waters were channeled for irrigation agriculture by people whose remains resemble those of the nomads of the Andronovo Culture. This is interpreted as nomads settling down to agriculture, after contact with the BMAC. The culture they created is known as Tazabag'yad. About 1800 BCE the walled BMAC centres decreased sharply in size. Each oasis developed its own types of pottery and other objects. Also pottery of the Andronovo-Tazabag'yab culture to the north appeared widely in the Bactrian and Margian countryside. Many BMAC strongholds continued to be occupied and Andronovo-Tazabagyab coarse incised pottery occurs within them (along with the previous BMAC pottery) as well as in pastoral camps outside the mudbrick walls. In the highlands above the Bactrian oases in Tajikistan, kurgan cemeteries of the Vaksh and Bishkent type appeared with pottery that mixed elements of the late BMAC and Andronovo-Tazabagyab traditions.

*Language*

As argued by Michael Witzel and Alexander Lubotsky, there is a proposed substratum in Proto-Indo-Iranian which can be plausibly identified with the original language of the BMAC. Moreover, Lubotsky points out a larger number of words apparently borrowed from the same language, which are only attested in Indo-Aryan and therefore evidence of a substratum in Vedic Sanskrit. Some BMAC words have now also been found in Tocharian. Michael Witzel points out that the borrowed vocabulary includes words from agriculture, village and town life, flora and fauna, ritual and religion, so providing evidence for the acculturation of Indo-Iranian speakers into the world of urban civilization._

At this point, I have provided plenty of linguistic, genetic, & archaeological evidence for Indo-Iranian migrations. The paragraphs below discuss the most credible & modern theories regarding the proto-Indo-Europeans & are a modified version of a section of my previous post discussing a similar topic.

There are 3 major hypothesis regarding the spread of proto-Indo-Europeans in Europe. The Kurgan hypothesis, the Anatolian hypothesis, & the Paleolithic continuity theory. The Kurgan hypothesis suggests that proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from a region above Anatolia towards Europe, Central Asia, & eventually our lands. It initially suggested some sorts of invasions as Indo-European horse riders spread their patriarchal & warfare filled culture. While there is genetic & to some extent historic & archaeological evidence for this theory, there is no archaeological evidence of major wars, that suggests what was more likely to have occurred is migration. The Anatolian hypothesis refers to Indo-Europeans expanding for agricultural reasons, but the theory fails linguistically due to differences in vocabulary between Indo-European languages for agricultural terms. 

The Paleolithic Continuity Theory focuses on Europe & determines that 80% of European genetic stock has existed since Paleolithic times. This suggests that there were other Indo-Europeans that lived in Europe before the expansion of other proto-Indo-Europeans from Central Asia & the East. Uralic people & the speakers of Uralic languages are evidence of the fact that Indo-Europeans had been present in Europe since Paleolithic times. The problem with this theory is that there are considerable genetic variations in Europe itself. So as far as Europe is concerned, the population's origins are a mix of Indo-Europeans from Paleolithic times combined with certain migrations from Central Asia in Eastern Europe. The proof of those migrations comes from the genetic study regarding Croatians that I mentioned previously. However, as far as our lands are concerned, the Indo-Iranians arrived in Afghanistan, Iran, & Indus from Central Asia, Southern Russia, or Andronovo as per the evidence gathered so far.

The out of India theory has many flaws & at this point isn't supported by genetic, historic, archaeological, or linguistic evidence. I am also going to post the inscription of Darius the Great as proof that the Persians were aware of their Aryan heritage.

Inscription of Darius the Great at Naqsh-e-Rostam

_*I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings*, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, *a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.*_

Another point that deserves to be mentioned is that the regions where the Indo-Iranians primarily settled contain people that are different from other ethnic groups in the Sub-Continent in terms of appearance. Many Iranians, Balochis, Pashtuns, & Kashmiris could pass for Mediterranean Europeans. Of course, some people in modern day Indian Punjab could also pass as Mediterranean, but at this point India is extremely mixed. In any case, I think I have provided sufficient & reliable evidence of all kinds to prove Indo-Iranian migrations.



Bang Galore said:


> As I said I subscribe to no conspiracy theory even if sometimes the so-called western scholars have twisted themselves into knots trying to prove what they already assume to be true i.e. the conclusion choosing the facts rather than the other way around. The name calling of the other side is well known & many have taken refuge in name calling to dismiss a hard to prove case.



I didn't call anyone any name whatsoever. Everyone knows that some Indians do feel threatened by the Indo-Iranian migration theory because it's considered a threat to their unity or heritage. I am not trying to prove the Indo-Iranian migrations simply because I already believe it to be true, & I seriously doubt Western scholars would do that either. If there wasn't an ample amount of evidence for the Indo-Iranian migration, I wouldn't have defended it. It's obvious that more research is required, & future studies will hopefully clear up any remaining doubts against the Indo-Iranian migrations.

The quote below is interesting, & the abbreviation "AMT" refers to the "Aryan Migration Theory".

The Aryan Migration Theory: Last Word

_There is no evidence at all that the AMT was hatched as a British conspiracy (other popular theories say that the entire linguistic community was in on this conspiracy), nor has anyone offered any reason how or why the British could profit by making up the theory of a Bronze Age culture in India. Or why the British, who supposedly hated Indians and thought they were inferior, would invent a theory that said that Indians were in part related to the great British people._



Bang Galore said:


> _(Btw, many thanks for the civility of the discourse, it is not very common here. I have no problem in any conjectures being supported because in the end, I have little hard evidence & no interest in offering any alternate theory. My brief is simply to point out that the supposed indisputable evidence is very supposed & hardly indisputable. How we read the evidence available may depend on what conclusion we are inclined to support. Still a very pleasant change from many others here)_



There is lots of evidence to support Indo-Iranian migrations, & I am definitely not biased. You have shown considerable bias during the discussion on this thread, & on previous threads. It seems that you are a supporter of the out of India theory. I doubt any amount of evidence would convince you that an Indo-Iranian migration occurred even though plenty of genetic evidence has been provided as well. Human genes simply do not & can not lie.



Bang Galore said:


> That is not what I am saying, merely that any opposing argument must be met only by force of facts, not of innuendo & name calling to dismiss debating the argument_(Hindu nationalists etc..etc...). A predetermined conclusion cannot then be sought to be supported by evidence, it must be the other way around._


_

Who called others names here? I repeat, it's highly unlikely that Western scholars are looking for proof to support predetermined conclusions. There might be some bias among a few individuals, but those people are likely to exist among researchers both for & against the Indo-Iranian migration theory. 



Nassr said:



I agree with you. However, identifying a person or a set of people as Hindu nationalists or Hindu/Muslim fundamentalists due to a particular thinking or ideology is certainly not name calling or an innuendo, unless deliberately used in the manner. I am not saying that it is not used as such, what I am saying is that it is for the person to identify the sense of such usage and then respond. Though in the mass that express their views here or other such forums, the sense looses to senselessness.

Click to expand...


Name calling & innuendos do tend to ruin discussions & should be avoided, but it doesn't change the fact that some people could truly be biased in their views. The point is that no one should use claims of being insulted to gain sympathy for their views. 



Babbar-Khalsa said:



Give me solid proof sir ......all these years i have heard/read only assumptions .

Click to expand...


I have provided as much evidence as I possibly could in this post, & in many other posts previously on multiple threads. There is no doubt that more research is required, & it's up to you to decide if you choose to accept or reject the evidence provided so far._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dravidianhero

shan said:


> Nawaz ehinicity is Punjabi and not Kashmiri, anyway that guy is an idiot. Having 30% ASI component doesnt make one Dravidian, even Dravidians dont have 100% ASI genes in them.



so how much of asi makes one dravidian?u r 30 to 35 percent asi+ani and i am 60 percent asi+4o per ani(according to tikolo).u r not much diff than me.if both language and asi dont make one dravidian then what makes one?
Ps:i repeat nawaz sharif doesnt look a kashmiri.he looks like indian


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

dravidianhero said:


> so how much of asi makes one dravidian?u r 30 to 35 percent asi+ani and i am 60 percent asi+4o per ani(according to tikolo).u r not much diff than me.if both language and asi dont make one dravidian then what makes one?
> Ps:i repeat nawaz sharif doesnt look a kashmiri.he looks like indian



30% doesnt make one dravidian just like 30% doesnt make dravidian punjabi. Or 1% african doesnt make them african. You may find people like Nawaz on Indian punjab but outside of it? Bollywood is prime exemple of it where 98% Indians only get to play side roles. 

And actually Nawaz can pass as pretty much every Pakistani ethinciy apart from black tribe Makranis. Kashmiris are more related to Pakistani population then Indian. They will generally have 25-30% of ASI just like Punjabis and not like 70% non-punjabi Indians.

On average pashtuns have 10% less ASI then punjabis and one can still tell the difference on average.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

p(-)0ENiX said:


> What conjecture? You haven't provided any proof & have simply posted source less claims. Genetic evidence does point to a migration, & most of the literature today has no issues with the theory of Indo-Iranian migration. The only people complaining are those that are still obsessed with the old Aryan Invasion Theory. You yourself have been using Max Mueller's debunked theory to derive dates knowing that it's incorrect in the first place. Did you visit the links that I provided you with? The Indo-Iranians may not have known much about Western Iran initially, but as they spread further in to the Iranian plateau, they were aware of it. In fact the Median people who are also Indo-Iranians & referred to themselves as Aryans had an empire stretching all the way to Anatolia. There is no arguing that the Vedic & Avestan scriptures show common geographical names, & the fact that they speak related languages, gives credence to them being related.



Genetic evidence points to what? A migration out of Africa? Beyond that, it is pick & choose. I never said that the Iranians were never aware of western Iran, only that the Avesta is unaware of it. It is fundamentally important to any claims of migration from up North. You have zero idea of what is the prevailing linguistic theory & the dates attached, yet you insist on coming up with the same stuff repeatedly. There is no arguing that vedic & Avestan scriptures show same names? Really? I'm sure no argument from you but no else seems to buy that. The only names common between the two are those of the sub continent. There is no mention in the Rg veda of any geography outside that.



> I have heard of the 8th Mandala being the most similar to Avestan, but that isn't a claim by every scholar, it's only a claim made by some. So please do not provide us with false information.




This is utter nonsense. You are indulging in the most blatant form of lying yet have no compunction accusing others of doing so. Prove it if you can. No Avestan scholar disagrees with what I said. The best that Rg veda scholars who support the AIT have been able to do is suggest that somehow the 8th Mandala was an early one but that has been conclusively rubbished. Very few want to go down that path.




> Regardless, I doubt any of us are experts in Sanskrit & Avestan, but if it's true that the 8th Mandala is most similar to Avestan, it would make no difference whatsoever. Languages evolve over time, they borrow from each other, & the Indo-Iranian tribes were naturally in contact. Sanskrit borrowed many loan words from unknown languages, the point is that the evolution of a language in no way implies that the Indo-Iranian people didn't go their separate ways. Plenty of evidence points to their similar origins. Another important point to note is that the Median Empire began in 678 BCE, just over 2000 years ago, & there is no mention of them that I know off during the Elamite period. The Elamites are considered Semites by some sources, including the Hebrew scriptures.



You seem to have comprehension issues & an inability to read beyond what is convenient for your argument. Never said that they didn't go separate ways, pointed out that one of the homelands mentioned in the Avesta is the Punjab and that was the point of contact.



> So what if the Vedas does not categorically mention a migration or know off any land outside Afghanistan? Some sources use the Vedas to in fact figure out the Aryan homeland, but it any case I will leave that aside for now. Some of your views give the impression that you are a supporter of the Out of India Theory (OIT). In any case, the quote below should be interesting. *Please note that all of my quotes from other sources in this post are in Italic form.*



Please do not bother with issuing certificates. You can assume whatever you want. Your sources are suddenly the only ones that can be "trusted" ? You are picking those"sources" which you think will advance your argument. Doesn't make them correct.




> However, the Vedas do contain vague references to former habitations, such as what appears to be the BMAC and there are references to journeys over mountains and mountain passes. Many place names in Afghanistan are from proto-II words from Central Asia and often lead back to ancient Central Asian enemies of the Arya referred to in the Vedas. One of these is the Parni, associated with the BMAC and later with a northern Iranian group. They had stone forts and well-built cow stables in northern Iran that look a lot like earlier BMAC structures.



Standard AIT rubbish. This is so old as not even to be funny.




> There are frequent references in the Vedas to southward and eastward movements of various groups of Arya.




There are none, forget frequent. This chicanery has long been exposed leaving only the likes of you to clutch at those straws.


> There are no references to westward groups as would be required by the OIT. Some of these movements to the south and east are described in military terms as victorious conquests. There are also references in the late Vedas of movements of the Arya east from the Afghan/Pakistan border to Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and all the way to Bihar.[/I]"



 This theory is not even trotted out by the AIT proponents anymore, this was the original invasion idea.




> "_Given that the Rig Veda is commonly thought to have been written in the Upper Indus region, we have yet one more reason to look at the area immediately to the north and north-west of the upper Indus Valley i.e. the Pamir-Badakhshan region as being a strong candidate for the homeland of the ancient Aryans, the so-called Proto Indo-Iranians. _


_

The Rg veda is written on the banks of the Sarasvati, not the Indus area. All the geographic names in the oldest mandalas are largely those of Haryana. The rest is the usual humbug. So outdated that it is not even funny.



*The language of the Rig Veda and the Old Avesta are so close that they are commonly thought to be dialects such as that spoken in two neighbouring provinces and that further, they emerged from a common language philologists call Proto Indo-Iranian, another name for the language of united ancient Aryans.*

Click to expand...


Ya, that was what I pointed out. The 8th Mandala




Panini, the author of a grammar on Classical Sanskrit which was derived from the Vedic language was a resident of Pushkalavati, Gandhara, which is now part of modern-day Charsadda District in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan and which included the Swat Valley now in northern Pakistan as well.

Click to expand...


No relevance to a migration/invasion theory. The Rg veda speaks of the subcontinent including Afghanistan. Panini came much later.

Archaologists simply accept no major migration to the subcontinent. No amount of cherry picking will change that. Even AIT scholars like Witzel accept that archaeologist do not agree with any migration.





What's the purpose of this paragraph? I am assuming this paragraph attempts to highlight religious differences. They don't mean anything either, religious beliefs evolved in the past among many civilizations including the Greeks & Romans. It does nothing to prove that the Indo-Iranian people weren't related.

Click to expand...


Obviously, not clear to you. It wasn't to highlight religious differences, it was to give you a link to the connection between the Rg veda & the Avesta & what major Avestan scholars say about it. Where the separation takes place was what we were discussion and that was in support. Essentially, if you still don't get it, it means that Avestan scholars agree that the Rg veda predates the Avesta & that the Avesta corresponds to a later part of the vedic period. essentially questioning the idea of the AIT as commonly suggested. This includes some of the above references that you brought in. Answers that.





The unearthing of those ancient cities in Russia, combined with evidence that they are over 4000 years old & that their rituals were similar to those in the Vedas is very important. Your continuous obsession with the Aryan Invasion Theory is infuriating seeing as I already told you that Max Mueller is claimed to have come up with those dates to conform to his Biblical beliefs. The Aryan Invasion Theory has long been discredited. The Aryan Migration Theory that I am discussing should not be considered an off shoot or a variation of the Aryan Invasion Theory. The dates we should focus on are those provided to us by archaeological, linguistic, & genetic researches.

Click to expand...



What rituals? You seem to labour under the belief that no one apart from you can read. I can & so can most archaeologists. They still don't agree that there is any migration Btw, on the one hand you dismiss "Max Mueller" dates and on the other hand you bring up supposed evidence saying something similar in dating. Problem with cherry picking arguments.





I notice that you are also assuming that Andronovo was home to all proto-Indo-Europeans. That isn't correct either. The majority of the Indo-Europeans in Europe have been present there since Paleolithic times. There have been some migrations towards mainland Europe from the east, as noticed by the presence of the R1a haplogroup in Eastern European ethnic groups such as the Croatians. However, as far the Indo-Iranians are concerned, Andronovo was most likely home to mainly the proto-Indo-Iranian people besides a few others.

Click to expand...


My dear chap, there is a pattern required for the linguistic expansion. you cannot make your own theories of who went where & when.




*The authors caution about this evidence of admixture:*

It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, *this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years* (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected).* An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. *Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe.

Click to expand...





Dr Lalji Singh quoted the facts from a study published in the journal 'Nature' in August 2009.

The study had been conducted by Singh and Kumarasamy Thangaraj of CCMB, Hyderabad, in collaboration with David Reich of Harvard Medical University and Nick Patterson and Alkes L Price of the Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

"We studied 1 million genetic markers in 132 individuals from 25 groups of Indians to conclude that they all were mixtures of ANI as well as ASI. ANI shows some lineage to the Europeans," said Singh.

*Questioning the Aryan Dravidian theory, he added: "If true, the theory would imply that only the upper castes of India should have European lineage."

"But the study clearly shows that the mainland populations of India, irrespective of caste and tribe, have a European lineage, along with being a mixture of ANI and ASI."*

Click to expand...


Picking & choosing has problems.



*We will have to disagree on this. I will call you out every time you make claims on either the Rg veda or the Avesta supporting your conjecture but beyond that, there is no point in this discussion. We have no meeting ground and nor is one likely.*_


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

Nassr said:


> As the name Bharat has been derived from the Hindu religious scriptures, its emanation essentially formulates itself as a part of the belief system, irrespective of the reality. If some one states that it did not exist, it may also challenge the belief and I would not like to do this, despite many reservations.
> 
> Within the realm of known history, the sub-continent has historically and geographically been divided in to two distinctly different areas namely, the Indus Valley and its adjoining plains, and the Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains. These two areas have been divided by a watershed which separates these areas. The known history of Indus valley and its adjoining plains is over 9000 years old. In those 9000 years, it has been politically united with Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains only three times i.e. during the times of Mauryan, Muslim and the British rule. For the remaining 7000-8000 years, the Indus Valley and its adjoining plains have remained a separate political entity. Therefore, the area where Pakistan exists today, the Meluhhans existed since 9000 years and therefore, the history of Pakistani landmass is also 9000 years old and most of it has been without any unity with India.
> 
> This has also been stated by a number of scholars like Robert Kaplan, Khan A. Sufyan and Aitzaz Ahsan amongst others.



Lets take an example of Germany and France . They are now different countries but history tells us that down the lines boundaries have been broken and recreated . During Roman civilization , most of the Europe was united under them . Same way the country of Bharat was segregated among various states . The Afghanistan was called gandhar . The gandhara-king shakuni was in the court of Kauravas ( modern day punjabis) ......his sister , Gandhari was married to Dhritrashtra ( Kaurav king ) .

The people of different states had constant business with each other . Ancient Indians were having trade with Europeans and Arabs . Now , to say that Indus valley people had no intermingling with the people of ganges plane is very debatable .

The modern day Pakistan was under a ruler king named King Dahir . I will not discuss his religion here , but he had good relationships with the kings of Ganges plane like Bappa rawal of Rajhasthan , Nagabhatt ( present day Madhya Pradesh), Harshvardhana of magadh ( present day uttar pradesh).


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

Nassr said:


> I have posted this before as well.
> 
> The shape of India is described in the 'Mahabharata' as an equilateral triangle, which was divided into four smaller equal triangles. The apex of the triangle is Cape Comorin, and the base is formed by the line of the Himalaya mountains. No dimensions are given, and no places are mentioned.
> 
> Another description of India is that of the Nava-Khanda, or Nine-Divisions, which is first described by the astronomers Parasara and Varaha-Mihira, although it was probably older than their time and was later adopted by the authors of several of the Puranas. According to this arrangement, Pdnchdla was the chief district of the central division, Magadha of the east, Kalinga of the south-east, Avanta of the south, Anarta of the south-west, Sindhu-Sauvira of the west, Hdrahaura of the north-west, Madra of the north, and Kauninda of the north-east. But there is a discrepancy between this epitome of Varaha and his details, as Sindhu-Sauvira is assigned to the south-west, along with Anarta. There however is absolutely no agreement among the scholars with regard to deciphering the exact location of Sindhu-Sauvira and different scholar state different locations.
> 
> With regard to the detailed lists of the 'Brihat-Samhita' with those of the Brahmanda, Markandeya, Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas; although there are sundry repetitions and displacements of names, as well as various readings, yet all the lists are substantially the same. Some of them, however, are differently arranged. All of the Puranas, for instance, mention the Nine Divisions and give their names, but only the Brahmanda and Markandeya state the names of the districts in each of the Nine Divisions; as the Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas agree with the Mahabharata in describing only five Divisions in detail, namely, the middle Province and those of the four cardinal points. The names of the Nine Divisions given in the Mahabharata and the Puranas differ entirely from those of Yaraha-Mihira.



ok... boundries change as per times . In that times there was nothing like international border lines. Also , mahabharat is quite ancient compared to Varah-mihir . By the time Varah -Mihir was born , states would have changed , countries would have changed . 

I wish i could make a timeline -map of the history of Indian subcontinent . It would be a real difficult task .


----------



## Babbar-Khalsa

shan said:


> First of all kingdom of Bharat is myth, it didn't actually exist. I though this discussion was about historical and scientific facts?
> 
> 
> 
> The first one is from movie and with makeup, seriously even blind person can see the work done on face.
> 
> 
> 
> As if Indians have any say in this. The discussion here is about Akhand Bharat which actually never existed in the first place apart from in minds of Hindutvas.



You just want to turn blind eye to the fact , just to satisfy what your mind wants to hear . even if you deny this , truth will be truth .

The thing which you call as akhand bharat existed . There are many texts on that .

You should read about CHAACHNAMA ( an arabic book) , read about King Dahir of Pakistan , read about Chadragupt Maurya , read about Ashoka the great . 

All the above figures were not myth . The western scholars have mentioned their names on their books . Chinese travellers have written so much about them .

Nothing true would be achieved if you turn a blind eye .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Nassr said:


> There are many Indian scholars who believe that the so-called Vedic Aryans during the period of Rig Veda were inhabitants of the area called Sapta Sindhu i.e. Punjab. It is further believed by these scholars that the habitat of the so-called Vedic Aryans, during the period of composition of the Rigveda, was the central part of this area, the *Sapta Sindhu or Punjab, the Land of the Five Rivers *bounded on the east by the Saraswati and on the west by the Indus. Their eastern horizon was western Uttar Pradesh and their western horizon was Afghanistan. The region in Haryana (old Punjab) known as Kurukshetra or Brahmavarta in ancient times was considered to be the holiest place on earth. However, neither the word Kuruksetra, nor the word Brahmavarta, is found in the Rigveda.
> 
> However, there are many other scholars who now challenge this assumption and state that the habitat of the so-called Vedic Aryans during the period was considerably to the east of the Punjab. That is why I quoted the source of my post by stating that this description has been given by Shrikant G. Talageri in his historical analysis of Rig Veda. He states and goes to great lengths in his book to highlight that it was Uttar Pradesh where the so-called Vedic Aryans lived.
> 
> You may not agree with Mr Shrikant G. Talageri, with whom many scholars do agree with. Of-course there are many who do not agree with him as well.
> 
> I do not know why are you *getting angry with me*. Calm down, I never called you anything. I don not even know if Mr Talageri did that.



1. Sapta-Sindhu - Sorry sir, please look up the meaning. 
2. I am not angry. Slightly amused - yes. 

The Saraswati river is the crucial link. Mentioned in the Rig Veda and also part of the river network that fed the Sapta Sindhu means that Rig Veda was either a later IVC relic(ie derived) or predated it because the area in question is the same.


----------



## INDIC

Nassr said:


> There are many Indian scholars who believe that the so-called Vedic Aryans during the period of Rig Veda were inhabitants of the area called Sapta Sindhu i.e. Punjab. It is further believed by these scholars that the habitat of the so-called Vedic Aryans, during the period of composition of the Rigveda, was the central part of this area, the Sapta Sindhu or Punjab, the Land of the Five Rivers bounded on the east by the Saraswati and on the west by the Indus. Their eastern horizon was western Uttar Pradesh and their western horizon was Afghanistan. The region in Haryana (old Punjab) known as Kurukshetra or Brahmavarta in ancient times was considered to be the holiest place on earth. However, neither the word Kuruksetra, nor the word Brahmavarta, is found in the Rigveda.



Sapta Sindhi refers to seven rivers, Punjab refers to 5 rivers, both are unrelates. Rigveda talks about Yamuna.

The Bharata mentioned in Rigveda are the ancestors of several dynasties but not as a person while the name of Emperor Bharata, son of Dushyanta is the origin of the word Bharat. There is another well known prince Bharata, son of Dashrath and younger brother of Lord Rama.


----------



## Nassr

SarthakGanguly said:


> 1. Sapta-Sindhu - Sorry sir, please look up the meaning.
> 2. I am not angry. Slightly amused - yes.
> 
> The Saraswati river is the crucial link. Mentioned in the Rig Veda and also part of the river network that fed the Sapta Sindhu means that Rig Veda was either a later IVC relic(ie derived) or predated it because the area in question is the same.



I know that in most cases the popular meaning of Sapta is seven and Sindhu is the name of river Sindh. However does Sapta Sindhu mean that there are seven rivers by the same name Sindhu or Sindh or does it simply mean seven rivers as Sindhu in certain cases has been identified to mean a river in Rig Veda. 

Sapta Sindhu are also popularly identified as rivers of Punjab. The literal meaning of Punjab however means the land of five rivers and if one includes Sarasvati (the supposedly lost river), it makes six rivers. Mahabharata however, clearly describes that Sarasvati changed course eastwards towards Naimisha forest which is identified in present day Uttar Pradesh. 

Talageri describes the Rivers of Punjab mentioned in the Rig Veda as; Vitasta (Jhelum), AsiknI (Chenab), Parusni (Ravi), Vipas (Beas), Suturdi (Satlaj), Marudvadha (Maruvardhvan), Sarasvati
Drashwati/HariyupIya/YavyavatI and Apaya. He takes pains in identifying the abode of so-called Vedic Aryans east of Sarasvati. 

In his book "Land of the Seven Rivers", writer Sanjeev Sanyal has argued that the Sapta Sindhu refers only to the Sarasvati and its own tributaries. If Sanyal is right, the Sapta Sindhu region only refers to a small area including Haryana (old Punjab) and a part of north Rajasthan but leaving out most of Punjab. According to his interpretation, Sapta Sindhu is only a small subset of the Rig Vedic terrain and its disproportionate importance derives from it being the original homeland of the victorious Bharata Trutsu tribe. 

It is also been discussed by some scholars Yavyavati may be another name of the Yamuna. However, most scholars do not agree with this. ML Bhargava, in his study of Rigvedic Geography, (without identifying Yavyavati as Yamuna) states that; the old beds of the ancient Drsadvati and the Yamuna ran very close to each other and the two rivers appear to have come close at a place about three miles southwest of ChacharaulI town, but diverged again immediately after. The Yamuna then again ran southwestwards almost parallel to the Drsadvati, the two again coming about two miles close to each other near old Srughna. 

However, in the Valmiki Ramayana (2.65.6) Yamuna is described as surrounded by mountains.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SarthakGanguly

We cannot learn more without more excavations. While these continue in India under ASI, I am yet to hear about latest excavations in ISVC sites in Pakistan. Never ever do I mock anyone. Views - yes, but not you in person. In you is Him. 


Nassr said:


> I know that in most cases the popular meaning of Sapta is seven and Sindhu is the name of river Sindh. However does Sapta Sindhu mean that there are seven rivers by the same name Sindhu or Sindh or does it simply mean seven rivers as Sindhu in certain cases has been identified to mean a river in Rig Veda.
> 
> Sapta Sindhu are also popularly identified as rivers of Punjab. The literal meaning of Punjab however means the land of five rivers and if one includes Sarasvati (the supposedly lost river), it makes six rivers. Mahabharata however, clearly describes that Sarasvati changed course eastwards towards Naimisha forest which is identified in present day Uttar Pradesh.
> 
> Talageri describes the Rivers of Punjab mentioned in the Rig Veda as; Vitasta (Jhelum), AsiknI (Chenab), Parusni (Ravi), Vipas (Beas), Suturdi (Satlaj), Marudvadha (Maruvardhvan), Sarasvati
> Drashwati/HariyupIya/YavyavatI and Apaya. He takes pains in identifying the abode of so-called Vedic Aryans east of Sarasvati.
> 
> In his book "Land of the Seven Rivers", writer Sanjeev Sanyal has argued that the Sapta Sindhu refers only to the Sarasvati and its own tributaries. If Sanyal is right, the Sapta Sindhu region only refers to a small area including Haryana (old Punjab) and a part of north Rajasthan but leaving out most of Punjab. According to his interpretation, Sapta Sindhu is only a small subset of the Rig Vedic terrain and its disproportionate importance derives from it being the original homeland of the victorious Bharata Trutsu tribe.
> 
> It is also been discussed by some scholars Yavyavati may be another name of the Yamuna. However, most scholars do not agree with this. ML Bhargava, in his study of Rigvedic Geography, (without identifying Yavyavati as Yamuna) states that; the old beds of the ancient Drsadvati and the Yamuna ran very close to each other and the two rivers appear to have come close at a place about three miles southwest of ChacharaulI town, but diverged again immediately after. The Yamuna then again ran southwestwards almost parallel to the Drsadvati, the two again coming about two miles close to each other near old Srughna.
> 
> However, in the Valmiki Ramayana (2.65.6) Yamuna is described as surrounded by mountains.
> 
> I wish it was all so simple as you mockingly suggest that it may be.


----------



## Nassr

Babbar-Khalsa said:


> Lets take an example of Germany and France . They are now different countries but history tells us that down the lines boundaries have been broken and recreated . During Roman civilization , most of the Europe was united under them . Same way the country of Bharat was segregated among various states . The Afghanistan was called gandhar . The gandhara-king shakuni was in the court of Kauravas ( modern day punjabis) ......his sister , Gandhari was married to Dhritrashtra ( Kaurav king ) .
> 
> The people of different states had constant business with each other . Ancient Indians were having trade with Europeans and Arabs . Now , to say that Indus valley people had no intermingling with the people of ganges plane is very debatable .
> 
> The modern day Pakistan was under a ruler king named King Dahir . I will not discuss his religion here , but he had good relationships with the kings of Ganges plane like Bappa rawal of Rajhasthan , Nagabhatt ( present day Madhya Pradesh), Harshvardhana of magadh ( present day uttar pradesh).



At the time of Indus Valley Civilization, the land occupied by them was known as Meluhha. Greeks described India as a land east of river Indus (including its delta), which came much later in history and they also did not include the areas of the Meluhha i.e. river Indus (including its delta) and areas west of it. As I said earlier, it was only during the rule of Mauryas, Muslims and British that these areas were politically unified for a limited period, out of a total of 9000 years of known history. I agree that the political units west of Indus may have had good or bad relations with the political units east of river Indus. However, this does not in any way justify identifying the whole area as India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## genmirajborgza786

shan said:


> Amitabh is Punjabi.





his mother tongue is Hindi/Urdu as his dad was from u.p India & mom was from Faisalabad Punjab, Pakistan 

govinda's mother tongue is Punjabi as his parents were from Gujranwala, Pakistan 

raveena tandon's mother tongue is Hindi/Urdu as her dad is from u.p India & mom was from Karachi, pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

SarthakGanguly said:


> We cannot learn more without more excavations. While these continue in India under ASI, I am yet to hear about latest excavations in ISVC sites in Pakistan. Never ever do I mock anyone. Views - yes, but not you in person. In you is Him.



There have been recent excavations in Pakistan. Yes due to the war against terror, the pace is slow in certain areas and the emphasis is waylaid. Though a recent 4000 year grave site was discovered in northern Pakistan, which provided some very interesting information. 

And, I am sorry for the uncalled for remark. I am not very good at understanding some of the icons that many of you ladies and gentlemen display over here. I will remove the disturbing comment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SarthakGanguly

No problem mate. Differences in opinion are always welcome. And if I have offended you, please forgive me too   Recent grave sites have also been discovered near Dwarka as well. Wish there was a joint group for both countries. Sites like Kalibangan, Rakhigarhi, Lothal also show burial sites.
But do you know what is so interesting?

1. In many case the entire body is not buried.
2. Older sites show full body burial (Lothal).
3. Newer ones show that the ashes are buried in earthen pots. 
4. In some cases there was no body at all. Instead only utensils or jewellery was kept!
5. Post cremation burials were also found in places including Lothal.

You can check the ASI site for more details. Fascinating.  



Nassr said:


> There have been recent excavations in Pakistan. Yes due to the war against terror, the pace is slow in certain areas and the emphasis is waylaid. Though a recent 4000 year grave site was discovered in northern Pakistan, which provided some very interesting information.
> 
> And, I am sorry for the uncalled for remark. I am not very good at understanding some of the icons that many of you ladies and gentlemen display over here. I will remove the disturbing comment.


----------



## INDIC

Nassr said:


> There have been recent excavations in Pakistan. Yes due to the war against terror, the pace is slow in certain areas and the emphasis is waylaid. Though a recent 4000 year grave site was discovered in northern Pakistan, which provided some very interesting information.
> 
> And, I am sorry for the uncalled for remark. I am not very good at understanding some of the icons that many of you ladies and gentlemen display over here. I will remove the disturbing comment.



Can you mention any major IVC sites excavated post-Independence, Pakistani people have no interest in IVC because its not related to Islamic history of Pakistan.

BBC News - Mohenjo Daro: Could this ancient city be lost forever?


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Bang Galore said:


> Genetic evidence points to what? A migration out of Africa? Beyond that, it is pick & choose. I never said that the Iranians were never aware of western Iran, only that the Avesta is unaware of it. It is fundamentally important to any claims of migration from up North. You have zero idea of what is the prevailing linguistic theory & the dates attached, yet you insist on coming up with the same stuff repeatedly. There is no arguing that vedic & Avestan scriptures show same names? Really? I'm sure no argument from you but no else seems to buy that. The only names common between the two are those of the sub continent. There is no mention in the Rg veda of any geography outside that.



There is no picking & choosing, the sources that I mentioned for the genetic study are in fact quite recent, I will explain that later on in this post. The most important thing to any claim of an Indo-Iranian migration is genetic, archaeological, linguistic, & historical evidence. I don't see how the Avesta being unaware of Western Iran makes much of a difference whatsoever. The author from one of the sources in my previous post has provided a lot of evidence from the Avesta that you might want to go through again. *As in the previous post, note that all of my quotes from other sources in this post are in Italic form.*

Persia not Part of the Original Listing of Vendidad Lands

_The Vendidad, and indeed the entire Avesta, does not mention Persia or Media. This was because Persia and Media became nations after the Avestan canon was closed. However, The Achaemenian Persian Kings (c. 700 - 330 BCE) repeatedly proclaimed their Aryan heritage._

It's you who has zero ideas regarding pretty much any theory I have discussed including the Kurgan hypothesis & the Paleolithic Continuity theory. At this point you have failed to provide us with any credible evidence discrediting the Indo-Iranian migrations. I never said that every fuking geographical name in the Vedas & Avesta are identical, my claim was that they do mention similar geographical areas. You may want to check your own posts again, because you have made a similar point earlier. 

You still haven't disproved the claims made by other sources in my previous posts. Repeating the same stuff over & over does not help your cause.

The Aryan Migration Theory: Last Word

_It has been known for 150 years now that the Indo-Aryan languages came from outside of India. The evidence is overwhelming, primarily linguistic, but there is also some archeological evidence. In scholarly circles, there is no debate on the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) and there has been little debate for 150 years. It is only among Indian nationalists and a few hacks and kooks that it is not accepted._

_*No memories of an Aryan migration.* Another OIT line. First of all, it is quite typical of most people to have no memories or false memories of wherever they came from. The Romans said they came from Greece. The Gypsies say they came from Egypt.

However, the Vedas do contain vague references to former habitations, such as what appears to be the BMAC and there are references to journeys over mountains and mountain passes. Many place names in Afghanistan are from proto-II words from Central Asia and often lead back to ancient Central Asian enemies of the Arya referred to in the Vedas. One of these is the Parni, associated with the BMAC and later with a northern Iranian group. They had stone forts and well-built cow stables in northern Iran that look a lot like earlier BMAC structures.

The route of migration did not take place over the high passes of the Himalayas and the Pamirs. Few groups have migrated over these treacherous mountains in the last 2000 years. Instead, the migration went from the BMAC down through northern Iran to Herat in West Afghanistan to the Gomal River in near Ghazni in East Afghanistan to the Swat Valley.

There are frequent references in the Vedas to southward and eastward movements of various groups of Arya. There are no references to westward groups as would be required by the OIT. Some of these movements to the south and east are described in military terms as victorious conquests. There are also references in the late Vedas of movements of the Arya east from the Afghan/Pakistan border to Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and all the way to Bihar._



Bang Galore said:


> This is utter nonsense. You are indulging in the most blatant form of lying yet have no compunction accusing others of doing so. Prove it if you can. No Avestan scholar disagrees with what I said. The best that Rg veda scholars who support the AIT have been able to do is suggest that somehow the 8th Mandala was an early one but that has been conclusively rubbished. Very few want to go down that path.



I haven't lied about anything, it's you who should feel guilty for coming up with worthless claims. *This is what I stated previously:*

_I have heard of the 8th Mandala being the most similar to Avestan, but that* isn't a claim by every scholar, it's only a claim made by some*. So please do not provide us with false information. Regardless, I doubt any of us are experts in Sanskrit & Avestan, *but if it's true that the 8th Mandala is most similar to Avestan, it would make no difference whatsoever*. Languages evolve over time, they borrow from each other, & the Indo-Iranian tribes were naturally in contact. Sanskrit borrowed many loan words from unknown languages, the point is that the evolution of a language in no way implies that the Indo-Iranian people didn't go their separate ways._

You have claimed earlier that *every scholar* notes the similarities between 8th Mandala & Avestan. The burden of proof to prove that every scholar has made such a claim is on your shoulders. The point that I made earlier was simple, it makes absolutely no difference if the 8th Mandala is similar to Avestan. It does not disprove the Indo-Iranian migration. The only reason you are quoting text out of context is because you have failed in every way to disprove the Indo-Iranian migrations. 

The Wikipedia page on Mandala 8 has this to say:

_According to *some scholars*, the 8th Mandala has the most striking similarity to the Avesta._

In any case, I don't care if such a similarity exists because it makes no difference & languages evolve or change pretty much everywhere. Your attempts at using linguistic evolution to disprove migration have failed. 

By the way, some sources even claim that the 10th Mandala is the youngest, that may give rise to the possibility of hymns being mixed. That could account for linguistic difference between Sanskrit & Avestan. In any case, I don't care because changes in languages are common.



Bang Galore said:


> You seem to have comprehension issues & an inability to read beyond what is convenient for your argument.



Those comprehension issues are actually applicable to you, not me. You have failed at every post to conclusively disprove any of the evidence that I have provided, including genetic evidence. 



Bang Galore said:


> Never said that they didn't go separate ways, pointed out that one of the homelands mentioned in the Avesta is the Punjab and that was the point of contact.



I never claimed that you stated that the Iranians & Vedic Aryans didn't part ways. You may want to read my post again, in fact *I have stated a portion of my previous post below*:

_Languages evolve over time, they borrow from each other, & the Indo-Iranian tribes were naturally in contact. Sanskrit borrowed many loan words from unknown languages, the point is that the evolution of a language in no way implies that the Indo-Iranian people didn't go their separate ways. Plenty of evidence points to their similar origins. Another important point to note is that the Median Empire began in 678 BCE, just over 2000 years ago, & there is no mention of them that I know off during the Elamite period. The Elamites are considered Semites by some sources, including the Hebrew scriptures. _



Bang Galore said:


> Please do not bother with issuing certificates. You can assume whatever you want. Your sources are suddenly the only ones that can be "trusted" ? You are picking those"sources" which you think will advance your argument. Doesn't make them correct.



I am not issuing any certificates, your views do seem to indicate that you are a supporter of the Out of India Theory (OIT). There is plenty of evidence against the theory you seem to be supporting, while most of your arguments generally tend to be against the Aryan Invasion Theory. The Aryan Invasion Theory has been discredited, everyone's focus should remain on Indo-Iranian migrations. Why aren't my sources trustworthy? Is there something wrong with the genetic studies I provided you with in my last post? I am not cherry picking sources at all, those sources are credible, it's just you that denies genetic evidence. 



Bang Galore said:


> Standard AIT rubbish. This is so old as not even to be funny.
> 
> There are none, forget frequent. This chicanery has long been exposed leaving only the likes of you to clutch at those straws.



You have been dismissing claims as "rubbish" in previous posts as well without conclusively disproving anything. There is no deceit here, & I am not clutching at straws.



Bang Galore said:


> This theory is not even trotted out by the AIT proponents anymore, this was the original invasion idea.



The text that you quoted was from a source attempting to disprove the Out of India Theory (OIT). The Vedic Aryans did migrate towards the east from the Indus Valley, there is no point denying that.



Bang Galore said:


> The Rg veda is written on the banks of the Sarasvati, not the Indus area. All the geographic names in the oldest mandalas are largely those of Haryana. The rest is the usual humbug. So outdated that it is not even funny.



There is no deception involved, but you are trying hard to deceive people by even denying data from genetic sources. You need to learn to give references for all of your claims.

Anyway, here is some general information regarding the Rigveda.

Rigveda

_It is one of the oldest extant texts in any Indo-European language. Philological and linguistic evidence indicate that the Rigveda was composed in the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, roughly between 17001100 BC (the early Vedic period). There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities with the early Iranian Avesta, deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the early Andronovo and Sintashta-Petrovka cultures of c. 2200  1600 BC._

_The geography described is consistent with that of the Greater Punjab: Rivers flow north to south, the mountains are relatively remote but still visible and reachable (Soma is a plant found in the high mountains, and it has to be purchased from tribal people). Nevertheless, the hymns were certainly composed over a long period, with the oldest (not preserved) elements possibly reaching back to times close to the split of Proto-Indo-Iranian (around 2000 BC) Thus there was some debate over whether the boasts of the destruction of stone forts by the Vedic Aryans and particularly by Indra refer to cities of the Indus Valley civilization or whether they rather hark back to clashes between the early Indo-Aryans with the BMAC in what is now northern Afghanistan and southern Turkmenistan (separated from the upper Indus by the Hindu Kush mountain range, and some 400 km distant).

While it is highly likely that the bulk of the Rigvedic hymns were composed in the Punjab, even if based on earlier poetic traditions, there is no mention of either tigers or rice[38] in the Rigveda (as opposed to the later Vedas), suggesting that Vedic culture only penetrated into the plains of India after its completion._



Bang Galore said:


> Ya, that was what I pointed out. The 8th Mandala



I never denied that Sanskrit & Avestan are sister languages, in fact I do not recall anyone denying that. Those languages are bound to be similar, another relevant example would be that of Arabic & Hebrew.



Bang Galore said:


> No relevance to a migration/invasion theory. The Rg veda speaks of the subcontinent including Afghanistan. Panini came much later.



The text you quoted was from a source that I referred to, go back & read it again.



Bang Galore said:


> Archaologists simply accept no major migration to the subcontinent. No amount of cherry picking will change that. Even AIT scholars like Witzel accept that archaeologist do not agree with any migration.



The views of archaeologists change over time, that also makes it clear that you need to provide a time line for their claims. At this point more evidence has been dug up, including the evidence I provided you with earlier, but your bias keeps you from accepting that evidence. Go back & read all of the archaeological evidence I provided in my previous posts. Read up on the Sintashta culture as well, since it's relevant to proto-Indo-Iranians. As far as cherry picking sources goes, it's you who is doing that.



Bang Galore said:


> Obviously, not clear to you. It wasn't to highlight religious differences, it was to give you a link to the connection between the Rg veda & the Avesta & what major Avestan scholars say about it. Where the separation takes place was what we were discussion and that was in support. Essentially, if you still don't get it, it means that Avestan scholars agree that the Rg veda predates the Avesta & that the Avesta corresponds to a later part of the vedic period. essentially questioning the idea of the AIT as commonly suggested. This includes some of the above references that you brought in. Answers that.



That paragraph seems to be a lot more focused towards evolving religious differences. Actually, that paragraph doesn't answer much, & one of the links I provided contains lots of detailed information regarding the Avestan scriptures from what seems to be a Zoroastrian source. Yeah, it's true that the Rigveda is considered to be older than the Avesta, but it doesn't do much to disprove the idea of an Indo-Iranian migration. All it emphasizes is that the Iranians broke off from the Indo-Iranian tribes. Keep referring to the Aryan Invasion Theory all you want, I simply don't care about that theory's concept of invasion at this point. 



Bang Galore said:


> What rituals? You seem to labour under the belief that no one apart from you can read. I can & so can most archaeologists. They still don't agree that there is any migration Btw, on the one hand you dismiss "Max Mueller" dates and on the other hand you bring up supposed evidence saying something similar in dating. Problem with cherry picking arguments.



If I thought that no besides me could read, I wouldn't be having this discussion with an ignoramus such as yourself. If you had bothered to read my previous posts, you would have read the quote from the article referring to the unearthing of Aryan cities. That article is from the year 2010 by the way so this discovery is quite recent, & is evidence of the relations between Indo-Iranian tribes & others in Andronovo. 

The place where Europe began: Spiral cities built on remote Russian plains by swastika-painting Aryans 

_'These ancient Indian texts and hymns describe sacrifices of horses and burials and the way the meat is cut off and the way the horse is buried with its master.

'If you match this with the way the skeletons and the graves are being dug up in Russia, they are a millimetre-perfect match.'_

Recent discoveries & the genetic evidence is changing the views of many researchers, including archaeologists. Archaeological evidence does exist for a migration & I have mentioned it in my previous post. Once again, don't accuse others of cherry picking arguments or evidence before reading up on the evidence from an unbiased perspective. I never brought up Max Mueller's dates from the Aryan Invasion Theory, & sources do point out to the fact that Max Mueller came up with various dates to conform to his religious beliefs. He ensured that any date for the Aryan Invasion to be chosen would be that after the Biblical flooding of humanity. 

I haven't used Max Mueller's dates. The dates provided by those studies in my previous post, as in the one referring to the mixture of ANI-ASI that occurred between 1900 to 4200 years ago has been proven by a recent genetic study. Besides, another important point to note is that the Median Empire began in 678 BCE, just over 2000 years ago, & there is no mention of them that I know off during the Elamite period. The Elamites are considered Semites by some sources, including the Hebrew scriptures. These dates as in the case of the origins of the Median civilization are just historical facts. 



Bang Galore said:


> My dear chap, there is a pattern required for the linguistic expansion. you cannot make your own theories of who went where & when.
> 
> _The authors caution about this evidence of admixture:
> 
> It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe._



I did not come up with any theories of my own whatsoever. You should always post the source of your quotes as well. Anyway, I did some research of my own, & skimmed through the article "Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India" to find your quote.

There is a great response to that text below. *The most important thing to note is that the authors's own study indicates that there was mixture between 1900-4200 years ago. The reason that they entered that warning was to simply point out that another study failed to find such evidence. That is also why they refer to the need for further sampling & new methods to discover ancestry. However, it does not disprove the fact their own results indicates that the mixture took place around 1900-4200 years ago.*

Major admixture in India took place ~4.2-1.9 thousand years ago (Moorjani et al. 2013)


_"It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe."_

_"This is of course true, because admixture postdates migration and it is conceivable that the West Eurasian groups might not have admixed with ASI populations immediately after their arrival into South Asia. On the other hand, a long period of co-existence without admixture would be against much of human history (e.g., the reverse movement of the Roma into Europe, who picked up European admixture despite strong social pressure against it by both European and Roma communities, or the absorption of most Native Americans by incoming European, and later African, populations in post-Columbian times). It is difficult to imagine really long reproductive isolation between neighboring peoples.

Such reproductive isolation would require a cultural shift from a long period of endogamy (ANI migration, followed by ANI/ASI co-existence without admixture) to exogamy ~4.2-1.9kya (to explain the thoroughness of blending that left no group untouched), and then back to fairly strict exogamy (within the modern caste system). It might be simpler to postulate only one cultural shift (migration with admixture soon thereafter, with later introduction of endogamy which greatly diminished the admixture.

The authors cite the evidence from neolithic Sweden which does, indeed, suggest that the neolithic farmers this far north were "southern European" genetically and had not (yet) mixed with contemporary hunter-gatherers, as they must have done eventually. But, perhaps farmers and hunters could avoid each other during first contact, when Europe was sparsely populated. It is not clear whether the same could be said for India ~4 thousand years ago with the Indus Valley Civilization providing evidence for a large indigenous population that any intrusive group would have encountered. In any case, the problem of when the West Eurasian element arrived in India will probably be solved by relating it to events elsewhere in Eurasia, and, in particular, to the ultimate source of the "Ancestral North Indians"."_





_"*A second interesting finding of the paper is that admixture dates in Indo-European groups are later than in Dravidian groups. This is demonstrated quite clearly in the rolloff figure on the left. Moreover, it does not seem that the admixture times for Indo-Europeans coincide with the appearance of the Indo-Aryans, presumably during the 2nd millennium BC: they are much later. I believe that this is fairly convincing evidence that north India has been affected by subsequent population movements from central Asia of "Indo-Scythian"-related populations, for which there is ample historical evidence. So, the difference in dates might be explained by secondary (later) admixture with other West Eurasians after the arrival of Indo-Aryans.* Interestingly, the paper does not reject simple ANI-ASI admixture "often from tribal and traditionally lower-caste groups," while finding evidence for multiple layers of ANI ancestry in several other populations.

My own analysis of Dodecad Project South Indian Brahmins arrived at a date of 4.1ky, and of North Indian Brahmins, a date of 2.3ky, which seems to be in good agreement with these results.

The authors also report that "we find that Georgians along with other Caucasus groups are consistent with sharing the most genetic drift with ANI". I had made a post on the differential relationship of ANI to Caucasus populations which seems to agree with this, and, of course, in various ADMIXTURE analyses, the component which I've labeled "West Asian" tends to be the major west Eurasian element in south Asia."_

Genetics Proves Indian Population Mixture

_"*A new study indicates that population admixture in the pre-caste era occurred, shedding light on our understanding of present-day Indian populations *

Scientists from Harvard Medical School and the CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, India, provide evidence that modern-day India is the result of recent population mixture among divergent demographic groups.

The findings, published August 8 in the American Journal of Human Genetics, describe how India transformed from a country where mixture between different populations was rampant to one where endogamythat is, marrying within the local community and a key attribute of the caste systembecame the norm. 

Only a few thousand years ago, the Indian population structure was vastly different from today, said cosenior author David Reich, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. The caste system has been around for a long time, but not forever.

In 2009, Reich and colleagues published a paper based on an analysis of 25 different Indian population groups. The paper described how all populations in India show evidence of a genetic mixture of two ancestral groups: Ancestral North Indians (ANI), who are related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI), who are primarily from the subcontinent.

However, the researchers wanted to glean clearer data as to when in history such admixture occurred. For this, the international research team broadened their study pool from 25 to 73 Indian groups.

The researchers took advantage of the fact that the genomes of Indian people are a mosaic of chromosomal segments of ANI and ASI descent. Originally when the ANI and ASI populations mixed, these segments would have been extremely long, extending the entire lengths of chromosomes. However, after mixture these segments would have broken up at one or two places per chromosome, per generation, recombining the maternal and paternal genetic material that occurs during the production of egg and sperm.

*By measuring the lengths of the segments of ANI and ASI ancestry in Indian genomes, the authors were thus able to obtain precise estimates of the age of population mixture, which they infer varied about 1,900 to 4,200 years, depending on the population analyzed.

While the findings show that no groups in India are free of such mixture, the researchers did identify a geographic element. Groups in the north tend to have more recent dates and southern groups have older dates, said co-first author Priya Moorjani, a graduate student in Reichs lab at Harvard Medical School. This is likely because the northern groups have multiple mixtures.*

*This genetic datatells us a three-part cultural and historical story, said Reich, who is also an associate member of the Broad Institute. Prior to about 4000 years ago there was no mixture. After that, widespread mixture affected almost every group in India, even the most isolated tribal groups. And finally, endogamy set in and froze everything in place.*

The fact that every population in India evolved from randomly mixed populations suggests that social classifications like the caste system are not likely to have existed in the same way before the mixture, said cosenior author Lalji Singh, currently of Banaras Hindu University, in Varanasi, India, and formerly of the CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology. Thus, the present-day structure of the caste system came into being only relatively recently in Indian history.*

*But once established, the caste system became genetically effective, the researchers observed. Mixture across groups became very rare.*_

The Harappa Ancestry Project reported that study conducted in 2013 over here.

Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

_"The third possibility is that West Eurasian genetic af&#64257;nities in India owe their origins to migrations from Western or Central Asia from 3,000 to 4,000 years BP, a time during which it is likely that IndoEuropean languages began to be spoken in the subcontinent. A dif&#64257;culty with this theory, however, is that by this time India was a densely populated region with widespread agriculture, so *the number of migrants of West Eurasian ancestry must have been extraordinarily large to explain the fact that today about half the ancestry in India derives from the ANI.18,19 It is also important to recognize that a date of mixture is very different from the date of a migration; in particular, mixture always postdates migration. Nevertheless, a genetic date for the mixture would place a minimum on the date of migration and identify periods of important demographic change in India*."_

My previous sources explaining the date quite accurately have been repeated below.

Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, and waves of admixture (migration?)

_"I* want to highlight one aspect which is not in the abstract: the closest population to the Ancestral North Indians, those who contributed the West Eurasian component to modern Indian ancestry, seem to be Georgians and other Caucasians.* Since Reconstructing Indian Population History many have suspected this. I want to highlight in particular two genome bloggers, Dienekes and Zack Ajmal, whove prefigured that particular result. But wait, theres more! *The figure which I posted at the top illustrates that it looks like Indo-European speakers were subject to two waves of admixture, while Dravidian speakers were subject to one!*

The authors were cautious indeed in not engaging in excessive speculation. The term Indo-Aryan only shows up in the notes, not in the body of the main paper. But the historical and philological literature is references:

The dates we report have significant implications for Indian history in the sense that they document a period of demographic and cultural change in which mixture between highly differentiated populations became pervasive before it eventually became uncommon. *The period of around 1,9004,200 years BP was a time of profound change in India, characterized by the deurbanization of the Indus civilization, increasing population density in the central and downstream portions of the Gangetic system, shifts in burial practices, and the likely first appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion in the subcontinent. The shift from widespread mixture to strict endogamy that we document is mirrored in ancient Indian texts.*

*"What these results imply is that there was admixture between very distinct populations in the period between 0 and 2000 B.C. By distinct, I mean to imply that the last common ancestors of the Ancestral North Indians and Ancestral South Indians probably date to ~50,000 years ago. The population in the Reich data set with the lowest fraction of ANI are the Paniya (~20%). One of those with higher fractions of ANI (70%) are Kashmiri Pandits. It does not take an Orientalist with colonial motives to infer that the ancient Vedic passages which are straightforwardly interpreted in physical anthropological terms may actually refer to ethnic conflicts in concrete terms, and not symbolic ones.*

Finally, the authors note that uniparental lineages (mtDNA and Y) seem to imply that the last common ancestors of the ANI with other sampled West Eurasian groups dates to ~10,000 years before the present. This leads them to suggest that the ANI may not have come from afar necessarily. That is, the Georgian element is a signal of a population which perhaps diverged ~10,000 years ago, during the early period of agriculture in West Asia, and occupied the marginal fringes of South Asia, as in sites such as Mehrgarh in Balochistan._

This should be more than enough genetic evidence for an Indo-Iranian migration, & the interesting thing is that the people in the northwestern regions of the Sub-Continent have mixed with other Indo-Europeans more than once. 



Bang Galore said:


> _Dr Lalji Singh quoted the facts from a study published in the journal 'Nature' in August 2009.
> 
> The study had been conducted by Singh and Kumarasamy Thangaraj of CCMB, Hyderabad, in collaboration with David Reich of Harvard Medical University and Nick Patterson and Alkes L Price of the Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
> 
> "We studied 1 million genetic markers in 132 individuals from 25 groups of Indians to conclude that they all were mixtures of ANI as well as ASI. ANI shows some lineage to the Europeans," said Singh.
> 
> Questioning the Aryan Dravidian theory, he added: "If true, the theory would imply that only the upper castes of India should have European lineage."
> 
> "But the study clearly shows that the mainland populations of India, irrespective of caste and tribe, have a European lineage, along with being a mixture of ANI and ASI."_
> 
> Picking & choosing has problems.



You have been cherry picking sources & quotes to somehow prove your biased point of view. The sources above disprove those claims & I shall add one more source to disprove the Out of India Theory. As far as the quote above goes, it seems that you didn't understand it all. The reason many people in the Sub-Continent have a degree of both ANI & ASI mixture is because the Indo-Iranian migrants married many of the local women. That is already know, & it doesn't discredit the fact that the majority of their settlements remained in the northwestern & northern regions of the Sub-Continent. 

Origins of R1a1a in or near Europe (aka. R1a1a out of India theory looks like a dud)

Ten years ago, Passarino et al. released a paper focusing on the origins and spread of R1a1a (back then known as Eu19). They did this by studying the frequency and diversity of the 49a,f/TaqI haplotype 11, which appeared to be linked to R1a1a. The conclusion was that R1a1a most likely originated in present day Ukraine, and expanded from there into Europe and Asia. However, a couple years later, STR diversity became the method of choice for studying Y-DNA haplogroup origins and expansions, and the information provided by 49a,f/TaqI Ht11 was basically ignored.

Despite lots of quirky results since then, like placing the ancestors of some modern populations far in Northern Europe when it was still covered with massive ice sheets (see here), no one in academia attempted to challenge the new methodology until this year (see here). However, in the meantime, it was "discovered" that India harbored the greatest diversity in R1a1a STRs, and was thus hailed as the place of origin of this widespread paternal marker.

It seems we've now come full circle, because latest work on the SNP structure within R1a1a shows that India has very low R1a1a diversity. For instance, all Indians tested to date for newly discovered R1a1a SNPs, mostly as part of various private Y-DNA projects, have come back positive for the Z93 mutation. This marker is not upstream to any European R1a1a subclades. In fact, most Eastern Europeans tested to date have come back ancestral for Z93. *This information gels very well with ancient DNA results, which show a movement of light-pigmented European-like groups deep into Asia during the early metal ages from somewhere in West Eurasia* (see here). 

The news just in, courtesy of the R1a and Subclades Y-DNA Project, is that the Z283 SNP ties together the three major European R1a1a subclades. These are R1a1a1-Z284, largely found in Scandinavia, R1a1a1-M458, characteristic of Western Slavic and Eastern German populations, and R1a1a1-Z280, of Central and Eastern Europe. The primary distribution of Z283 shows an uncanny resemblance to that of the former Corded Ware cultural horizon of Northern Europe. Below is a map of the Corded Ware zone from Haak et al. 2008, which describes the discovery of R1a1a in the ancient remains from a Corded Ware burial in what is now Eastern Germany.




Ancient Siberians carrying R1a1 had light eyes - take 2

_"Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. *Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe.* Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization."_




There are 3 major hypothesis regarding the spread of proto-Indo-Europeans in Europe. The Kurgan hypothesis, the Anatolian hypothesis, & the Paleolithic continuity theory. The Kurgan hypothesis suggests that proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from a region above Anatolia towards Europe, Central Asia, & eventually our lands. It initially suggested some sorts of invasions as Indo-European horse riders spread their patriarchal & warfare filled culture. While there is genetic & to some extent historic & archaeological evidence for this theory, there is no archaeological evidence of major wars, that suggests what was more likely to have occurred is migration. The Anatolian hypothesis refers to Indo-Europeans expanding for agricultural reasons, but the theory fails linguistically due to differences in vocabulary between Indo-European languages for agricultural terms.*

The Paleolithic Continuity Theory focuses on Europe & determines that 80% of European genetic stock has existed since Paleolithic times. This suggests that there were other Indo-Europeans that lived in Europe before the expansion of other proto-Indo-Europeans from Central Asia & the East. Uralic people & the speakers of Uralic languages are evidence of the fact that Indo-Europeans had been present in Europe since Paleolithic times. The problem with this theory is that there are considerable genetic variations in Europe itself. So as far as Europe is concerned, the population's origins are a mix of Indo-Europeans from Paleolithic times combined with certain migrations from Central Asia in Eastern Europe. The proof of those migrations comes from the genetic study regarding Croatians that I mentioned previously. However, as far as our lands are concerned, the Indo-Iranians arrived in Afghanistan, Iran, & Indus from Central Asia, Southern Russia, or Andronovo as per the evidence gathered so far. This should be sufficient evidence to prove that the Indo-Iranian tribes migrated. I think more than enough evidence has been provided to prove the existence of ancient Indo-European people in Andronovo as well. 



Bang Galore said:


> *We will have to disagree on this. I will call you out every time you make claims on either the Rg veda or the Avesta supporting your conjecture but beyond that, there is no point in this discussion. We have no meeting ground and nor is one likely.*





Every time you call me out, I will have the data available to refute & annihilate your worthless claims. You have failed in your attempts to disprove an Indo-Iranian migration. At this point, all the linguistic, archaeological, & overwhelming amount of genetic evidence points to an Indo-Iranian migration. Plenty of material for migration is present in this apparently Zoroastrian source, & it refers to the Avesta & even the Vedas many times. Some sources that I provided in my previous post have managed to use the Vedas to refer to other regions as in the BactriaMargiana Archaeological Complex. The unearthing of those Aryan cities also indicates the similarity between Vedic culture & that in Andronovo. It is easy proof of a relation between the Indo-Aryan people & those that resided in Andronovo. Basically, it's your worthless conjecture that you have failed to defend. If you do not want to continue this discussion, then stop replying to me. The only reason there is no meeting ground is because you display considerable bias against the idea of Indo-Iranian migrations in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence in its support. People may choose to deny any amount of evidence, but denial of evidence does not change reality. 

There is no doubt that more research is needed & I am sure that future research shall provide people with even better answers.


----------



## Bang Galore

p(-)0ENiX said:


> At this point you have failed to provide us with any credible evidence discrediting the Indo-Iranian migrations.



People making a claim should be able to prove it. No archaeologist agrees.



> I never said that every fuking geographical name in the Vedas & Avesta are identical, my claim was that they do mention similar geographical areas.



The Rg veda speaks of no lands outside the subcontinent & Afghanistan. As I have pointed out the Avesta lists the hapta h&#601;ndu as one of their original homelands which is the same as the Sanskrit Sapta Sindhu .. There ends any commonality. You said there were common names, maybe you should list them.



> It has been known for 150 years now that the Indo-Aryan languages came from outside of India. The evidence is overwhelming, primarily linguistic, but there is also some archeological evidence. In scholarly circles, there is no debate on the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) and there has been little debate for 150 years. It is only among Indian nationalists and a few hacks and kooks that it is not accepted.



Calling anyone hacks & Kooks only speaks of those making such comments. In archaeological circles, there is absolute dismissal of any migration/invasion theory.



> However, the Vedas do contain vague references to former habitations, such as what appears to be the BMAC and there are references to journeys over mountains and mountain passes.



There are none.




> The route of migration did not take place over the high passes of the Himalayas and the Pamirs. Few groups have migrated over these treacherous mountains in the last 2000 years. Instead, the migration went from the BMAC down through northern Iran to Herat in West Afghanistan to the Gomal River in near Ghazni in East Afghanistan to the Swat Valley.




They might well have gone via the U.S. for all the evidence there is.



> There are frequent references in the Vedas to southward and eastward movements of various groups of Arya. There are no references to westward groups as would be required by the OIT. Some of these movements to the south and east are described in military terms as victorious conquests. There are also references in the late Vedas of movements of the Arya east from the Afghan/Pakistan border to Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and all the way to Bihar.




There are zero references to a supposed eastward movement an certainly not from Pakistan/Afghanistan. The oldest 3 mandalas of the Rg veda are unaware of even the Indus and are aware of no places outside of the Sarasvati+U.P. area.



> I haven't lied about anything, it's you who should feel guilty for coming up with worthless claims. *This is what I stated previously:*



Start with calling people liars & that is all you will get in return. Pointless. 



> _I have heard of the 8th Mandala being the most similar to Avestan, but that* isn't a claim by every scholar, it's only a claim made by some*. So please do not provide us with false information. Regardless, I doubt any of us are experts in Sanskrit & Avestan, *but if it's true that the 8th Mandala is most similar to Avestan, it would make no difference whatsoever*. Languages evolve over time, they borrow from each other, & the Indo-Iranian tribes were naturally in contact. Sanskrit borrowed many loan words from unknown languages, the point is that the evolution of a language in no way implies that the Indo-Iranian people didn't go their separate ways._



No one has ever disputed that. Point out any dispute first before being in a hurry to call names. Contrary to what you believe, it does make a difference because it calls into question the oft quoted idea that the Indo-Aryans & the Iranians separated near Afghanistan on a migration to India and that the Rg veda was supposedly composed thereafter. If the language connection _(which you haven't denied)_ comes somewhere after the bulk of the vedas were composed, then the nature of the connection is automatically brought into question. Add to that the fact that the Avesta lists the Hapta H&#601;ndu as one of the their ancient homelands while being unaware of western Iran, it raised more questions on the supposed nature of the migration or the source of contact with the vedic aryans.



> You have claimed earlier that *every scholar* notes the similarities between 8th Mandala & Avestan. The burden of proof to prove that every scholar has made such a claim is on your shoulders. The point that I made earlier was simple, it makes absolutely no difference if the 8th Mandala is similar to Avestan. It does not disprove the Indo-Iranian migration. The only reason you are quoting text out of context is because you have failed in every way to disprove the Indo-Iranian migrations.



See above.




> In any case, I don't care if such a similarity exists because it makes no difference & languages evolve or change pretty much everywhere. Your attempts at using linguistic evolution to disprove migration have failed.



Makes plenty of difference which is why this fact has surprised & confused the AIT proponents for over a century.




> By the way, some sources even claim that the 10th Mandala is the youngest, that may give rise to the possibility of hymns being mixed. That could account for linguistic difference between Sanskrit & Avestan. In any case, I don't care because changes in languages are common.



Everyone agrees that the 10th mandala is the youngest, the language there is different from the rest of the Rg veda. Why would that surprise anyone & what is the question being raised here?




> I am not issuing any certificates, your views do seem to indicate that you are a supporter of the Out of India Theory (OIT). There is plenty of evidence against the theory you seem to be supporting, while most of your arguments generally tend to be against the Aryan Invasion Theory.



Disputing proof of an theory is not the same as supporting some other unless you happen to believe in the adage of "if you are not with us, you are against us".




> The text that you quoted was from a source attempting to disprove the Out of India Theory (OIT). The Vedic Aryans did migrate towards the east from the Indus Valley, there is no point denying that.



Oh yes, there is "completely denying" that. You cannot prove that on the basis of the Rg veda which didn't even speak of the Indus in the first 3 mandalas.





> _It is one of the oldest extant texts in any Indo-European language. Philological and linguistic evidence indicate that the Rigveda was composed in the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, roughly between 17001100 BC (the early Vedic period). There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities with the early Iranian Avesta, deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the early Andronovo and Sintashta-Petrovka cultures of c. 2200  1600 BC._



Linguistic & cultural similarities in the 8th mandala. Makes the rest of the quote infructuous. 





> _The geography described is consistent with that of the Greater Punjab: Rivers flow north to south, the mountains are relatively remote but still visible and reachable (Soma is a plant found in the high mountains, and it has to be purchased from tribal people). Nevertheless, the hymns were certainly composed over a long period, with the oldest (not preserved) elements possibly reaching back to times close to the split of Proto-Indo-Iranian (around 2000 BC) Thus there was some debate over whether the boasts of the destruction of stone forts by the Vedic Aryans and particularly by Indra refer to cities of the Indus Valley civilization or whether they rather hark back to clashes between the early Indo-Aryans with the BMAC in what is now northern Afghanistan and southern Turkmenistan (separated from the upper Indus by the Hindu Kush mountain range, and some 400 km distant)._


_

The Rg veda speaks clearly of only the Indian sub continent. This is what i mean by cherry picking sources. These ridiculous ideas have been completely discredited.




While it is highly likely that the bulk of the Rigvedic hymns were composed in the Punjab, even if based on earlier poetic traditions, there is no mention of either tigers or rice[38] in the Rigveda (as opposed to the later Vedas), suggesting that Vedic culture only penetrated into the plains of India after its completion.

Click to expand...

_
That is funny. You are still talking the old discarded ideas. Tigers were not necessarily found only on the region that they are present in now. IVC seals have tigers on them. Tigers were found all the way to the Caspian sea. Maybe there is no migration then . As far as rice not being mentioned, no direct mention of any other grain is made. Rice preparations are mentioned though.




> The views of archaeologists change over time, that also makes it clear that you need to provide a time line for their claims. At this point more evidence has been dug up, including the evidence I provided you with earlier, but your bias keeps you from accepting that evidence. Go back & read all of the archaeological evidence I provided in my previous posts. Read up on the Sintashta culture as well, since it's relevant to proto-Indo-Iranians. As far as cherry picking sources goes, it's you who is doing that.



That remains current position of the archaeologists. No acceptance is made except by those claiming such connections about any link. Also be clear that the way this works is with an assumption of migration in the first place. There is nothing to suggest the link flows one way or the other.



> That paragraph seems to be a lot more focused towards evolving religious differences. Actually, that paragraph doesn't answer much, & one of the links I provided contains lots of detailed information regarding the Avestan scriptures from what seems to be a Zoroastrian source. Yeah, it's true that the Rigveda is considered to be older than the Avesta, but it doesn't do much to disprove the idea of an Indo-Iranian migration. All it emphasizes is that the Iranians broke off from the Indo-Iranian tribes. Keep referring to the Aryan Invasion Theory all you want, I simply don't care about that theory's concept of invasion at this point.



As i said earlier, you keep missing the point. The nature of change of mythology is a good indicator of connections between Indo-Aryans & Iranians. If the Avesta is drawing from a late period of the vedic age, then any question of an early separation outside the subcontinent which gets trotted out is called into question. The emphasis is not on breaking from India-Aryans(that is not disputed at all :lol but when & in what context. It is reasonably clar from both the Avesta's own statement and the connection f the evolved mythology that the Iranians had the contact with the Aryans inn the land they mentioned -hapta h&#601;ndu. The connection does not prove migration is the argument.




> If I thought that no besides me could read, I wouldn't be having this discussion with an ignoramus such as yourself.



Ignoramus? More name calling ? Won't help your cause though.


> _'These ancient Indian texts and hymns describe sacrifices of horses and burials and the way the meat is cut off and the way the horse is buried with its master.
> 'If you match this with the way the skeletons and the graves are being dug up in Russia, they are a millimetre-perfect match.'_



This is where it gets very interesting. This involves horse sacrifices & the Rg vedic myth of Dadhyanc. The problem for those making this argument is this. Both horse sacrifices & the myth of Dadhyanc are found only in the late Books of the Rg veda. Extraordinary, no? The early books which should have been the ones with any memory of any such sacrifice, not an evolution of the myth in the late books generations later. How does this fit in with the facts? Direction of transference is based on what here ? Only on a subscription to a theory of migration in the first place and to a specific direction of migration. This is similar to the supposed linguistic evidence from the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic languages often cited. Not only is the direction of transference one way*(towards the Uralic)*, it also supposedly has words for Bactrian camels which the supposedly migrating Indo-Iranians were yet to come across till they reached centrals Asia. That should tell you something about what gets pushed in such debates. Easy to buy if you are not aware of what exactly you are buying.




> The reason that they entered that warning was to simply point out that another study failed to find such evidence.



They also said it is entirely consistent with the ANI being in the sub continent. Let us wait for a study to state any connection more clearly. we will till then, pick what we want.



> Every time you call me out, I will have the data available to refute & annihilate your worthless claims.




Annihilate? Worthless? We will let others decide that, shall we?



> You have failed in your attempts to disprove an Indo-Iranian migration. At this point, all the linguistic, archaeological, & overwhelming amount of genetic evidence points to an Indo-Iranian migration.



No migration proved. Not for me to disprove it. No archaeological evidence exists, no archaeologist buys that, the genetic evidence allows for a very different opinion and there it will remain regardless of _worthless _attempts at _annihilation_.


> Some sources that I provided in my previous post have managed to use the Vedas to refer to other regions as in the BactriaMargiana Archaeological Complex.



As I said the sources could well refer to the U.S. for all the evidence there is, There is simply no such evidence.


> The unearthing of those Aryan cities also indicates the similarity between Vedic culture & that in Andronovo. It is easy proof of a relation between the Indo-Aryan people & those that resided in Andronovo. Basically, it's your worthless conjecture that you have failed to defend.



There are no "Aryan" cities anywhere outside of Iran & the sub-continent regardless of who wants to use those names. All there are is a supposed connection something that I pointed out proved nothing. The "worthless" conjecture (like yours is actually worth anything) was never stated, so not defended. all I did was to keep poking holes in your "worthy:" conjecture.



> If you do not want to continue this discussion, then stop replying to me.



Fine by me. Do likewise.



> The only reason there is no meeting ground is because you display considerable bias against the idea of Indo-Iranian migrations in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence in its support. People may choose to deny any amount of evidence, but denial of evidence does not change reality.



...and the reverse applies to you. No overwhelming evidence. Maybe you should take that up with the archaeologists who haven't learned from you. Your denials changes no reality.




> There is no doubt that more research is needed & I am sure that future research shall provide people with even better answers.



There we agree and there I shall leave it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

> *No trace of demographic disruption in the North-West of the subcontinent between 4500 and 800 BCE; this negates the possibility of any massive intrusion, by so-called Indo-Aryans or other populations, during that period.*
> Deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. *Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.*
> Haplogroup U, being common to North Indian and Caucasoid populations, was found in tribes of eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals, which would not be the case if it had been introduced through Indo-Aryans. Such is also the case of the haplogroup M, another marker frequently mentioned in the early literature as evidence of an invasion: in reality, haplogroup M occurs with a high frequency, averaging about 60%, across most Indian population groups, irrespective of geographical location of habitat. Tribal populations have higher frequencies of haplogroup M than caste populations.



*- U.S. anthropologists Kenneth Kennedy, John Lukacs and Brian Hemphill.*



> _* 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.*_



_- U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell._



> There is a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation.



*- Scientists Susanta Roychoudhury and thirteen others studying 644 samples of mtDNA from ten Indian ethnic groups.*



> 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.




*- Twenty authors headed by Kivisild - Archaeogenetics of Europe - 2000.*



> Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among their present-day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the linguistically defined groups in India should be considered more autochthonous than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent.




*- Mait Metspalu and fifteen co-authors analyzing 796 Indian and 436 Iranian mtDNAs. 2001.*



> Geneticist Toomas Kivisild led a study (2003) in which comparisons of the diversity of R1a1 (R-M17) haplogroup in Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Central Asian, Czech and Estonian populations. The study showed that the diversity of R1a1 in India, Pakistan, and Iran, is higher than in Czechs (40%), and Estonians[12].
> Kivisild came to the conclusion that "southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup": "Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe. This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup".[12]
> Given the geographic spread and STR diversities of sister clades R1 and R2, the latter of which is restricted to India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern central Asia, it is possible that southern and western Asia were the source for R1 and R1a differentiation. 




*- Kivilsid - 2003*




> 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.




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



> The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward.
> The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family.
> Southern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions. As a result, it was not possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations between the caste and tribal pools, a conclusion that directly clashes with the Aryan invasion theory which purports that male European Aryans chased tribal adivasis and aboriginals down south.




*Sanghamitra Sahoo, T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap. - 2006.*




> When Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, he first reached South-West Asia around 75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts of the world. In simple terms, except for Africans, all humans have ancestors in the North-West of the Indian peninsula. In particular, one migration started around 50,000 BP towards the Middle East and Western Europe: indeed, nearly all Europeans  and by extension, many Americans  can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia.




*-Lluís Quintana-Murci,Vincent Macaulay,Stephen Oppenheimer,Michael Petraglia,and their associates*



> 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.




*-Stephen Oppenheimer*



> 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.


*
- Sharma et al 2009*



> *"This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide."
> "There is no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India."*
> The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally upper and lower castes and tribal groups. "The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society."
> "Impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different."
> The present-day Indian population is a mix of ancient north and south bearing the genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations - the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI).
> "The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,'' said Thangarajan. He added, "At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India."
> The study also helps understand why the incidence of genetic diseases among Indians is different from the rest of the world. Singh said that 70% of Indians were burdened with genetic disorders and the study could help answer why certain conditions restricted themselves to one population. For instance, breast cancer among Parsi women, motor neuron diseases among residents of Tirupati and Chittoor, or sickle cell anaemia among certain tribes in central India and the North-East can now be understood better, said researchers.
> The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world.



*Thangaraj and Singh at a press conference.*
*
"Reconstructing Indian Population History"*
- _David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price & Lalji Singh_
2009


----------



## Bang Galore

_July 3, 2006

*Press Release*
http://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/centerforindicstudies/conf2006article.pdf

*Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert Indigenous origin of Indian Civilization*

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.

Rig Veda has been dated to 1,500 BC by those who use linguistics to claim its origin Aryans coming out of Central Asia and Europe. Archaeologist B.B. Lal and scientist and historian N.S. Rajaram disagreed with the position of linguists, in particular Witzel who claimed literary and linguistic evidence for the non-Indian origin of the Vedic civilization.

Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from University of Memphis clearly showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in 3,067 BC, thus poking a major hole in the outside Aryan origin of Vedic people.

*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._

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bang Galore

*Indo-Iranians: new perspectives*


*There are some strange and quite funny ideas in the 'orthodox' academic theory about Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians. One of these is the idea that Indo-Iranians arrived from the steppes with their horses, substituting the local millenarian civilizations in a mysterious way, imposing a new Indo-European pantheon... If we compare the situation of the Hittites in Anatolia, where they are almost absorbed by the local Hattic and Hurrian and Mesopotamian religions, with many gods with non-Indo-European names, we should be amazed by the strength of Indo-Aryan culture in avoiding any contamination with local Dravidian or Munda gods... It is true that &#346;iva is regarded as a Dravidian god adopted by the Aryans, but then why does he bear a Sanskrit name (and different Sanskrit epithets starting from the Vedas) and not even a trace of a Dravidian one? And where are non-Indo-European deities in the Avesta? Even the demons (the daevas) are Indo-Iranian there... Another strange idea is that Mitanni Aryans had already Vedic deities and were already Indo-Aryans without ever touching India, as if the Indo-Aryan language and the Vedic religion were not something developed in India, but brought ready-made from a totally different environment, and unchanged when transplanted in South Asia. *
_
And when we look at archaeology, we find that the migrationist/invasionist believers try to forcedly see the arrival of the Aryans in every little trace of steppe pastoralists in Central and South Asia. But how these scanty traces, which just touch the Indus Valley and do not interrupt the continuity of settled civilizations of Margiana and Bactriana, can account for a total change of civilization? This reminds me of a cartoon about creationism compared with the scientific method: _






I have the impression that the Aryan Invasionism follows the same method as Creationism. The supporters of the Indo-Iranian invasion from the European steppes of Central and South Asia have no sacred text to defend, although sometimes they use the Vedas or the Avesta with biased (often racial) interpretations. They have a sort of preconceived faith, maybe based on a secret, obstinate Eurocentrism: Europeans must be the conquerors of the Indo-European world, and not the conquered or colonized, they must be the origin of the change, not the recipients. 

So, they already firmly believe that the Indo-Aryans must have arrived there in the 2nd millennium BC, and so we have to find, in one way or another, the facts able to support that dogma. I think that we should rather start from the archaeological facts, and build a theory from there, seeing if we find a harmony with linguistics and textual traditions, and also genetics. Someone could object (with Nietzsche) that there are no facts, only interpretations, particularly in the realm of prehistoric archaeology, but still, there are worse and better interpretations. The evolution and connections of material cultures can give a reliable picture, which can be mirrored by the linguistic and textual tradition. 


What we see in Central Asia and Northwestern South Asia, in the same area where historically we find Indo-Iranian languages, and described by the Avesta (Vendidad 1), is, since the Neolithic, and particularly during the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age, a strong net of relations. In the wonderful book History of Civilizations of Central Asia, V.M. Masson writes at pp.228-9 that the settled communities of southern Turkmenistan in the Late Eneolithic (late fourth - early third millennium BC) "found themselves included in a system of increasingly close cultural ties and ethnic shifts which encompassed an extensive area in Iran, Afghanistan and north-western India/Pakistan." 
Exactly the area of ancient Indo-Iranians. If there were 'cultural ties', they should have spoken a common language, and why not Indo-Iranian as in the later centuries, the same language of the names of the rivers and mountains of that region, when not substituted by Turkic words? Moreover, if we look at the textual traditions, in the Avesta we have the Airyas as a settled people, living on agriculture and stockbreeding, opposed to the Tuiryas (remained as Turanians in the Iranian tradition), who are nomads (but also bearing Iranian names), exactly the situation that we find in the late Bronze Age and in the Iron Age in Central Asia, with steppe pastoralists in contact with the settled agriculturists of a tradition of millennia of sedentary civilization, well reflected also in the Shahnameh of Firdusi. If the Aryans where the nomads from the steppe, the situation in the Avesta and Firdusi should be completely opposite. Not only, in the hymns of the Avesta (e.g. Yt. 5) the ancient Iranian heroes are often associated with mountains, including the progenitor Yima, who is described as offering a sacrifice on the Hukairya mountain, which is probably in Pamir. Whence came this traditions if they came from the northern flatlands?
So, if we combine Iranian texts and archaeology, we suspect that the Aryans are actually the heirs of the Central-South Asian Neolithic tradition, and not of the steppe nomads, who normally are absorbed by the superior culture of the sedentary civilizations, like the Mongols in China or in Persia. Someone could observe that in modern Central Asia Turks have imposed their languages, but there we have clear traces of migrations and invasions, and Iranian languages were not swept away: they still remain in Tajikistan, in Samarkanda and Bukhara in Uzbekistan, in Afghanistan, in Baluchistan and in Iran, as is shown in the map below.




All regions where we had the Bronze Age culture of Central Asia, rooted in the previous Neolithic cultures, and continuing in the Iron Age till the historical times. As Tosi, Shahmirzadi and Joyenda write (op. cit., p.210): "The process of integration probably took place during the third quarter of the third millennium B.C., whit the result that the embryonic Iranian and middle Asian states of the Early Iron Age were set up between Kerman and Bactriana, from the Caspian to the Helmand. Furthermore, the timing and stages of this process apparently corresponded to, or just preceded, those of the Indus civilization."
The steppe pastoralists in the Iron Age learned from the agriculturists, for instance, in the Tagisken mausoleums on the Syr Darya, they used bricks, obviously unknown in the steppes, but so typical of the southern civilization, since the Neolithic Mehrgarh in Baluchistan and Jeitun in Turkmenistan, from the seventh millennium BC. Probably this civilization had its roots in the Middle East, the cradle of wheat and pulses and breeding of goats, sheep and cattle, but it created a particular Neolithic culture, characterized by barley cultivation and zebu cattle. In this Central/South Asian net, cultural influences went also from East to West. Mehrgarh is the most ancient Neolithic settlement of the region (its origins are dated around 7000 BC), and burials identical to those of the earliest aceramic Neolithic layers of Mehrgarh are found in Mundigak, Afghanistan, and in Altyn Depe, Turkmenistan, during the third millennium BC (op. cit., pp.213-214).
Around 3800 BC in Baluchistan (the technologically most advanced pottery tradition of Eastern Iran) appeared the earliest grey ware, which spread over the Indus plain but also westward in the whole of the Helmand valley, Bampur and Kerman. Only towards the end of the 4th millennium BC grey ware appears at Tepe Hissar II and Sialk IV in the West, linked with the Gorgan Grey Ware typical of the 3rd and beginning of the 2nd millennium BC (op. cit., pp.202-203).
Moreover, in Altyn Depe various Mature Harappan artifacts, like seals (one with a swastika) and ivory objects, were found, and "the influence of Harappa prototypes is evident in a variety of ceramic and metal objects" (op. cit., p.241). At Shortugai in Northern Afghanistan we have a real Harappan colony or trading factory. Shahr-i Sokhta, in Southeastern Iran, has types of burials typical of both the southern Turkmenian Calcolithic and the Baluchi Neolithic-Calcolithic, so that "the new urban configuration of cultural tradition is more likely to have been influenced by a convergence of customs and traditions flowing from the two poles" (op. cit., p.214). And since the Baluchi Neolithic-Calcolithic is regarded as the source of the Calcolithic culture of Northwestern South Asia, the idea that this cultural tradition is actually the 'Indo-Iranian' tradition becomes quite convincing. The western limit of this cultural net was Gorgan, which appears to be the western limit also of the Vendidad sacred geography, where the eastern limit is the Land of the Seven Rivers (Haptah&#601;ndu), that is, the Indus Valley and Northwestern India, called Saptasindhu in the Rigveda. There, the Harappan civilization created a cultural integration in an area which corresponds to the Rigvedic geography, and the hymns of the Rigveda should be dated mainly in the Late Harappan period. In the later Vedic texts, we see an expansion of the horizon towards East and South, but the ancient &#256;ry&#257;varta ('abode of the noble ones') was placed between the end of the Sarasvat&#299; river (Hakra in Pakistan) to the west and k&#257;lakavana, the 'black forest' near Pray&#257;ga (Allahabad) to the east. Maybe it is significant that in that region has been found the site of Jhusi, which has a very ancient Neolithic settlement (from the 8th millennium BC according to a C-14 date), apparently the eastern limit of the cultivation of wheat and barley in India till the 3rd millennium BC, when it reaches also the middle Ganga plain (cp. here the view of Bellwood). Later on, in the Manusmriti, the &#256;ry&#257;varta reaches the eastern sea.

In the west, the land of the Aryas was also extended, by the Iranians. The arrival of Medes and Persians in Western Iran is known in the ninth century BC from Assyrian sources, and probably connected with the Late Iranian Buff Ware which appears around 1100 BC in the Gorgan plain and then spreads westwards . Actually, also the Mitanni Aryans have been connected with Gorgan, because the Early West Iranian Grey Ware (1500-1000 a.C.), found at Hasanlu near Lake Urmia, to the east of the kingdom of Mitanni, has been derived (by Young) from the Gorgan Grey Ware. And the scenes of the golden bowl there have been interpreted through Iranian myths present in the Avesta, particularly Thraetaona . Actually, in the Bronze Age of Margiana, we find also maces with heads in the shape of an animal head, and this recalls the mace, sculptured in the shape of an ox head, used by Feridun, the Persian name of Thraetaona.
So, the Aryan land in the Antiquity included Persia and Media, that is, present Western Iran, as is said by Strabo, Geography 15.2.8: "The name also of Ariana is extended so as to include some part of Persia, Media, and the north of Bactria and Sogdiana; for these nations speak nearly the same language."
But this extension seems to be not very traditional, because Strabo himself says earlier, in the same paragraph, that Eratosthenes so defined Ariana:
_*
&#8216;Ariana,&#8217; he says, is bounded on the east by the Indus, on the south by the Great Sea, on the north by the Paropamisus and the succeeding chain of mountains as far as the Caspian Gates, on the west by the same limits by which the territory of the Parthians is separated from Media, and Carmania from Parætacene and Persia.*_





The Paropamisus is the Hindukush, and Carmania is Kerman: there are also ancient sites like Shahdad, wich, as shown by the objects found in the Bronze Age burials, is clearly connected with Gorgan, Bactria and the Indus Valley. It is interesting that Western Iran, being a recent conquest, was not included in this Aryan region, which included the areas of the Central Asian Bronze Age: besides Kerman, Bactria and Margiana, the Helmand and Arghandab region, Sistan, Gedrosia (Baluchistan). The map here gives even a narrower and more eastern definition of Ariana (the yellow area on the right).

On the other hand, Herodotus tells us (VII.62.1) that the Medes were also called Arioi, but later they changed name.

Pliny the Elder (Naturalis Historia VI.23.20) tells us also something significant in this context:

The greater part of the geographers, in fact, do not look upon India as bounded by the river Indus, but add to it the four Satrapies of the Gedrosi, the Arachotæ, the Arii, and the Paropauisidæ, the river Cophes thus forming the extreme boundary of India. All these territories, however, according to other writers, are reckoned as belonging to the country of the Arii.

Now, the Cophes is the Kabul river (Kubh&#257; in the Rigveda), Arachotae are the people of Arachosia, the satrapy of the Avestan Haraxvait&#299;, the Arghandab river, the region of the ancient Mundigak, the Arii are the people of the Persian satrapy Haraiva, around modern Herat and the Avestan river Haroyu. It is interesting that these two rivers have also parallel river names in India: Sarasvat&#299; and Sarayu. Paropauisidae are the people of the Paropamisus (the Hindukush, as already said). This assertion of Pliny shows again that for Greeks and Romans the Arii were the Iranians and not the Indians, since they were more familiar with Iranian sources. The identification of these regions as India is probably due to political reasons, because they were part of an Indian kingdom, so that the Parthians used to call Arachosia 'White India' (see here). But it is also possible that the border between Indians and Iranians was not so clear, and the people of that region, that is, Pashtuns/Pathans and Balochis, were regarded as practically Indians. And it is true that their languages are Iranian (Balochi is even regarded as a Northwestern Iranian language, probably for a recent migration or Parthian influence), but genetically they are quite close to their Pakistani and Indian neighbours. According to Dienekes' table with 12 components of autosomal DNA, Balochis have 33.8% of South Asian component, Pathans 39.1%, and Tajiks (of Tajikistan?) 17.4%. And the study by Haber et al. about Afghanistan genetics reveals:

MDS and Barrier analysis have identified a significant affinity between Pashtun, Tajik, North Indian, and West Indian populations, creating an Afghan-Indian population structure that excludes the Hazaras, Uzbeks, and the South Indian Dravidian speakers. In addition, gene flow to Afghanistan from India marked by Indian lineages, L-M20, H-M69, and R2a-M124, also seems to mostly involve Pashtuns and Tajiks. This genetic affinity and gene flow suggests interactions that could have existed since at least the establishment of the region's first civilizations at the Indus Valley and the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.

Furthermore, BATWING results indicate that the Afghan populations split from Iranians, Indians and East Europeans at about 10.6 kya (95% CI 7,100&#8211;15,825), which marks the start of the Neolithic revolution and the establishment of the farming communities. In addition, Pashtun split first from the rest of the Afghans around 4.7 kya (95% CI 2,775&#8211;7,725), which is a date marked by the rise of the Bronze Age civilizations of the region. These dates suggest that the differentiation of the social systems in Afghanistan could have been driven by the emergence of the first urban civilizations.





From this data, it appears that Afghans derive from a common ancestral population which split from the ancestors of Iranians, Indians and East Europeans during the Neolithic revolution, which was an age of diffusion of populations in different areas. According to the table S6, the split between Afghans and North Indians is dated 7525 years ago, which is also in the Neolithic period. The split between Afghan Tajiks and Pashtuns is dated 3950 years ago, which corresponds to the BMAC period, when northern Afghanistan, now inhabited by Tajiks, created the Bactrian civilization. Northwestern and Eastern Iranians (Sistan/Baluchistan), as seen above, seem to be separated 6000 years ago, during the Chalcolithic period. According to Tosi, Shahmirzadi and Joyenda (op. cit., pp.200-201), about 4000 BC three main cultural traditions can be seen: a northern tradition between Elburz, Kopet Dag (Jeitun) and Kashan (Sialk), a southern tradition in the southern Zagros, and another tradition in central-northern Baluchistan and the middle Helmand valley (Mundigak). 

Dienekes also remarks that Iranians and Kurds have about 1/10 of South Asian component. And if we look in his aforementioned table at other ancient Iranian areas, we always find strong percentages of the same component: in Turkmens (ancient Margiana), is 13.3%, in Uzbeks (ancient Bactria and Sogdiana) 8.2%, and among Uyghurs (where Iranian languages like Khotanese and Sogdian were used) 8.4%. All this shows quite clearly that Iranians came from a population having strong genetic relations with South Asia. It is true that many Indians migrated or were deported to the Iranian regions during the Middle Ages, but the presence of South Asian DNA among the Uyghurs can hardly be explained in this way. Also North Ossetians, the descendants of the Sarmatians living in the Caucasus, have 4% of South Asian component.
It is also interesting that a study of DNA tribes reveals an 'Indus Valley' STR component (related to Burusho, Tajiks and Pathans) quite strong in the Urals (19.4% of the non-local components). This can be connected with the Sintashta culture of the Bronze Age (2100-1800 BC), typically identified with the Indo-Iranians, because of the chariots and horse sacrifices. There are some interesting remarks on the Wikipedia page about this culture:

Sintashta settlements are also remarkable for the intensity of copper mining and bronze metallurgy carried out there, which is unusual for a steppe culture. [...] Much of this metal was destined for export to the cities of the Bactria&#8211;Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) in Central Asia. [...] The people of the Sintashta culture are thought to have spoken Proto-Indo-Iranian, the ancestor of the Indo-Iranian language family. This identification is based primarily on similarities between sections of the Rig Veda, [..] with the funerary rituals of the Sintashta culture as revealed by archaeology. There is however linguistic evidence of a list of common vocabulary between Finno-Ugric and Indo-Iranian languages. While its origin as a creole of different tribes in the Ural region may make it inaccurate to ascribe the Sintashta culture exclusively to Indo-Iranian ethnicity, interpreting this culture as a blend of two cultures with two distinct languages is a reasonable hypothesis based on the evidence.

About the contacts with the Finno-Ugric speakers, we can add that in the same study of DNA tribes the Finns, among the non-local components, have 6.3% of the 'Indus Valley' component.
The fact that there was trade with BMAC suggests that Bactria-Margiana merchants and metallurgists went north in search of metal sources and maybe of a better climate, in that period of aridification at the end of the third millennium, and started to colonize that region with their fortified settlements with their perpendicular streets, inner square and concentric walls (see here). These fortresses remind of the late BMAC sites of Gonur Depe, Sapalli Tepe, Jarkutan and Dashly-3 (below 1st), which are now dated to the Middle and Late Bronze Age (2500-1700 BC, Sapalli and Dashly-3 are dated more precisely 2200-2000 BC), then are contemporary and even earlier than Sintashta. I remark this, because Kuzmina and Mallory accept the parallelism between Jarkutan and Arkaim ( below 2nd) in the south Urals, and connect them with the Avestan vara, but in order to support the view that Arkaim is the model, showing the influence of the northern steppe cultures on the Bactrian farmers: an exemplary case of invasionist reversal, particularly strange since the Bactrian fortifications represent rather the northern outposts against the steppe warriors, who are not generally supposed to teach sedentary people how to make buildings! On the other hand, they recognize that BMAC objects are found in Sintashta-Petrovka sites 

Arkaim displays also the use of unburnt bricks and irrigation ditches.









Hints of a northward movement from the Southern Central Asian oases are also in Ferghana, a region rich in tin deposits, because there has been found a store of bronze and silver objects of southern origin (op. cit., pp.243-244). It is remarkable that Bactrian camels are among the animals bred in the Andronovo cultures succeeding Sintashta culture (they are dated 1800-1000 BC), and camels were domesticated in Turkmenistan at least in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC (see below); they had an Indo-Iranian name (*u&#353;tra-), which was borrowed into Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages. The predominant physical type of Andronovo people was the so-called Pamir-Ferghana type according to Kuzmina and Mallory , which is more massive than the eastern Mediterranean typical of the farmers of South Central Asia, but was included by G.F. Debets in the Indo-Afghan type, which belongs to the 'Indo-Mediterranean race' (see here). Moreover, skulls of the Andronovo cemetery at Muminabad on the Zeravshan are assigned to the Eastern Mediterranean type, among the funerary objects there were mirrors with handle typical of the BMAC, found also in the Andronovan cemeteries of Ferghana and Semirech'e, and under the Krasnoe Znamya kurgan near the South Urals. Also in the Tautara cemetery on the northern slopes of the Karatau chain, near the Syr Darya, the pottery includes forms imitating the commercial vessels produced in the southern oases. At Kokcha in Khorezm, along the lower Amu Darya (Tazabagyab culture, second half of the 2nd mill. BC) we have vessels typical of Namazga VI, and other objects of southern origin: pins with double-spiral head, earrings with cones, and clay figures.

Kuzmina and Mallory add that Muminabad skulls are close to those found in Zaman Baba, an older site of the Zeravshan (late 3rd-early 2nd mill. BC), which represents the first development of animal husbandry in the region (of cows, sheep and goats), with many southern influences: two-tier pottery kilns, wheel-made vessels, terracotta statuettes, metal objects, beads of turquoise and carnelian.

Masson (op.cit., p.349) makes another curious anthropological remark:
_
While the settlers on the Yenisey and in eastern and central Kazakhstan represent the so-called Andronovo variant of the proto-European race, in the lands along the Volga and western Kazakhstan we find a dolicocephalic Europoid population of the so-called eastern Mediterranean type.
_
This distinction recalls the one made by Herodotus (I.201; I.215; IV.11) between eastern Massagetae (where massa- is an Iranian word for 'large, great') and Scythians, who later went to the West, invading the Pontic region. This correspondence is a pure hypothesis, but the fact that at least some Scythians/Sakas were actually of eastern Mediterranean type is supported by a recent research by Khodzhayov, whose results are so described:

_This article gives an analysis of a Sakaean cranial series from the Eastern Pamirs. The predominant trait combination aligns these groups with the Eastern Mediterraneans. The crania are generally robust by Mediterranean standards; dolichocrany combines with high vault, high, narrow face. This trait combination evidences affinities with the peoples of southern Turkmenistan, northern Tadzhikistan, and central Iran. Somewhat less common is a gracile variant with a low vault, narrow, low face &#8211; a trait complex displayed by the peoples of Namazga, Sapallitepa, Zaman-baba, and the Chust cultures of Western Central Asia and of the Turing-Hissar culture of northeastern Iran. The combination of robustness, dolichocrany, high, broad face, typical of the pastoralist tribes of the Bishkent culture of southern Tadzhikistan does not occur in the Pamirs. Markedly Caucasoid features along with a very low cranial index points to Near Eastern, Middle Eastern, and South Asian affinities. _

The Scythians are the historical Iranian speakers of the steppe. They should be seen not as the bearers of Indo-Iranian languages from the north to the south, but the opposite, as the nomadic pioneers of the Iranian languages (like the Tuiryas and Sairimas of the Avesta), who brought them up to Siberia in the east and Ukraine in the west. The influences of the pastoralists of the steppe reached the south, but they did not bring a radical change, rather the steppe peoples were influenced by the farmers, as recognized by Askarov about the Iron Age in Transoxiana (op.cit., p.441): "The cultural and economic tradition of the advanced southern communities gradually permeated the stockbreeding population of the steppes." Later on (p.451) he writes: "In the south, the economy and domestic architecture of the late decorated pottery culture were identical with those of Sapalli and late Namazga IV (VI?) cultures. The chief occupations were arable farming and stockbreeding, and domestic architecture was monumental - a marked contrast with the Chust culture. [...] an old tradition survived of wheel-thrown pottery, which was completely lacking in the Chust or similar cultures of northern Soviet Central Asia." At p.457 f.: "Cultural transformation in the main oases of Parthia, Margiana and Bactria occured within a clear-cut continuation of local traditions in an area of economics and, to a certain extent, culture. [...] While the settled oases of the south display an overall cultural unity, there are glimpses of original local features that anticipate the cultural features of such ancient people as the Parthians, the Khorezmians and the Bactrians." 
_
So, the Indo-Iranian tradition continued, and was not introduced from the steppes. Indians and Iranians, in their different but contiguous regions, could carry on in evolved forms the civilization of the 'Noble Ones'..._

_Giacomo Benedetti, Impruneta (Florence), Italy, 2/2/2013_


Europeoid races and types | DODONA: Human Biodiversity Discussion Forum
Bactrian Camels and Bactrian-Dromedary Hybrids

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

At this point, you are only responding to save face. *I will reply to your other posts regarding the genetic studies later & that article later. The fact that you included some old genetic studies which have been replaced by modern ones proves your desperation. *



Bang Galore said:


> People making a claim should be able to prove it. No archaeologist agrees.



I have proved it, try & dismiss any of the genetic or historical or even the archaeological evidence I have provided. You haven't proved sh!t at this point. Pathetic! 



Bang Galore said:


> Calling anyone hacks & Kooks only speaks of those making such comments. In archaeological circles, there is absolute dismissal of any migration/invasion theory.



There is no dismissal of the Indo-Iranian migration, in fact most new evidence points towards it as shown by all the evidence that I have provided in my previous posts. The Aryan Invasion Theory has already been discredited & I have already explained that earlier so stop bringing it up all the time. It wasn't me that called anyone "hacks & kooks", the text you quoted is actually text from a source that I quoted. By the way, the term the authors uses as in "hacks & kooks" doesn't seem to be extremely offensive, it just means that those people are being called deceptive cheaters & noobs. 



Bang Galore said:


> There are none.
> 
> They might well have gone via the U.S. for all the evidence there is.
> 
> See above.
> 
> Fine by me. Do likewise.
> 
> Start with calling people liars & that is all you will get in return. Pointless.
> 
> Ignoramus? More name calling ?Won't help your cause though.
> 
> Annihilate? Worthless? We will let others decide that, shall we?
> 
> As I said the sources could well refer to the U.S. for all the evidence there is, There is simply no such evidence.
> 
> There we agree and there I shall leave it.



Some of the above responses are pointless, some are baseless, some are lies or repetitions, others are a combination of different characteristics mentioned in this sentence. The rest just prove you are an ignoramus. Before complaining about name calling or any sort of rude behavior, reread your previous posts & the rude responses present in them. 



Bang Galore said:


> ...and the reverse applies to you. No overwhelming evidence. Maybe you should take that up with the archaeologists who haven't learned from you. Your denials changes no reality.



What do you mean by the reverse applies to me? I claimed that "people may choose to deny any amount of evidence, but denial of evidence does not change reality". The appropriate response would have been "the same applies to you". Anyway, the only person denying & ignoring evidence is you, anyone reading our posts can see that. 



Bang Galore said:


> The Rgveda speaks clearly of only the Indian sub continent. This is what i mean by cherry picking sources. These ridiculous ideas have been completely discredited.



There is no cherry picking of sources, & you have failed to discredit all the evidence I have provided in the previous posts. 



Bang Galore said:


> No migration proved. Not for me to disprove it. No archaeological evidence exists, no archaeologist buys that, the genetic evidence allows for a very different opinion and there it will remain regardless of _worthless _attempts at _annihilation_.



You avoid disproving it because you cannot disprove it. The genetic evidence has been provided from different studies, & has been explained by experts. All of that combined with historic & archaeological evidence points towards a migration. 



Bang Galore said:


> Linguistic & cultural similarities in the 8th mandala.Makes the rest of the quote infructuous.





Bang Galore said:


> Makes plenty of difference which is why this fact has surprised & confused the AIT proponents for over a century.



Linguistic & cultural similarities in different periods on their own mean nothing because both culture & language evolve or get modified over time. 

Focus on the Indo-Iranian migration, not on the Aryan Invasion Theory.



Bang Galore said:


> Disputing proof of an theory is not the same as supporting some other unless you happen to believe in the adage of "if you are not with us, you are against us".



I don't agree with the phrase "you're either with us, or against us", because some people may truly be neutral during a discussion. The point remains that you haven't disproved anything. You are cherry picking text from my responses to reply to, & so far none of the genetic, historic, or archaeological evidence has been refuted. All you have done is dismiss evidence. Your posts don't exactly point towards a neutral opinion, neither do they provide evidence or sources for most of your claims. A claim without an authentic source remains pointless, because anyone could come up with random claims. In fact, you even rejected a study pointing out haplogroup R1a1a's origins without any refutation whatsoever. 



Bang Galore said:


> Oh yes, there is "completely denying" that. You cannot prove that on the basis of the Rgveda which didn't even speak of the Indus in the first 3 mandalas.





Bang Galore said:


> There are zero references to a supposed eastward movement an certainly not from Pakistan/Afghanistan. The oldest 3 mandalas of the Rgveda are unaware of even the Indus and are aware of no places outside of the Sarasvati+U.P. area.



Provide a reference from a neutral source that explains in detail that the Indus wasn't spoken of in the first 3 Mandalas. 

Provide another reference from an unbiased source that proves that the Rigveda was unaware of any region towards the West. 

Sapta Sindhu refers to the Indus river, the word Indus is associated with "Sindhu" etymologically. The accepted point of view remains that the word Indus is equal to "Sindhu". That implies that the Vedic Aryans were aware of the Indus river. The region considered Sapta Sindhu had the Indus river on the West, Sarasvati on the East, & 5 rivers in between. 

The identification of rivers is extremely important because certain names could have been re-applied as the Vedic people moved east. Genetic evidence from previous studies shows that they moved towards the east. As such there is no conclusive evidence that the earliest Mandalas are unaware of the north western Sub-Continent. The text remains open to interpretation. Another point worth noting is that even if a geographical site isn't mentioned doesn't necessarily imply ignorance of it. 



Bang Galore said:


> Everyone agrees that the 10th mandala is the youngest, the language there is different from the rest of the Rgveda. Why would that surprise anyone & what is the question being raised here?



Visit my previous post & read the original text again. 



Bang Galore said:


> They also said it is entirely consistent with the ANI being in the sub continent. Let us wait for a study to state any connection more clearly. we will till then, pick what we want.



I am not cherry picking anything, the response presented from a source that I provided in my previous post clarifies all misconceptions. The data from those studies as well as other studies maintains that there was an Indo-Iranian migration. Besides, the Indo-European groups in the Sub-Continent experienced admixture more than once in the form of Indo-Scythian migrations which are documented. The point is that Indo-European migrants have arrived from Central Asia multiple times & they mixed with the population in the north western regions of the Sub-Continent.



Bang Galore said:


> That remains current position of the archaeologists. No acceptance is made except by those claiming such connections about any link. Also be clear that the way this works is with an assumption of migration in the first place. There is nothing to suggest the link flows one way or the other.



Huh? What link are you talking about, is it the Indo-Iranians? There is plenty of genetic evidence to show an Indo-Iranian migration. In fact some migrations from Central Asia as in the case of Scythians are already known. The Scythians are also Iranic tribes & they were present all over Central Asia. Some sources indicate that they arrived from regions near or around Western Siberia & the modern day area of Turkestan. So we already know that Iranic people have resided in Central Asia in the past. Other evidence comes from the ancient Andronovo & Sintashta cultures & it provides ample evidence of Indo-Iranian habitation & migration, & all genetic studies indicate the same thing. I have provided recent archaeological evidence as well from credible sources & no historian or archaeologist has disproved those researchers studies so far. The views of archaeologists evolve over time similar to pretty much any other researcher. Since you claim to know so much about the views of every archaeologist in existence, provide us with a list of claims every archaeologist studying Indo-Iranians have made since the era these discussions began, all the way up to 2013. Organize those claims by timeline, & explain how every archaeologists' views have evolved over the years. References must be included too. 



Bang Galore said:


> There are no "Aryan" cities anywhere outside of Iran & the sub-continent regardless of who wants to use those names. All there are is a supposed connection something that I pointed out proved nothing. The "worthless" conjecture (like yours is actually worth anything) was never stated, so not defended. all I did was to keep poking holes in your "worthy:" conjecture.



You didn't poke holes in any conjecture or theory whatsoever. You have continuously avoided refuting most of the data & evidence provided in my posts. There is genetic evidence of migration towards the east in Eurasia & in Central Asia. Many of the cultures there are associated with the Indo-Iranian people. Indo-European tribes have been present in Central Asia & Andronovo for a long time. Read about the Tarim Basin civilization, it's people have been considered Indo-Europeans as per genetic studies. According to the study I mentioned in my previous post, those likely to be responsible for the Tarim Basin civilization are Siberians. This shows evidence for a combination of both the Kurgan hypothesis & the Paleolithic Continuity Theory. Besides, if the boundaries of the Tarm Basin civilization are to be believed, then it's in fact quite close to Kashmir. 



Bang Galore said:


> That is funny. You are still talking the old discarded ideas. Tigers were not necessarily found only on the region that they are present in now. IVC seals have tigers *on them. Tigers were found all the way to the Caspian sea. Maybe there is no migration then. As far as rice not being mentioned, no direct mention of any other grain is made. Rice preparations are mentioned though.



What's even funnier is that you failed to realize that the text you quoted is from a source I quoted. Besides, where are the sources for your claims, or are you implying that the Vedas are so open to reinterpretation that a simple matter of locating animals & grains could be misinterpreted? Prove that the claim from that source is discarded, claiming something without references calls your credibility in to question. Besides, that source wasn't discussing the regions where the tigers live, it said that tigers & rice were mentioned in the later parts of the Rigvedas. 



Bang Galore said:


> As i said earlier, you keep missing the point. The nature of change of mythology is a good indicator of connections between Indo-Aryans & Iranians. If the Avesta is drawing from a late period of the vedic age, then any question of an early separation outside the subcontinent which gets trotted out is called into question. The emphasis is not on breaking from India-Aryans(that is not disputed at all :lol but when & in what context. It is reasonably clar from both the Avesta's own statement and the connection f the evolved mythology that the Iranians had the contact with the Aryans inn the land they mentioned -haptah&#601;ndu. The connection does not prove migration is the argument.



Nope, I haven't missed any point. Of course there is similarity between the mythologies of the Iranians & Vedic Aryans. The Avesta's period of being written isn't precisely known without a shred of doubt. There are claims that the Avesta was for a while unwritten but only remembered through oral tradition, in fact those claims are made for the Vedas too. In fact, there are assertions that parts of the Avesta were lost or are missing today. This brings to rise the possibility of corruption & modification both within the Avesta & the Vedas itself. Let's not forget about the mythology present in both books. Combine those issues with the fact that linguists are studying books written in dead languages, & the difficulties involved in interpretation become more obvious. The Iranians & Vedic Aryans have had conflict in their religion as competition between tribes grew. In fact the difference between Ahura & Asura is an example of that difference. It doesn't really mean much considering that their religion later developed separately. Hapta H&#601;ndu is just one of the lands that they have mentioned. The most important land remains *Airyana Va&#275;&#496;ah* & that is the home land of those people. The exact location for that land & is unknown & some scholars postulate that it could be in western Central Asia or Khwarazam, some have even claimed that its location could be Kashmir.* There are Zoroastrian sources available that even claim that it was the Vedic Aryans that forgot about their migration.* Some even claim that only the Indo-Iranians remembered their migration perhaps due to the political or cultural aspects of that time. The point is that tribes have been unaware of their origins many times throughout history & some have even falsified the lineage of other people for political or cultural purposes. The Hebrew scriptures for instance note this kind of rivalry between people. 



Bang Galore said:


> This is where it gets very interesting. This involves horse sacrifices & the Rgvedic myth of Dadhyanc. The problem for those making this argument is this. Both horse sacrifices & the myth of Dadhyanc are found only in the late Books of the Rgveda. Extraordinary, no? The early books which should have been the ones with any memory of any such sacrifice, not an evolution of the myth in the late books generations later. How does this fit in with the facts? Direction of transference is based on what here ?Only on a subscription to a theory of migration in the first place and to a specific direction of migration. This is similar to the supposed linguistic evidence from the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic languages often cited. Not only is the direction of transference one way*(towards the Uralic)*, it also supposedly has words for Bactrian camels which the supposedly migrating Indo-Iranians were yet to come across till they reached centrals Asia. That should tell you something about what gets pushed in such debates. Easy to buy if you are not aware of what exactly you are buying.



That text that you quoted is from an article, the source of which I mentioned in my previous post. I don't know about this Rigvedic myth of Dadhyanc that you mentioned. In any case, what is the date of those verses in the late books of the Rigveda? I could even make another point, that it simply wasn't recorded earlier or that it doesn't really matter whatsoever if some rituals appeared much later in the Vedas. It has no affect on the migration claims, because the point at which something is mentioned in a book that also contains mythology doesn't necessarily imply chronological order. In any case, I wouldn't mind knowing the date of the verses established by researchers combined with perhaps some other archaeologically or historically recorded evidence from an outside source. The Uralic language speakers claim of never having migrated is actually true because of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory. The only migrations that took place in Eastern Europe occurred from the northern & western regions of Andronovo as per genetic studies. A mix of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory & the Kurgan hypothesis is supported by modern genetics.

Closing in on Soma



> The lecture was part of the 'Dimensions of Science' lecture series organized by NISTADS. Soma is a celebrated plant in the RgVeda as well as in Avesta, where it is called Haoma, later shortened to Ho'm in Pahalvi. A drink, also called Soma, was extracted from the plant by pressing or crushing its stalk for offering to the gods and for drinking. Significance of the Soma cult is apparent from the fact that the RgVeda devotes a full mandala to it. The Ninth Mandala, Soma Mandala, consists entirely of hymns to Soma. Similarly, the Haoma plant figures in three hymns in the Avesta. Thus, Soma/haoma was perceived as a giver of immortality, a healthy and long life, offspring, happiness, courage, strength, victory over enemies, wisdom, understanding and creativity. The Soma drink has been called 'the procreator of thoughts'. More realistically, it prevents sleep and keeps the drinker awake and alert. In effect, it was energizing, invigorating and anti-sleep.





> There have been many attempts at identifying the plant in the past but people have often misread the text, said Prof. Kochhar. For instance, people have said it was hallucinogenic. It was not. But the most dubious has been identifying Soma with Somalata and Somavalli. Somalata, used as a substitute in south India, is Sarcostemma brevistigma, which has a very bitter taste, and so could not have been the Soma plant of the RgVedic era whose juice was so enthusiastically imbibed three times a day.





> *When we identify Ephedra as 'Soma' and place the RgVedic people in the Ephedra habitat of Hindu Kush, all the diverse pieces of the puzzle fall into place, said Prof. Kochhar.* The vast Ephedra-growing area in Afghanistan and Iran was occupied by or was accessible to the Indo-Iranians, who could develop a common Soma/Haoma cult. *As the Indo-Aryans moved eastwards, their distance from Soma increased, first cutting down the supply and then stopping it altogether. Finally, in the plains, Soma's place in the rituals was given to the substitutes. In course of time, Soma became a mythical plant. *



The original name for that plant is "amsu", & is a term borrowed by Indo-Iranian languages. The ritual initally appeared in Central Asia.



Bang Galore said:


> The Rgveda speaks of no lands outside the subcontinent & Afghanistan. As I have pointed out the Avesta lists the haptah&#601;ndu *as one of their original homelands which is the same as the Sanskrit SaptaSindhu .. There ends any commonality. You said there were common names, maybe you should list them.





Bang Galore said:


> No one has ever disputed that. Point out any dispute first before being in a hurry to call names. Contrary to what you believe, it does make a difference because it calls into question the oft quoted idea that the Indo-Aryans & the Iranians separated near Afghanistan on a migration to India and that the Rgveda was supposedly composed thereafter. If the language connection _(which you haven't denied)_ comes somewhere after the bulk of the vedas were composed, then the nature of the connection is automatically brought into question. Add to that the fact that the Avesta lists the HaptaH&#601;ndu as one of the their ancient homelands while being unaware of western Iran, it raised more questions on the supposed nature of the migration or the source of contact with the vedicaryans.



The problem is that while you come up with various claims in your posts, there is hardly any source or reference backing those claims up. Common geographical names like Sapta Sindhu are probably the most well known. While Sapta Sindhu is mentioned in the Avesta, no where does it claim that region to be their initial & primary homeland. In fact their initial homeland is mentioned as Airyanem Vaejah. 

AVESTAN GEOGRAPHY



> It is impossible to attribute a precise geographical location to the language of the Avesta. The Avestan texts, however, provide some useful pointers, while their comparison with Old Persian inscriptions offer further evidence: *Geographical references in the Avesta are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau and on the Indo-Iranian border.* Moreover, the Old Persian inscriptions are written in a language different from that of the Avesta. With the exception of an important study by P. Tedesco (Dialektologie der westiranischen Turfantexte, Le Monde Oriental 15, 1921, pp. 184ff.), who advances the theory of an Avestan homeland in northwestern Iran, *Iranian scholars of the twentieth century have looked increasingly to eastern Iran for the origins of the Avestan language (e.g., G. Morgenstierne, Report on a Linguistic Mission to Afghanistan, Oslo, 1926, pp. 29f.; W. B. Henning, Zoroaster, Politician or Witch-doctor?, London, 1951, pp. 44f.; K. Hoffmann, Altiranisch, in HO I, 4: Iranistik 1, Linguistik, Leiden and Cologne, 1958, p. 6); and today there is general agreement that the area in question was in eastern Irana fact that emerges clearly from every passage in the Avesta that sheds any light on its historical and geographical background*.





> The first stumbling-block in the study of Avestan geography is the mixture of mythical and historical elements characterizing all the data we have at our disposal. Actually the tendency has often been to interpret as mythical a good deal of data that probably have historical significance. When tackling Avestan geography, the practice has been to assume that historical elements were superimposed on a body of myths. It was common among the Indo-Iranians to identify concepts or features of traditional cosmographymountains, lakes, rivers, etc.with their concrete historical and geographical situation as they migrated and settled in various places.





> These elements, common to the Iranian and Indo-Aryan vision of the earth, are certainly to be considered essentially mythical when related to the historical periods during which these groups were living on one side or the other of the Indus. Yet they do not seem to be totally devoid of any geographical reference if the so-called nordic cycle of Indo-Iranian mythology is anything to go by. According to some Soviet scholars, the ancestors of the Avestan Iranians and the Vedic Indians, before migrating to the lands they eventually settled in, had lived side by side with Finno-Ugric populations. This would account for their nordic representations, the sacred mountains in the north, the Nordic Ocean and the polar lands (G. M. Bongard-Levin and E. A. Grantovskij, De la Scythie à lInde. &#274;nigmes de lhistoire des anciens Aryens, French tr. Ph. Gignoux, Paris, 1981, p. 112).
> 
> As far as these points are concerned, we must at any rate bear in mind that the great mountain ranges running from the Hindu Kush to the Pamir and the Himalayas could, with their arctic temperatures, have inspired the various successive identifications of nordic, polar elements with the ancient cosmology and traditional geography of the Aryans (G. Gnoli, De Zoroastre à Mani. Quatre leçons au Collège de France, Paris, 1985, p. 17). This could be the explanation of the story of the severe climate of Airyana Va&#275;&#496;ah (see below) rather than that deriving from theories about nordic origins and reminiscences favored by Bongard-Levin and Grantovskij (op. cit., p. 56).
> 
> There are not many passages in the Avesta that refer to historical geography, but they raise a great many problems. In the first place, they are of various kinds because, together with specifically geographical texts like the first chapter of the Vid&#275;vd&#257;d, there are short passages mentioning real geographical features included in all sorts of contexts. The places where the hero offers sacrifices to the gods, a river-bank, for example, or the peak of a mountain visited by the god Mithra, provide occasions for fleeting references, at times containing interesting geographical information. In other cases names of places or areas are associated with names of peoples or characters famous in other periods. This information is found not only in Avestan texts, especially in the Yats, but also in Pahlavi literature, whether of direct Avestan derivation, like the commentaries on the Avesta, or, at least from the textual point of view, independent of it. Examples of the latter category are to be found in some chapters of the Bundahin (IX-XII) and some brief works like the Abd&#299;h ud sah&#299;g&#299;h &#299; Sagist&#257;n (The wonders and magnificence of S&#299;st&#257;n) (recently published by B. Utas, The Pahlavi Treatise Avd&#275;h u sah&#299;k&#275;h &#299; Sakist&#257;n, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 28, 1983, pp. 259-67). These are of great use in the reconstruction of Avestan geography.





> *As already pointed out, the main Avestan text of geographical interest is the first chapter of the Vid&#275;vd&#257;d. This consists of a list of sixteen districts (asah- and &#333;i&#952;ra-) created by Ahura Mazd&#257; and threatened by a corresponding number of counter-creations that A&#331;ra Mainyu set up against them (paity&#257;ra-). The structure of this chapter is very simple: Twenty paragraphs, consisting of an introduction, fourteen paragraphs dedicated to one district each, four dedicated to two districts (two paragraphs for each of the two districts), and a final paragraph stating that there existed still more districts worthy of praise.* It is likely that paragraphs 2 and 14, dealing with Airyana Va&#275;&#496;ah and Ha&#275;tumant are interpolations or later additions, as they interrupt the flow of the whole text which gives one single paragraph to each district. In fact, paragraphs 2 and 13 deal with Airyana Va&#275;&#496;ah and Ha&#275;tumant respectively. The period the text belongs to is uncertain: While the contents and lack of any reference to western Iran suggest that it should date back to the pre-Achaemenian period, the form in which it survives would seem to place it in the Parthian period.





> *The first of the sixteen districts, Airyana Va&#275;&#496;ah, presents a particular problem which is dealt with below. The other fifteen districts are, in order: 2. Gava = Sogdiana; 3. M&#333;uru = Margiana; 4. B&#257;x&#948;&#299; = Bactria; 5. Nis&#257;ya = a district between Margiana and Bactria, perhaps Maimana (W. Geiger, Ostiranische Kultur im Altertum, Erlangen, 1982, p. 31 n. 1); 6. Har&#333;iva = Areia, Herat; 7. Va&#275;k&#601;r&#601;ta = Gandh&#257;ra (S. Levi, Le catalogue géographique des Yak&#7779;a dans la Mah&#257;m&#257;y&#363;r&#299;, JA 5, 1915, pp. 67ff.; Christensen, op. cit., p. 28; W. B. Henning, Two Manichaean Magical Texts, BSOAS 12, 1947, pp. 52f.); 8. Urv&#257; = probably the &#7712;azn&#299; region (Christensen, op. cit., pp. 33f.; Gnoli, Zoroasters Time and Homeland, pp. 26-39; 9. Xn&#601;nta = a region defined as v&#601;hrk&#257;n&#333;.ayana- the dwelling place of the V&#601;hrk&#257;na, where Marquart placed the Barkánioi of Ctesias (Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. 72, 36b-37a), an ethnicon analogous with that of Old Persian Vark&#257;na, the inhabitants of Hyrcania, the present Gorg&#257;n (J. Marquart, Die Assyriaka des Ktesias, Göttingen, 1892, p. 616; idem, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran I, Göttingen, 1896, p. 514, II, Göttingen, 1905, p. 143 n. 1; idem, &#274;r&#257;nahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses Xorenac&#703;i, Berlin, 1901, p. 72 n. 3; Gnoli, Zoroasters Time and Homeland, pp. 39, 235, 236, 239; see Eilers, op. cit., p. 19 on the name Gorg&#257;n) or, less probably, Hyrcania; 10. Harax&#7515;ait&#299; = Arachosia; 11. Ha&#275;tumant = the region of Helmand roughly corresponding to the Achaemenian Drangiana (Zranka) (G. Gnoli, Ricerche storiche sul S&#299;st&#257;n antico, Rome, 1967, p. 78 and n. 3); 12. Ra&#947;a = a district north of Harax&#7515;ait&#299; and Ha&#275;tumant in the direction of the district of &#268;axra (Gnoli, ibid., pp. 65-68, 77-78; idem, Zoroasters Time and Homeland, pp. 23-26, 64-66), to be distinguished, given its position in the list (I. Gershevitch, Zoroasters Own Contribution, JNES 23, 1964, pp. 36f.) from Median Rag&#257; (see above) and probably also from Ra&#947;a zara&#952;utri- of Y. 19.18 (Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, pp. 89 and cf. pp. 40, 42, 66, 254, 279; G. Gnoli, Ragha la zoroastriana, in Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, Leiden, 1985, I, pp. 226ff.); 13. &#268;axra = &#268;arx between &#7712;azn&#299; and Kabul, in the valley of L&#333;gar (Gnoli, Ricerche storiche sul S&#299;st&#257;n antico, pp. 72-74; idem, Zoroasters Time and Homeland, pp. 42-44; D. Monchi-Zadeh, op. cit., pp. 126-27), not M&#257;zandar&#257;n, as Christensen thought (op. cit., pp. 47-48); 14. Var&#601;na = Bun&#275;r (S. Levi, art. cit., p. 38; Henning, art. cit., pp. 52f.; but cf. also Monchi-Zadeh, op. cit., pp. 127-30), the Var&#7751;u of the Mah&#257;m&#257;y&#363;r&#299;, the &#703;Aornos of Alexander the Great, the homeland of &#920;ra&#275;taona/Fr&#275;d&#333;n/Afr&#299;&#7695;&#363;n (Gnoli, Zoroasters Time and Homeland, pp. 47-50); 15. Hapta H&#601;ndu = Sapta Sindhava&#7717; in Vedic geography, the northeastern region of Panjab (Monchi-Zadeh, op. cit., p. 130; but cf. also H. Humbach, Al-B&#299;run&#299; und die sieben Strome [sic] des Awesta, Bulletin of the Iranian Culture Foundation I, 2, 1973, pp. 47-52); 16. Ra&#331;h&#257; = Ras&#257; in Vedic geography, at times mentioned together with Kubh&#257; (Kabul) and Krumu (Kurram), as in RV. 5.53.9 (Gnoli, Ricerche storiche sul S&#299;st&#257;n antico, pp. 76f.; idem, Zoroasters Time and Homeland, pp. 50-53; and cf. also H. Lommel, Ras&#257;, ZII 4, 1926, pp. 194-206), a river situated in a mountainous area (Monchi-Zadeh, op. cit., p. 130, who associates it with the Pamir), probably connected with the Indus, not with the Jaxartes (Geiger, op. cit., pp. 34ff.; Nyberg, op. cit., p. 323) or with the Volga (J. Markwart, Wehrot und Arang, ed. H. H. Schaeder, Leiden, 1938, pp. 133ff.).*
> 
> *There is further geographical interest to be found in another passage from the Avesta Yt. 10.13-14, where the whole region inhabited by the Aryans (airy&#333;.ayana-) is described. The description begins with Mount Har&#257;, the peak of which is reached by Mithra as he precedes the immortal sun: The entire Aryan homeland, according to this passage, consisted of the districts of Ikata and Peruta, Margiana and Areia, Gava, Sogdiana, and Chorasmia.* The names of Sogdiana, Sux&#948;&#601;m, and Chorasmia, X&#7515;&#257;iriz&#601;m, appear here, as E. Benveniste has demonstrated (L&#274;r&#257;n-v&#7701; et lorigine legendaire des iraniens, BSOAS 7, 1933-35, pp. 269f.), in Medo-Iranian forms; this suggests that they were later additions (G. Gnoli, Airy&#333;.ayana, RSO 41, 1966, p. 68; idem, De Zoroastre à Mani, p. 21). The geographical extension of Mihr Yat (the subject of an analytical study by Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge, 1959, pp. 174ff.), covered the eastern part of the Iranian territory, the central part being occupied by the regions of the Hindu Kush, represented by Mount Har&#257;, Ikata (K&#363;h-e B&#257;b&#257;?), Paruta (&#7712;&#363;r?), the district of Herodotuss Aparútai (3.91) or Ptolemys Paroûtai or Párautoi (6.17.3).





> *If we compare the first chapter of the Vid&#275;vd&#257;d with the passages of geographical interest that we come across mainly in the great yats, we can conclude that the geographical area of Avesta was dominated by the Hindu Kush range at the center, the western boundary being marked by the districts of Margiana, Areia, and Drangiana, the eastern one by the Indo-Iranian frontier regions such as Gandh&#257;ra, Bun&#275;r, the land of the Seven Rivers. Sogdiana and, possibly, Chorasmia (which, however, is at the extreme limits) mark the boundary to the north, S&#299;st&#257;n and Baluchistan to the south.*



One of the lands mentioned as Sogdiana is located below.






> Sogdiana (/&#716;s&#596;&#720;&#609;di&#712;æn&#601;/ or /&#716;s&#594;&#609;di&#712;æn&#601;/) or Sogdia (/&#712;s&#596;&#720;&#609;di&#601;/ or /&#712;s&#594;&#609;di&#601;/; Old Persian: Suguda-; Ancient Greek: &#931;&#959;&#947;&#948;&#953;&#945;&#957;&#942;, Sogdian&#275;; Persian: &#1587;&#1594;&#1583;&#8206; So&#289;d; Tajik: &#1057;&#1091;&#1171;&#1076;, &#1587;&#1594;&#1583; Su&#289;d; Uzbek: S&#417;&#291;d; Chinese: &#31903;&#29305; Sùtè) was the ancient civilization of an Iranian people and a province of the Achaemenid Empire, eighteenth in the list on the Behistun Inscription of Darius the Great (i. 16). *Sogdiana is "listed" as the second of the "good lands and countries" that Ahura Mazda created. This region is listed second after Airyanem Vaejah, "homeland of the Aryans", in the Zoroastrian book of Vendidad, indicating the importance of this region from ancient times.*[1] Sogdiana, at different times, included territories around Samarkand, Bukhara, Khujand, Panjikent and Shahrisabz in modern Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.



This indicates the Indo-Iranian link to Andronovo as per the Avesta. Bactria is also mentioned as one of their original homelands. 

ARYANS



> *Also about the middle of the 2nd millennium B.C., the first Indo-Aryans seem to have penetrated into northwest India (the Panjab and adjacent regions) across the passes of the Hindu Kush mountains, from where they spread further after defeating hostile groups of peoples named D&#257;sa or Dasyu in Vedic texts. There is no evidence, documentary or archeological, of their routes to the Indian subcontinent and their earlier habitat, but we may assume that they came in several waves of immigrants, who spoke slightly different dialects.* Thus the earliest groups may still have distinguished between r and l (from IE. *r and *l, whereas the dialects of the later groups of Indo-Aryans share with (most of) the Iranians the coalescence of r and l into r.
> 
> *Most scholars consider Central Asia, i.e., roughly the Eastern Iranian steppes of ancient Sogdiana, Chorasmia, and Bactria and the adjacent area to the north of them (between the lower Volga and Kazakhstan) as the original habitat of the nomadic Proto-Aryans. Two important facts speak for this theory: (1) In contrast to other Iranian territories, there seem to be no reliable traces of a non-Aryan, i.e., a pre-Aryan population in that region, (2) several East-Ir. geographical names attested both in Avestan and Old Persian texts are also found in Old Indo-Aryan sources, e.g., Av. Har&#333;iuua-, Old Pers. Haraiva- Areia, cf. OInd. Saráyu-, name of a river; Av. Harax&#7515;ait&#299;-, Old Pers. Harauvati- Arachosia, cf. OInd. Sárasvat&#299;-, name of a river, etc. Theories concerning still earlier times are based on too scanty evidence and need not detain us here.*
> 
> *The Indo-Aryans seem to have left the Proto-Aryan homeland about 2000 B.C.; according to R. Ghirshman they went in two groups: the first reached Northern Mesopotamia, the other passed between the Karakum Desert and the great Central Desert, the Dat-e Kav&#299;r, over Koppa D&#257;&#7713; into Northern Afghanistan, and over the Hindu Kush into India.*
> 
> *The immigration of the Iranian tribes into the Iranian plateau and the adjacent areas must be dated considerably later than that of the Indo-Aryans, according to the common opinion. The scanty historical evidence and archeological remains suggest that it took place through a succession of numerous (groups of) tribes, each tribe speaking its own variety of the Iranian language. The earliest groups contained the Western Iranians (Medes and Persians), whose migration is generally placed at the end of the 2nd millennium B.C. (11th or even 10th cent.). However, their exact routes are very hard to establish. There are two possibilities: (1) They went north of the Caspian Sea, crossed the Caucasus and the Armenian Highlands and then went southeast; (2) they came directly from the steppes in the north or northeast, crossed the Dat-e Kav&#299;r, to be brought to a halt only by the Zagros mountains. Last apparently came the Eastern Iranians, who in historical times were settled in the region extending from Margiana and Bactria to Arachosia and Bal&#363;&#269;est&#257;n.*
> 
> The Medes are for the first time attested in 836 B.C. in an Assyrian inscription of King Salmanasar III (who fought against the Mataí). They must have settled in Central Iran, especially in the region around Hamad&#257;n, where several archeological sites like God&#299;n Tepe, B&#257;b&#257; J&#257;n Tepe, Tepe N&#363;-e J&#257;n and Tepe Sialk preserve evidence about them. The Persians are first attested some years earlier (843 B.C., which is the date of the first definite evidence for Iranian settlement in Iran proper), under the name Parsua (Iranian *P&#257;rsva-). They apparently have to be located to the south and west of Lake Urmia. For the following two centuries one then finds a succession of reflexes of the name-forms *P&#257;rsva- and P&#257;rsa-, which is stepped chronologically as well as locally: Under the Assyrian King Tiglathpileser III the Parsua region is probably to be sought more to the southeast, in the central Zagros, and under Sanherib (691 B.C.) they are allies of the Elamites and to be located near the Ba&#7733;t&#299;&#257;r&#299; mountains. In 639 B.C. Assurbanipal destroyed the Elamite kingdom and marched against Cyrus I, who, we are told, ruled over both Parsuma and Anan (i.e., Tall-e Mal&#299;&#257;n, which means that by then the Persians had almost reached their historical home in F&#257;rs.)



Another interesting thing to note is that linguistic evidence isn't always reliable.

Avesta and Rig Veda



> The Mittani Indo-Aryan language is considered older than Vedic or Avestan because it has aika instead of eka. Vedic is supposed to to have merged ai to e and hence is considered younger. But if you take the word for seven in Mittani  satta, it is considered to be much later than Vedic. *So some folks believe that this dating based on selectively chosen words cannot be trusted fully.*
> 
> If you look at the Avestan and Vedic language you see that h in one language has been renamed as s in another. *There are people like Rajesh Kochchar and Romila Thapar who believe that the Vedic people migrated from the Haraxvati (Saraswati) region in Afghanistan and not the mythical Saraswati flowing underground through Rajasthan. It seems this replacing s with h is prevalent in some parts of Rajasthan and Assam even today. One point of view is that it is not possible to find which one came first based on language traits.*



Furthermore the Out of India Theory has already been discredited by recent genetic studies.

Origins of R1a1a in or near Europe (aka. R1a1a out of India theory looks like a dud)



> *Ten years ago, Passarino et al. released a paper focusing on the origins and spread of R1a1a (back then known as Eu19). They did this by studying the frequency and diversity of the 49a,f/TaqI haplotype 11, which appeared to be linked to R1a1a. The conclusion was that R1a1a most likely originated in present day Ukraine, and expanded from there into Europe and Asia. However, a couple years later, STR diversity became the method of choice for studying Y-DNA haplogroup origins and expansions, and the information provided by 49a,f/TaqI Ht11 was basically ignored.*
> 
> Despite lots of quirky results since then, like placing the ancestors of some modern populations far in Northern Europe when it was still covered with massive ice sheets (see here), no one in academia attempted to challenge the new methodology until this year (see here). However, in the meantime, it was "discovered" that India harbored the greatest diversity in R1a1a STRs, and was thus hailed as the place of origin of this widespread paternal marker.
> 
> *It seems we've now come full circle, because latest work on the SNP structure within R1a1a shows that India has very low R1a1a diversity. For instance, all Indians tested to date for newly discovered R1a1a SNPs, mostly as part of various private Y-DNA projects, have come back positive for the Z93 mutation. This marker is not upstream to any European R1a1a subclades. In fact, most Eastern Europeans tested to date have come back ancestral for Z93. This information gels very well with ancient DNA results, which show a movement of light-pigmented European-like groups deep into Asia during the early metal ages from somewhere in West Eurasia (see here). *
> 
> *The news just in, courtesy of the R1a and Subclades Y-DNA Project, is that the Z283 SNP ties together the three major European R1a1a subclades. These are R1a1a1-Z284, largely found in Scandinavia, R1a1a1-M458, characteristic of Western Slavic and Eastern German populations, and R1a1a1-Z280, of Central and Eastern Europe.* The primary distribution of Z283 shows an uncanny resemblance to that of the former Corded Ware cultural horizon of Northern Europe. Below is a map of the Corded Ware zone from Haak et al. 2008, which describes the discovery of R1a1a in the ancient remains from a Corded Ware burial in what is now Eastern Germany.



The Aryan Migration Theory: Last Word



> Zero specifically Indic words are found in IE languages outside of India. For the OIT to be correct, many Indic terms should be found in all the other branches of IE. After all, the Gypsies left India 1000 years ago and took a large specifically Indic set of terms with them to Europe and beyond.





> DNA analyses of burials in the Kurgan area near the IE homeland 6000 YBP shows that 60% of the early IE people there had light hair and green or blue eyes. How many Indians, even North Indians, have light hair and light eyes? Almost none. Clearly, the Kurgan peoples were a European type of people.





> Lack of IA archeological sites. This is a classic OIT argument. Actually, we do have quite a few site. From the original Proto-Indo-Iranian sites in Sintashta southeast of Urals to the BMAC in Turkmenistan to the Yaz Culture in northeast Iran to the Swat Culture in the Swat Valley of Pakistan to the Cemetery H Culture in Punjab to the Copper Hoard Culture to the south, to the Painted Grey Ware Culture to the south and east, we have a long stretch of cultures that have long been associated with the AMT by archeologists.



Let's not forget about the Tarim Basin civilization close to Kashmir was populated by Indo-European people. Similarly, apart from Indo-Iranian migrations, Scythian migrations are well known.

Ancient Siberians carrying R1a1 had light eyes - take 2



> Hot on the heels of that recent Bouakaze et al. paper on the pigmentation genetics of prehistoric South Siberians, here's another effort based on the same samples and by basically the same team. This paper attempts to further elucidate the origins of these light-pigmented Kurgan nomads, including so called Scytho-Siberians.
> 
> _Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization._
> 
> Here are the locations of present-day individuals who were found to carry similar Y-chromosome lineages to those of the Kurgan samples. Interestingly, the most strongly represented region is East-Central Europe, which was once the home of the Corded Ware cultural horizon. Please note, three Corded Ware remains from a burial site at Eulau, Eastern Germany, were recently found to belong to R1a, which was most likely R1a1-M17 based on their shared Y-STR haplotype (see here).






The study below was conducted in 2009.

Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people



> *To help unravel some of the early Eurasian steppe migration movements, we determined the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial haplotypes and haplogroups of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area dated from between the middle of the second millennium BC. to the fourth century AD.* In order to go further in the search of the geographic origin and physical traits of these south Siberian specimens, we also typed phenotype-informative single nucleotide polymorphisms. *Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe.* Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that *they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization. To the best of our knowledge, no equivalent molecular analysis has been undertaken so far*.



The fact remains that Indo-European genes are present in the north western regions of the Sub-Continent as evidenced by most recent genetic studies.


----------



## Nassr

Dating the genetic mutations is a major challenge and as the genetic science still can not ascertain the dates accurately, the inputs from palaeontology, history, geography, geology and archaeology, among other disciplines, are needed to confirm its historical conclusions. It is very important therefore to check the references and the sources these studies consult in order to arrive at their conclusions. If they refer to Indian archeological or historical references, their conclusions would definitely be inclined towards the Indian point of view and if their sources are European, the conclusions would definitely be oriented towards western thought process. 

The Indians have learned this well and have played it accordingly. But they have often been caught doing such shenanigans as well. NS Rajaram was caught computer generating a horse from an old partially destroyed IVC seal to identify horse depiction. NS Rajaram had also written From Meluhha to Ayodhia and was one of those who initially started propounding on now largely proven wrong and a farcical theory identifying Ghagar-Hakra as Saraswati. 

And now, there is an attempt to re-decipher and re-analyse the Rig Veda to support the Out of India theory by Indians of a particular hue. They have been claiming since some time now that according to Rig Veda the so-called Vedic Aryans or Indian Aryans&#8217; original home is Uttar Pradesh and that it were they who spread outwards. 

As the fight to prove their viewpoint is spread over so many different disciplines, they get exposed while justifying certain aspects in one discipline which gets proven wrong in the other disciplines and thus they have to restart. However, we have to give it to them that they don&#8217;t stop doing it despite being proven wrong and getting exposed time and time again. 

@p(-)0ENiX, I know you are not cherry picking while trying to prove your point of view and it is visible in your comments, as you also highlight the divergent views as well. However, you must understand that all these genetic studies are clearly influenced by their sources of reference from other disciplines which are needed to arrive at final conclusions and therefore, more than not, end up supporting the views of a particular hue. 

@Bang Galore, it is clear from your posts that you are selectively cherry picking by presenting only one point of view and not highlighting the views still expressed by many many others who challenge such views and findings. 

One thing which makes me laugh at times is that most of the Indian inclined studies are centered around mtDNA, which makes me wonder as to why the female influences are more pronounced in Indian ancestry than the Y- chromosome. Please don&#8217;t take it seriously though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Nassr said:


> @Bang Galore, it is clear from your posts that you are selectively cherry picking by presenting only one point of view and not highlighting the views still expressed by many many others who challenge such views and findings.
> 
> One thing which makes me laugh at times is that most of the Indian inclined studies are centered around mtDNA, which makes me wonder as to why the female influences are more pronounced in Indian ancestry than the Y- chromosome. Please don&#8217;t take it seriously though.



You may well be right that I'm picking sources that buttress my point of view. However I'm offering up no theory or support thereof_(no matter what anyone assumes, I'm not responsible for any assumption)_, I'm merely pointing out the holes & the disputed claims of those supporting the AIT/AMT.

I don't take your point on genetics as being obnoxious.. My point there too is the same as earlier, to show that there are many who hold different opinions and that there is no unified backing of any claim. If you see my earlier posts, I have pointed out that people will pick what suits them.


----------



## Bang Galore

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Some of the above responses are pointless, some are baseless, some are lies or repetitions, others are a combination of different characteristics mentioned in this sentence. The rest just prove you are an ignoramus. Before complaining about name calling or any sort of rude behavior, reread your previous posts & the rude responses present in them.



I have little interest in being either rude or getting personal. You are no exception. I have always felt it best to disagree without being disagreeable. The only harsh response was when you made a needless remark accusing me of lying. I regret that response of mine, I should have let that pass unanswered. My response was probably due to the fact that in a post made earlier, I had commended you on your civility in debate and your response promptly removed any delusion on that score. I don't complain, this is an online forum and I rarely take any opinion seriously. However, considering that you replied to a post where i refrained from any harshness with one like the above, I feel it best that I no longer quote or make any reference to you from now on. You are free to do whatever you want but this will be my last post addressed to you.


----------



## pk_baloch

INDIC said:


> Half of the population of the Pakistan created on 14th august 1947 was living outside Meluhha in East Pakistan.



East pakistan was not part of IVC ,MELUHHA ,very ancient pakistan.....



Nassr said:


> There are many scholars in India who state that one of the major differences between Vedic religion and Hinduism is that Vedic religion in its true essence is monotheistic and Hinduism is polytheistic.




yes i meant that

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bronxbull

All the gods of Hinduism are parts of the trinity and the five natural forces are the primary things.

The debate of monotheism vs polytheism is a silly one and is not of importance.

I guess acc to nassr,evolution happens to everyone except his ilk.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Some of the studies that I am refuting in this post are in fact quite old & have been replaced by newer genetic studies. Another point to note is that the studies being responded to are difficult to trace, so there is a possibility of fraudulent studies being spread online. In any case, below are the responses to most of these studies.



> "Reconstructing Indian Population History"
> - David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price & Lalji Singh
> 2009



The politics of genetic history in India

A reader pointed me to an article, Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study. Some of the authors of the paper I reviewed today (actually, I wrote the post yesterday and put it in schedule) had some interesting things to say:

_The great Indian divide along north-south lines now stands blurred. A pathbreaking study by Harvard and indigenous researchers on ancestral Indian populations says there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed &#8221;fact&#8221; that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth.
&#8221;This paper rewrites history&#8230; there is no north-south divide,&#8221; Lalji Singh, former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) and a co-author of the study, said at a press conference here on Thursday.
Senior CCMB scientist Kumarasamy Thangarajan said there was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India.
The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally &#8221;upper&#8221; and &#8221;lower&#8221; castes and tribal groups. &#8221;The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society,&#8221; the study said. Thangarajan noted that it was impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different.
&#8230;
&#8221;The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,&#8221; said Thangarajan. He added, &#8221;At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India.&#8221;
&#8230;
The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study *that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world*. However, researchers said there was no scientific proof of whether Indians went to Europe first or the other way round._

To understand some of these assertions you have to know that in India there are Creationist-like movements driven by nationalist and Hindu fundamentalist ideologies.

There&#8217;s been a lot of debate for decades in India about the Aryan Invasion Theory, which posits that Aryans, generally described as light-skinned northerners, overran the Indus Valley Civilization and subjugated the local peoples. Some Indian groups actually adhered to this, but overall the trend has been sharply against it because white nationalists were big proponents of it, and used it to suggest that the peoples of India are mongrelized degenerates who received the gift of civilization from racially superior Europeans. Today many Indians espouse an Out of India theory. I don&#8217;t really agree with either position. *The Out of India theory is almost certainly just plain wrong.* The Aryan Invasion Theory is a caricatured fact (in contrast to a stylized fact). But first let me quote something from the paper itself:

_Two features of the inferred history are of special interest. First, the ANI and CEU form a clade, and further analysis shows that the Adygei, a Caucasian group, are an outgroup&#8230;Many Indian and European groups speak Indo-European languages, whereas the Adygei speak a Northwest Caucasian language. *It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke &#8216;Proto-Indo-European&#8217;, which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI-ASI mixture.*_

This is from the paper that these authors are listed on, but probably written by David Reich. They seem to be going in opposite directions here. I actually think that this section would best be left to the supplements, and other sections of this paper emphasize the likely complexity of the ANI-ASI mixture process. But in the quotes in the media above the other authors seem to be leading you to totally different conclusions from this, instead of leaning toward ANI being Proto-Indo-European, they deny that it is. Instead of demurring on a specific date, they clearly believe that ANI-ASI admixture predates the arrival of Aryans and Dravidians. The second suggests that the authors don&#8217;t believe in Out of India, look again at this passage: &#8220;Kumarasamy Thangarajan said there was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India.&#8221;

*The plausibility that the ancestral ANI-Europeans are native to India seems low to me. Dienekes lays out the reasons:*

_*-Suppose postulated ancient Indian PIE speakers had a similar genetic makeup as modern Indians (i.e., a mix of ANI and ASI). Then, the absence of the ASI component outside South Asia cannot be explained.

-If ancient Indian PIE speakers had a purely ANI makeup, then the absence of the ASI component outside South Asia -as in (1)- can be explained. However, this would entail that sharply differentiated populations (ANI and ASI) co-existed in India without mixing for thousands of years; ANI-like PIEs spread from India with their languages; ANI and ASI admixed afterwards. To say that this scenario is not parsimonious would be charitable.*

-*The only way in which PIE languages may have originated in India would be if they spread without the spread of people. However, before the advent of writing and modern means of transportation and communication, the only way to spread languages was by migration of people.*_

The authors are correct that this study does not prove the Aryan Invasion Theory (though frankly I believe the first author goes a bit further than I would be willing to go in that very direction!). One would also be correct to suggest that there are ways to salvage the Out of India Theory for the origin of the Indo-European languages, but as Dienekes notes above, *they are not genetically parsimonious. Possibility does not equal probability. Additionally, the full range of philological and archaeological data simply do not support the Out of India Theory. In my arguments with South Asian proponents of Out of India Theory I get a sense of arguing with Creationists; they are excellent at bringing up ambiguities and problems in the standard model, but they are blithely unconcerned with the total implausibility of the alternative model that they offer. There is zero chance of them being convinced, they simply need &#8220;good enough&#8221; arguments to keep you unbalanced.*

Now, let me state something clearly: on average an individual from an Indo-Aryan or Dravidian speaking group in South Asia is going to be more closely related genetically in terms of total genome content to anyone in the Indian subcontinent from Indo-Aryan or Dravidian speaking groups than they are to some from outside the Indian subcontinent. Punjabis may bridle at being associated with what they perceive as racially inferior Tamils and Bengalis, but the reality is that they&#8217;re closer to these groups than they are to Persians or other West Asian groups (though Punjabis are much closer to Persians than Tamils and Bengalis are, and the Iranian speaking groups of Pakistan are a more ambiguous case). That does not negate significant clines, as well as suggestions of exogenous input (the last point is one &#8220;Scythian&#8221; descended Northwest Indians can take succor from). Mixed-race Brazilians may form a distinct cluster separate from Portuguese, West Africans and Amerindians, but they are clearly a racial compound of these three groups. The analogy with South Asians is problematic insofar as I think that an overly simple model of admixture may mislead us down the line, but it shows that just because South Asians are a coherent genetic cluster does not mean that they are uniform, or that they all exhibit equal relatedness to other groups.

Finally, I took figure 3 from the paper, and recoded the Indo-European and Dravidian clusters so you can see the effect of language & caste.






> 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.
> 
> - Sharma et al 2009
> 
> 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.&#8221;
> 
> -Stephen Oppenheimer



The origins of R1a are definitely not considered Indian. Apart from the recent genetic evidence against it, there is no evidence of a migration from India towards Europe. Linguistic evidence is absent as well.

I am unable to post the data from these links because the website apparently does not seem to allow copying & pasting text from the main article. If anyone's interested, they may visit the links themselves.

Eupedia - Haplogroup R1a

Eupedia - Haplogroup R1b



> Migrations into India &#8220;did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.&#8221; There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the &#8216;caucasoid&#8217; features of south Asians may best be considered &#8216;pre-caucasoid&#8217; &#8212; 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.
> - U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.
> 
> There is a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation.
> - Scientists Susanta Roychoudhury and thirteen others studying 644 samples of mtDNA from ten Indian ethnic groups.
> 
> &#8220;The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward.&#8221;
> Sanghamitra Sahoo, T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap. - 2006.
> 
> &#8220;Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among their present-day speakers at high frequencies.
> - Mait Metspalu and fifteen co-authors analyzing 796 Indian and 436 Iranian mtDNAs. 2001.



Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations

Previous genetic studies of Indian castes have failed to achieve a consensus on Indian origins and affinities. Various results have supported closer affinity of Indian castes either with Europeans or with Asians, and several factors underlie this inconsistency. First, erratic or limited sampling of populations has limited inferences about the relationships between caste and continental populations (i.e., Africans, Asians, Europeans). These relationships are further confounded by the wide geographic dispersal of caste populations. Genetic affinities among caste populations are, in part, inversely correlated with the geographic distance between them (Malhotra and Vasulu 1993), and it is likely that affinities between caste and continental populations are also geographically dependent (e.g., different between North and South Indian caste populations). Second, it has been suggested that castes of different rank may have originated from or admixed with different continental groups (Majumder and Mukherjee 1993). Third, the size of caste populations varies widely, and the effects of genetic drift on some small, geographically isolated castes may have been substantial. Fourth, most of the polymorphisms assayed over the last 30 years are indirect measurements of genetic variation (e.g., ABO typing), have been sampled from only a few loci, and may not be selectively neutral. Finally, only rarely have systematic comparisons been made with continental populations using a large, uniform set of DNA polymorphisms (Majumder 1999).

To investigate the origin of contemporary castes, we compared the genetic affinities of caste populations of differing rank (i.e., upper, middle, and lower) to worldwide populations. We analyzed mtDNA (hypervariable region 1 [HVR1] sequence and 14 restriction-site polymorphisms [RSPs]), Y-chromosome (5 short-tandem repeats [STRs] and 20 biallelic polymorphisms), and autosomal (1 LINE-1 and 39 Alu inserts) variation in &#8764;265 males from eight different Telugu-speaking caste populations from the state of Andhra Pradesh in South India (Bamshad et al. 1998). Comparisons were made to &#8764;400 individuals from tribal and Hindi-speaking caste and populations distributed across the Indian subcontinent (Mountain et al. 1995; Kivisild et al. 1999) and to &#8764;350 Africans, Asians, and Europeans (Jorde et al. 1995, 2000; Seielstad et al. 1999).

*RESULTS
Analysis of mtDNA Suggests a Proto-Asian Origin of Indians*
MtDNA HVR1 genetic distances between caste populations and Africans, Asians, and Europeans are significantly different from zero (p < 0.001) and reveal that, regardless of rank, each caste group is most closely related to Asians and is most dissimilar from Africans (Table &#8203;(Table1).1). The genetic distances from major continental populations (e.g., Europeans) differ among the three caste groups, and the comparison reveals an intriguing pattern. As one moves from lower to upper castes, the distance from Asians becomes progressively larger. The distance between Europeans and lower castes is larger than the distance between Europeans and upper castes, but the distance between Europeans and middle castes is smaller than the upper caste-European distance. These trends are the same whether the Kshatriya and Vysya are included in the upper castes, the middle castes, or excluded from the analysis. This may be owing, in part, to the small sample size (n = 10) of each of these castes. Among the upper castes the genetic distance between Brahmins and Europeans (0.10) is smaller than that between either the Kshatriya and Europeans (0.12) or the Vysya and Europeans (0.16). Assuming that contemporary Europeans reflect West Eurasian affinities, these data indicate that the amount of West Eurasian admixture with Indian populations may have been proportionate to caste rank.

*****​
*Y-Chromosome Variation Confirms Indo-European Admixture*

Genetic distances estimated from Y-chromosome STR polymorphisms differ significantly from zero (p < 0.001) and reveal a distinctly different pattern of population relationships (Table &#8203;(Table3).3). In contrast to the mtDNA distances, the Y-chromosome STR data do not demonstrate a closer affinity to Asians for each caste group. Upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians, middle castes are equidistant from the two groups, and lower castes are most similar to Asians. The genetic distance between caste populations and Africans is progressively larger moving from lower to middle to upper caste groups (Table &#8203;(Table3).3).

Genetic distances estimated from Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms differ significantly from zero (p < 0.05), and the patterns differ from the mtDNA results even more strikingly than the Y-chromosome STRs. For Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphism data, each caste group is more similar to Europeans (Table &#8203;(Table4),4), and as one moves from lower to middle to higher castes the genetic distance to Europeans diminishes progressively. *This pattern is further accentuated by separating the European population into Northern, Southern, and Eastern Europeans; each caste group is most closely related to Eastern Europeans. Moreover, the genetic distance between upper castes and Eastern Europeans is approximately half the distance between Eastern Europeans and middle or lower castes.* These results suggest that Indian Y chromosomes, particularly upper caste Y chromosomes, are more similar to European than to Asian Y chromosomes. This underscores the close affinities between Hindu Indian and Indo-European Y chromosomes based on a previously reported analysis of three Y-chromosome polymorphisms (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999b).

Overall, these results indicate that the affinities of Indians to continental populations varies according to caste rank and depends on whether mtDNA or Y-chromosome data are analyzed. However, conclusions drawn from these data are limited because mtDNA and the Y chromosome is each effectively a single haploid locus and is more sensitive to genetic drift, bottlenecks, and selective sweeps compared to autosomal loci. These limitations of our analysis can be overcome, in part, by analyzing a larger set of independent autosomal loci. Consequently, we assayed 1 LINE-1 and 39 unlinked Alu polymorphisms.

*****​
Previous genetic studies have found evidence to support either a European or an Asian origin of Indian caste populations, with occasional indications of admixture with African or proto-Australoid populations (Chen et al. 1995; Mountain et al. 1995; Bamshad et al. 1996, 1997; Majumder et al. 1999; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999a). Our results demonstrate that for biparentally inherited autosomal markers, genetic distances between upper, middle, and lower castes are significantly correlated with rank; upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians; and upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are lower castes. This result appears to be owing to the amalgamation of two different patterns of sex-specific genetic variation.

*****​
The most likely explanation for these findings, and the one most consistent with archaeological data, is that contemporary Hindu Indians are of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture. However, admixture with West Eurasian males was greater than admixture with West Eurasian females, resulting in a higher affinity to European Y chromosomes. 

*****​
West Eurasian admixture in Indian populations may have been the result of more than one wave of immigration into India. Kivisild et al. (1999) determined the coalescence (&#8764;50,000 years before present) of the Indian-specific subset of the West Eurasian haplotypes (i.e., U2i) and suggested that West Eurasian admixture may have been much older than the purported Dravidian and Indo-European incursions. Our analysis of Indian mtDNA restriction-site haplotypes that do not belong to the U2i subset of West Eurasian haplotypes (i.e., H, I, J, K, T) is consistent with more recent West Eurasian admixture. It is also possible that haplotypes with an older coalescence were introduced by Dravidians, whereas haplotypes with a more recent coalescence belonged to Indo-Europeans. This hypothesis can be tested by a more detailed comparison to West Eurasian mtDNA haplotypes from Iran, Anatolia, and the Caucasus. Alternatively, the coalescence dates of these haplotypes may predate the entry of West Eurasians populations into India. Regardless of their origin, West Eurasian admixture resulted in rank-related differences in the genetic affinities of castes to Europeans and Asians. Furthermore, the frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes in the founding middle and upper castes may be underestimated because of the upward social mobility of women from lower castes (Bamshad et al. 1998). These women were presumably more likely to introduce proto-Asian mtDNA haplotypes into the middle and upper castes.



> &#8220;indeed, nearly all Europeans &#8212; and by extension, many Americans &#8212; can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia.&#8221;
> 
> -Lluís Quintana-Murci,Vincent Macaulay,Stephen Oppenheimer,Michael Petraglia,and their associates
> 
> mtDNA haplogroup &#8220;M&#8221; 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 &#8220;inconsistent with the &#8216;general Caucasoidness&#8217; of Indians.&#8221;
> 
> - Twenty authors headed by Kivisild - Archaeogenetics of Europe - 2000.



Information about every mtDNA in Europe may be found on this page of Eupedia.

Haplogroup U (mtDNA) originated around North-East Africa & the Middle East. Haplogroup W is an excellent marker for detecting Indo-European maternal lineage, & it's present in northern Pakistan & even in Ukraine. A point to note is that its highest frequency is in Ukraine. Haplogroup M has a possible origin of either Africa or South Asia, it's present in Gypsies as well. 



> Geneticist Toomas Kivisild led a study (2003) in which comparisons of the diversity of R1a1 (R-M17) haplogroup in Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Central Asian, Czech and Estonian populations. The study showed that the diversity of R1a1 in India, Pakistan, and Iran, is higher than in Czechs (40%), and Estonians[12].
> 
> - Kivilsid - 2003
> 
> To them, the subcontinent&#8217;s genetic landscape was formed much earlier than the dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan immigration: &#8220;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.&#8221;
> 
> Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill. - 2006.



The Dead Sea & Central Asia is a possible origin for the R1a haplogroup, seeing as even Pakistan is slowly getting ruled out. 

Origins of R1a1a in or near Europe (aka. R1a1a out of India theory looks like a dud)

Ten years ago, Passarino et al. released a paper focusing on the origins and spread of R1a1a (back then known as Eu19). They did this by studying the frequency and diversity of the 49a,f/TaqI haplotype 11, which appeared to be linked to R1a1a. The conclusion was that R1a1a most likely originated in present day Ukraine, and expanded from there into Europe and Asia. However, a couple years later, STR diversity became the method of choice for studying Y-DNA haplogroup origins and expansions, and the information provided by 49a,f/TaqI Ht11 was basically ignored.

Despite lots of quirky results since then, like placing the ancestors of some modern populations far in Northern Europe when it was still covered with massive ice sheets (see here), no one in academia attempted to challenge the new methodology until this year (see here). However, in the meantime, it was "discovered" that India harbored the greatest diversity in R1a1a STRs, and was thus hailed as the place of origin of this widespread paternal marker.

It seems we've now come full circle, because latest work on the SNP structure within R1a1a shows that India has very low R1a1a diversity. For instance, all Indians tested to date for newly discovered R1a1a SNPs, mostly as part of various private Y-DNA projects, have come back positive for the Z93 mutation. This marker is not upstream to any European R1a1a subclades. In fact, most Eastern Europeans tested to date have come back ancestral for Z93. This information gels very well with ancient DNA results, which show a movement of light-pigmented European-like groups deep into Asia during the early metal ages from somewhere in West Eurasia (see here). 

The news just in, courtesy of the R1a and Subclades Y-DNA Project, is that the Z283 SNP ties together the three major European R1a1a subclades. These are R1a1a1-Z284, largely found in Scandinavia, R1a1a1-M458, characteristic of Western Slavic and Eastern German populations, and R1a1a1-Z280, of Central and Eastern Europe. The primary distribution of Z283 shows an uncanny resemblance to that of the former Corded Ware cultural horizon of Northern Europe. Below is a map of the Corded Ware zone from Haak et al. 2008, which describes the discovery of R1a1a in the ancient remains from a Corded Ware burial in what is now Eastern Germany.




References...

Passarino et al., The 49a,f haplotype 11 is a new marker of the EU19 lineage that traces migrations from northern regions of the black sea, Human Immunology, Volume 62, Issue 11, November 2001, Pages 1313-1314

FTDNA R1a and Subclades Y-DNA Project

Haak et al., Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age, PNAS November 25, 2008 vol. 105 no. 47 18226-18231

R1a1a conquers the world&#8230;in a few pulses?

What can we say from this? If these results hold what they tell us is that R1a1a is a very lucky haplogroup, and its current range is a function of multiple expansions from a common and diverse R1a1a pool, probably in Central Eurasia. The presence of Z93 in Uzbeks, and Mongols, suggests to me that this variant was and is present in Iranians. Therefore, I don&#8217;t think that Z93 is indigenous to South Asia, but is intrusive. I believe it arrived with the &#8220;Ancestral North Indians.&#8221;



> No trace of &#8220;demographic disruption&#8221; in the North-West of the subcontinent between 4500 and 800 BCE; this negates the possibility of any massive intrusion, by so-called Indo-Aryans or other populations, during that period.
> Deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.&#8221;
> Haplogroup U, being common to North Indian and &#8220;Caucasoid&#8221; populations, was found in tribes of eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals, which would not be the case if it had been introduced through Indo-Aryans. Such is also the case of the haplogroup M, another marker frequently mentioned in the early literature as evidence of an invasion: in reality, haplogroup M occurs with a high frequency, averaging about 60%, across most Indian population groups, irrespective of geographical location of habitat. Tribal populations have higher frequencies of haplogroup M than caste populations.&#8221;
> 
> - U.S. anthropologists Kenneth Kennedy, John Lukacs and Brian Hemphill.



Eupedia's link of haplogroup U (mtDNA) is over here. This haplogroup has many different subclades, the primary European subclades U3, U4, U5, & U8. The subclade U2 is generally found in South Asia, but is considered to be of Indo-European origins. Another point to note is that haplogroup U's subclade U2 has been discovered in a 30,000 years old Cro-Magnon found in Russia.

Eupedia has also provided a link to a forum post in their forum over here explaining the implication of the Cro-Magnon's discovery.

I have provided some of the text from that link below.

_The so-called Markina Gora skeleton from Kostenki in Russia (near the Don River) was tested for mtDNA and determined to belong to haplogroup U2. This haplogroup is found at very low frequencies in southern Russia nowadays (actually its subclade U2e), but is otherwise primarily found in and around India, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and to a lower extent Iran and Xinjiang. 

If people carrying hg U2 lived in Russia 30,000 years ago, it is doubtful that they already lived all over South Asia. The possibility of a South Asian hunter-gatherer travelling on foot all the way to European Russia is far-fetched. U2 is more probably a Paleolithic European subclade, like U4 and U5. *Its widespread presence in the Indian subcontinent today can be explained in the same way that Y-haplogroup R1a is likewise widespread there : the Indo-European migrations.* _

DNA analysed from early European

The researchers were able to assign the Kostenki individual to haplogroup "U2", which is relatively uncommon among modern populations.

U2 appears to be scattered at low frequencies in populations from South and Western Asia, Europe and North Africa.

Despite its rarity, the very presence of this haplogroup in today's Europeans suggests some continuity between Palaeolithic hunters and the continent's present-day inhabitants, argue the authors of the latest study.



> *Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert Indigenous origin of Indian Civilization*
> 
> 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.



A lot of evidence exists for the Indo-Iranian migrations, including the archaeological, historical, & genetic evidence that was provided earlier. The other genetic studies in this post should also aid in answering a few questions, but I will post some of the recent studies again.

Eupedia - Haplogroup L

_*L* is found mostly in the Indian subcontinent, but also at lower frequencies in Central Asia, Southwest Asia, and Southern Europe along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea (notably in Italy). L1 is typical of the Dravidian people of South India. *Various subclades are found in Europe (L1, L2, L3) with any real geographic pattern. Europeans belonging to haplogroup L are likely to be descended from Indian (L1, L3) or Persian (L2, L3) merchants in ancient times, maybe at the time of the Roman Empire.*_

The study below is quite recent. I advise everyone to read it thoroughly, it answers many questions & is extremely informative. 

Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.

Major admixture in India took place ~4.2-1.9 thousand years ago (Moorjani et al. 2013)

A new paper on the topic of Indian population history has just appeared in the American Journal of Human Genetics. In previous work it was determined that Indians trace their ancestry to two major groups, Ancestral North Indians (ANI) (= West Eurasians of some kind), and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) (= distant relatives of Andaman Islanders, existing today only in admixed form). The new paper demonstrates that admixture between these two groups took place ~4.2-1.9 thousand years ago.

The authors caution about this evidence of admixture:

_It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe.15, 16, 44 and 45_

This is of course true, because admixture postdates migration and it is conceivable that the West Eurasian groups might not have admixed with ASI populations immediately after their arrival into South Asia. On the other hand, a long period of co-existence without admixture would be against much of human history (e.g., the reverse movement of the Roma into Europe, who picked up European admixture despite strong social pressure against it by both European and Roma communities, or the absorption of most Native Americans by incoming European, and later African, populations in post-Columbian times). It is difficult to imagine really long reproductive isolation between neighboring peoples.

Such reproductive isolation would require a cultural shift from a long period of endogamy (ANI migration, followed by ANI/ASI co-existence without admixture) to exogamy ~4.2-1.9kya (to explain the thoroughness of blending that left no group untouched), and then back to fairly strict exogamy (within the modern caste system). It might be simpler to postulate only one cultural shift (migration with admixture soon thereafter, with later introduction of endogamy which greatly diminished the admixture.

The authors cite the evidence from neolithic Sweden which does, indeed, suggest that the neolithic farmers this far north were "southern European" genetically and had not (yet) mixed with contemporary hunter-gatherers, as they must have done eventually. But, perhaps farmers and hunters could avoid each other during first contact, when Europe was sparsely populated. It is not clear whether the same could be said for India ~4 thousand years ago with the Indus Valley Civilization providing evidence for a large indigenous population that any intrusive group would have encountered. In any case, the problem of when the West Eurasian element arrived in India will probably be solved by relating it to events elsewhere in Eurasia, and, in particular, to the ultimate source of the "Ancestral North Indians".

It is also possible that some of the ANI-ASI admixture might actually pre-date migration. At present it's anyone's guess where the original limes between the west Eurasian and ASI worlds were. There is some mtDNA haplogroup M in Iran and Central Asia, which is otherwise rare in west Eurasia, so it is not inconceivable that ASI may have once extended outside the Indian subcontinent: the fact that it is concentrated today in southern India (hence its name) may indicate only the area of this element's maximum survival, rather than the extent of its original distribution. In any case, all mixture must have taken place somewhere in the vicinity of India.

*A second interesting finding of the paper is that admixture dates in Indo-European groups are later than in Dravidian groups. This is demonstrated quite clearly in the rolloff figure on the left. Moreover, it does not seem that the admixture times for Indo-Europeans coincide with the appearance of the Indo-Aryans, presumably during the 2nd millennium BC: they are much later. I believe that this is fairly convincing evidence that north India has been affected by subsequent population movements from central Asia of "Indo-Scythian"-related populations, for which there is ample historical evidence. So, the difference in dates might be explained by secondary (later) admixture with other West Eurasians after the arrival of Indo-Aryans. Interestingly, the paper does not reject simple ANI-ASI admixture "often from tribal and traditionally lower-caste groups," while finding evidence for multiple layers of ANI ancestry in several other populations.*

My own analysis of Dodecad Project South Indian Brahmins arrived at a date of 4.1ky, and of North Indian Brahmins, a date of 2.3ky, which seems to be in good agreement with these results.

The authors also report that "we find that Georgians along with other Caucasus groups are consistent with sharing the most genetic drift with ANI". I had made a post on the differential relationship of ANI to Caucasus populations which seems to agree with this, and, of course, in various ADMIXTURE analyses, the component which I've labeled "West Asian" tends to be the major west Eurasian element in south Asia.

Here are the estimated admixture proportions/times from the paper:




Sadly, the warm and moist climate of India, and the adoption of cremation have probably destroyed any hope of studying much of its recent history with ancient DNA. On the other hand, the caste system has probably "fossilized" old socio-linguistic groups, allowing us to tell much by studying their differences and correlating them with groups outside India.

Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, and waves of admixture (migration?)

*The Pith:*In India 5,000 years ago there were the hunter-gathers. Then came the Dravidian farmers. Finally came the Indo-Aryan cattle herders.

There is a new paper out of the Reich lab, Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India, which follows up on their seminal 2009 work, Reconstructing Indian Population History. I don&#8217;t have time right now to do justice to it, but as noted this morning in the press, it is &#8220;carefully and cautiously crafted.&#8221; Since I am not associated with the study, I do not have to be cautious and careful, so I will be frank in terms of what I think these results imply (note that confidence on many assertions below are modest). Though less crazy in a bald-faced sense than another recent result which came out of the Reich lab, this paper is arguably more explosive because of its historical and social valence in the Indian subcontinent. There has been a trend over the past few years of scholars in the humanities engaging in deconstruction and intellectual archaeology which overturns old historical orthodoxies, understandings, and leaves the historiography of a particular topic of study in a chaotic mess. From where I stand the Reich lab and its confederates are doing the same, but instead of attacking the past with cunning verbal sophistry (I&#8217;m looking at you postcolonial&#8220;theorists&#8221, they are taking a sledge-hammer of statistical genetics and ripping apart paradigms woven together by innumerable threads. I am not sure that they even understand the depths of the havoc they&#8217;re going to unleash, but all the argumentation in the world will not stand up to science in the end, we know that.

Since the paper is not open access, let me give you the abstract first:

_Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. *We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago.* In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy._

*I want to highlight one aspect which is not in the abstract: the closest population to the &#8220;Ancestral North Indians&#8221;, those who contributed the West Eurasian component to modern Indian ancestry, seem to be Georgians and other Caucasians.* Since Reconstructing Indian Population History many have suspected this. I want to highlight in particular two genome bloggers, Dienekes and Zack Ajmal, who&#8217;ve prefigured that particular result. *But wait, there&#8217;s more! The figure which I posted at the top illustrates that it looks like Indo-European speakers were subject to two waves of admixture, while Dravidian speakers were subject to one!*

The authors were cautious indeed in not engaging in excessive speculation. The term &#8220;Indo-Aryan&#8221; only shows up in the notes, not in the body of the main paper. But the historical and philological literature is references:

_The dates we report have significant implications for Indian history in the sense that they document a period of demographic and cultural change in which mixture between highly differentiated populations became pervasive before it eventually became uncommon. The period of around 1,900&#8211;4,200 years BP was a time of profound change in India, characterized by the deurbanization of the Indus civilization, increasing population density in the central and downstream portions of the Gangetic system, shifts in burial practices, and the likely first appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion in the subcontinent. The shift from widespread mixture to strict endogamy that we document is mirrored in ancient Indian texts. [notes removed -Razib]_

How does this &#8220;deconstruct&#8221; the contemporary scholarship? Here&#8217;s an Amazon summary of a book which I read years ago, Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India:

_When thinking of India, it is hard not to think of caste. In academic and common parlance alike, caste has become a central symbol for India, marking it as fundamentally different from other places while expressing its essence. Nicholas Dirks argues that caste is, in fact, neither an unchanged survival of ancient India nor a single system that reflects a core cultural value. Rather than a basic expression of Indian tradition, caste is a modern phenomenon&#8211;the product of a concrete historical encounter between India and British colonial rule. Dirks does not contend that caste was invented by the British. But under British domination caste did become a single term capable of naming and above all subsuming India&#8217;s diverse forms of social identity and organization._

The argument is not totally fallacious, as some castes are almost certainly recent constructions and interpretations, with fictive origin narratives. But the deep genetic structure of Indian castes, which go back ~4,000 years in some cases, falsifies a strong form of the constructivist narrative. The case of the Vysya is highlighted in the paper as a population with deep origins in Indian history. Interestingly they seem to be a caste which has changed its own status within the hierarchy over the past few hundred years. Where the postcolonial theorists were right is that caste identity as a group in relation to other castes was somewhat flexible (e.g., Jats and Marathas in the past, Nadars today). Where they seem to have been wrong is the implicit idea that many castes were an ad hoc crystallization of individuals only bound together by common interests relatively recently in time, and in reaction to colonial pressures. Rather, it seems that the colonial experience simply rearranged pieces of the puzzle which had deep indigenous roots.

Stepping back in time from the early modern to the ancient, the implications of this research seem straightforward, if explosive. One common theme in contemporary Western treatments of the Vedic period is to interpret narratives of ethnic conflict coded in racialized terms as metaphor. So references to markers of ethnic differences may be tropes in Vedic culture, rather than concrete pointers to ancient socio-political dynamics. The description of the enemies of the Aryans as dark skinned and snub-nosed is not a racial observation in this reading, but analogous to the stylized conflicts between the Norse gods and their less aesthetically pleasing enemies, the Frost Giants. The mien of the Frost Giants was reflective of their symbolic role in the Norse cosmogony.

*What these results imply is that there was admixture between very distinct populations in the period between 0 and 2000 B.C. By distinct, I mean to imply that the last common ancestors of the &#8220;Ancestral North Indians&#8221; and &#8220;Ancestral South Indians&#8221; probably date to ~50,000 years ago. The population in the Reich data set with the lowest fraction of ANI are the Paniya (~20%). One of those with higher fractions of ANI (70%) are Kashmiri Pandits. It does not take an Orientalist with colonial motives to infer that the ancient Vedic passages which are straightforwardly interpreted in physical anthropological terms may actually refer to ethnic conflicts in concrete terms, and not symbolic ones.*

Finally, the authors note that uniparental lineages (mtDNA and Y) seem to imply that the last common ancestors of the ANI with other sampled West Eurasian groups dates to ~10,000 years before the present. This leads them to suggest that the ANI may not have come from afar necessarily. That is, the &#8220;Georgian&#8221; element is a signal of a population which perhaps diverged ~10,000 years ago, during the early period of agriculture in West Asia, and occupied the marginal fringes of South Asia, as in sites such as Mehrgarh in Balochistan. A plausible framework then is that expansion of institutional complexity resulted in an expansion of the agriculture complex ~3,000 B.C., and subsequent admixture with the indigenous hunter-gatherer substrate to the east and south during this period. One of the components that Zack Ajmal finds through ADMIXTURE analysis in South Asia, with higher fractions in higher castes even in non-Brahmins in South India, he terms &#8220;Baloch,&#8221; because it is modal in that population. This fraction is also high in the Dravidian speaking Brahui people, who coexist with the Baloch. It seems plausible to me that this widespread Baloch fraction is reflective of the initial ANI-ASI admixture event. In contrast, the Baloch and Brahui have very little of the &#8220;NE Euro&#8221; fraction, which is found at low frequencies in Indo-European speakers, and especially higher castes east and south of Punjab, as well as South Indian Brahmins. I believe that this component is correlated with the second, smaller wave of admixture, which brought the Indo-European speaking Indo-Aryans to much of the subcontinent. *The Dasas described in the Vedas are not ASI, but hybrid populations. The collapse of the Indus Valley civilization was an explosive event for the rest of the subcontinent, as Moorjani et al. report that all indigenous Indian populations have ANI-ASI admixture (with the exceptions of Tibeto-Burman groups)*.

*Overall I&#8217;d say that the authors of this paper covered their bases. Though I wish them well in avoiding getting caught up in ideologically tinged debates.* Their papers routinely result in at least one email to me per week, ranging from confusion to frothing-at-the-mouth.



> Europeoid races and types | DODONA: Human Biodiversity Discussion Forum
> 
> Bactrian Camels and Bactrian-Dromedary Hybrids



I don't have the time to go through those links, I have wasted enough time as it is replying to some of the posts here in great detail. 

In any case, since the title indicates that one of those links is for racial classification, it must be noted that Pakistani ethnic groups like the Balochis, Kashmiris, Punjabis, Pashtuns, et cetera are all Caucasians. 

As far as Bactrian Camels are concerned, while I didn't go through that link either, it should be noted that camels were mentioned in the Avesta, which implies ancient Indo-Iranians were aware of them. 



> *Indo-Iranians: new perspectives*
> 
> There are some strange and quite funny ideas in the 'orthodox' academic theory about Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians. One of these is the idea that Indo-Iranians arrived from the steppes with their horses, substituting the local millenarian civilizations in a mysterious way, imposing a new Indo-European pantheon... If we compare the situation of the Hittites in Anatolia, where they are almost absorbed by the local Hattic and Hurrian and Mesopotamian religions, with many gods with non-Indo-European names, we should be amazed by the strength of Indo-Aryan culture in avoiding any contamination with local Dravidian or Munda gods... It is true that &#346;iva is regarded as a Dravidian god adopted by the Aryans, but then why does he bear a Sanskrit name (and different Sanskrit epithets starting from the Vedas) and not even a trace of a Dravidian one? And where are non-Indo-European deities in the Avesta? Even the demons (the daevas) are Indo-Iranian there... Another strange idea is that Mitanni Aryans had already Vedic deities and were already Indo-Aryans without ever touching India, as if the Indo-Aryan language and the Vedic religion were not something developed in India, but brought ready-made from a totally different environment, and unchanged when transplanted in South Asia.



I had to search for this article online, & was led to an Internet blog. I skimmed through the article over there, & it must be noted that there are many flaws & conjectures in this article. This article is refuted in terms of genetics by many of the sources provided in this post. Similarly, it does not take in to consideration that there are well known & documented records of Indo-European migrations in to the regions of modern day Pakistan & Afghanistan, as in the Scythians. Apart from the existence of the R1a haplogroup, another point that must be stated is that Indo-European languages are only recorded in this region after the arrival of Vedic Sanskrit & Avestan. The naming of mythological figures is irrelevant, & makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The Romans share Gods & Goddesses with the Greek & have provided them Latin names. Another interesting argument to make is that the Aryan Pantheon is extremely similar in some ways to the Greek Pantheon. If these groups had no similarities or even ancient common ancestry, how do they explain the existence of those similarities? There isn't a host of information available regarding the Mitanni people, & to some extent their ethnicities are kind of unknown. Some sources indicate that they were elites ruling over a foreign people. As far as their languages are concerned, they do not have to be from Saptha Sindhu because their language isn't Sanskrit. They were probably a branch of Indo-Iranians that migrated in other directions. Their local population spoke a Hurrian language, & they could have had close relations with the Kassites. I could refute most of the incorrect points in that article, but typing out extremely lengthy posts is tiring & time consuming.

These days, the most relevant theories concerning the Indo-European people remains the Paleolithic Continuity Theory & a combination of the Kurgan hypothesis which is extremely flexible. The Kurgan hypothesis suggests that proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from a region above Anatolia towards Europe, Central Asia, & eventually our lands. It initially suggested some sorts of invasions as Indo-European horse riders spread their patriarchal & warfare filled culture. While there is genetic & to some extent historic & archaeological evidence for this theory, there is no archaeological evidence of major wars, that suggests what was more likely to have occurred is migration. The Anatolian hypothesis is another one that I have included though it isn't well supported on linguistic grounds. It refers to Indo-Europeans expanding for agricultural reasons, but the theory fails linguistically due to differences in vocabulary between Indo-European languages for agricultural terms. 

The Paleolithic Continuity Theory focuses on Europe & determines that 80% of European genetic stock has existed since Paleolithic times. This suggests that there were other Indo-Europeans that lived in Europe before the expansion of other proto-Indo-Europeans from Central Asia & the East. Uralic people & the speakers of Uralic languages are evidence of the fact that Indo-Europeans had been present in Europe since Paleolithic times. The problem with this theory is that there are considerable genetic variations in Europe itself. So as far as Europe is concerned, the population's origins are a mix of Indo-Europeans from Paleolithic times combined with certain migrations from Central Asia in Eastern Europe. The proof of those migrations comes from the genetic study regarding Croatians that I mentioned previously. However, as far as our lands are concerned, the Indo-Iranians arrived in Afghanistan, Iran, & Indus from Central Asia, Southern Russia, or Andronovo as per the evidence gathered so far. Furthermore, the Indo-Aryans considered themselves different from the locals or the Harappan people. 

There are more things in prehistory than are dreamt of in our urheimat




A new paper in Science claims to have ascertained the locus of origin of the Indo-Europeans, Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family. These are bold claims, and naturally have triggered a firestorm. No surprise, the same happened with these researchers when they published the result in 2003 that Proto-Indo-European flourished ~9,000 years ago, in alignment with an &#8220;Anatolian hypothesis,&#8221; as opposed to a &#8220;Steppe/Kurgan hypothesis.&#8221; The original paper in 2003 utilized phylogenetic methods which are common within biology, and applied them to linguistics. This second paper now incorporates spatial information into their model, to generate an explicit locus of origination, in addition to the dates for the bifurcations of the node.

In relation to results I think that the figure to the left is the most important, because it gives us their inferred dates of separation between various Indo-European language families. Observe that Italic and Celtic did not diverge in prehistory, but in history (i.e., the Sumerians and Egyptians were flourishing at the time). Additionally, the diversification pattern is not a simple &#8220;rake,&#8221; there is internal structure. They may date the origin of Indo-European languages to the early Holocene, but the diversification seems to have happened in steps and pulses. Though the authors support the Anatolian hypothesis, they also seem quite comfortable acknowledging that the real story is more complex, though you wouldn&#8217;t get that from the media.

But speaking of complexity, who really knows what&#8217;s going on in this paper? I have a handle on the general framework, but haven&#8217;t used all the algorithms. As I indicate below in population genetics a good intuition on the kinks and tendencies of clustering algorithms can be obtained only through usage. And of course few people will read the supplements. For example, in Nick Wades&#8217; piece in The New York Times David Anthony, author of the magisterial The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World , makes a criticism which is addressed within the paper (in the supplements):

_Dr. Anthony, noting that neither he nor Dr. Atkinson is a linguist, said that cognates were only one ingredient for reconstructing language trees, and that grammar and sound changes should also be used. Dr. Atkinson&#8217;s reconstruction is &#8220;a one-legged stool, so it&#8217;s not surprising that the tree it produces contains language groupings that would not survive if you included morphology and sound changes,&#8221; Dr. Anthony said.

Dr. Atkinson responded that he did indeed run his computer simulation on a grammar-based tree constructed by Don Ringe, an expert on Indo-European at the University of Pennsylvania, but that the resulting origin was, again, Anatolia, not the Pontic steppe._

There&#8217;s an asymmetry here. The historical linguists have compelling and transparent rationales to make for why the Steppe thesis should be preferred over the Anatolian one. Lay persons can make assessments about historical linguistic models which are based on common sense such as words which span all Indo-European languages, and might give clues to the geographical and temporal point of origin. In response, you have Bayesian phylogenetics. At some point in the future I suspect all of this research will make recourse to Bayesian phylogenetics, but at this stage of the game even most people who use Bayestian phylogenetic packages don&#8217;t really understand how they work.

I may not grok the methods in detail, but I do appreciate that the authors simulated data to test their methods, and, that their methods worked for cases where we know the answer. For example, the method correctly inferred the geographical origin of the Romance languages, and their time of diversification. But in this situation we know the answer. How about in cases where we don&#8217;t?

I noticed this strange plot in the supplements. I&#8217;ve highlighted Romani, the language of the Roma. The fact that Romani is an outgroup to Indo-Aryan langauges, illustrates some deep problem with their method. Romani did not start diverging from other Indo-Aryan languages 3-3,500 years ago. It started diverging 1-1,500 years one. We know this because that&#8217;s when the Roma start showing up in the Islamic world and parts of southeast Europe. It may be that it just happens to be that the most diverged Indo-Aryan language also happened to be the one which migrated out of India, but I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s the case. Rather, the non-Indo-Aryan influences on Romani must be impacting its affinity to other Indo-Aryan languages, even if they are core words.

With that skepticism entered into the record, I can broadly credit the possibility proposed here in the most general sense. We know from genetic clustering algorithms that Indo-European populations within Europe seem enriched for a &#8220;West Asian&#8221; element vis-a-vis their non-Indo-European neighbors. *I&#8217;m talking here mostly about the Basque and Finns, though arguably the Sardinians were Indo-Europeanized only during the Roman era, and they should count as well. But, I&#8217;m pretty sure that the Indo-Aryans are the ones who brought the &#8220;European&#8221; component found in low levels across northwest South Asia to the subcontinent. The Indo-Iranians diverged from the European Indo-Europeans ~4,000 BC, and I&#8217;m suspecting this may have happened along the broad trans-Caucasian and Russian fringe. This is where contact was made was Uralic peoples. The authors of the paper themselves point to the viability of the Kurgan hypothesis in this modified form in the text. I don&#8217;t see why the archaeologist are all worked though (unlike the historical linguists).*






**********​
Note how close Greek & Albanian are to Indo-Iranian. In fact they diverged at around the same point in time around 6000 years back. Another point to note is that the Scythians are a group of people that lived all across historical Andronovo or Central Asia. 

Scythians

The Scythians first appeared in the historical record in the 8th century BC. Herodotus reported three contradictory versions as to the origins of the Scythians, but placed greatest faith in this version:

*There is also another different story, now to be related, in which I am more inclined to put faith than in any other. It is that the wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae, but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria.*

*****









SCYTHIAN WARRIORS SHOW GENETIC BLENDING BETWEEN EUROPEANS AND ASIANS

Evidence of the potential genetic blending between Europeans and Asians has been discovered by a team of researchers led by the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) within the remains of Scythian warriors living over 2,000 years ago in the Altai region of Mongolia.

*****​
The results obtained demonstrate that the population from the Iron Age, corresponding to the time when the Scythian culture resided in the Altai Mountains, had a perfect 50/50 mix of European and Asian mitochondrial DNA lineages or sequences, while previous populations showed no signs of this lineage mixture: the DNA analysed in the tombs located in Russia and Kazakhstan belong to European lineages, whereas DNA from the eastern part, in Mongolia, contained Asian lineages

&#8220;_The results provide exceptionally valuable information about how and when the population diversity found today in Central Asian steppes appeared. They point to the possibility that this occurred in Altai over 2,000 years ago between the local population on both sides of the mountain range, coinciding with the expansion of the Scythian culture, which came from the west&#8221;_, explains Assumpció Malgosa, professor of Biological Anthropology at UAB and coordinator of the research.

Studies conducted until now on ancient DNA samples from the Altai region already indicated that the Scythians were the first large population to be a mixture between Europeans and Asians. However, the only populations to be studied were those on the western part of the Eurasian steppes, suggesting that this mixture was due to population migrations from Europe to the east.

The current research is the first to offer scientific evidence of this population mixture on the eastern side of the Altai and indicates that the contact between European and Asian lineages occurred before the Iron Age when populations were present on both sides of the mountain. The study suggests that the Asian population adopted the Scythian culture which was technologically and socially more advanced, and this made them improve demographically by favouring their expansion and contact with Europeans.

The idea poses a new hypothesis on the origin of today&#8217;s population diversity in Central Asia and allows for a better understanding of the demographic processes which took place.

*****​
Ancient Siberians carrying R1a1 had light eyes - take 2

Hot on the heels of that recent Bouakaze et al. paper on the pigmentation genetics of prehistoric South Siberians, here's another effort based on the same samples and by basically the same team. This paper attempts to further elucidate the origins of these light-pigmented Kurgan nomads, including so called Scytho-Siberians.

_*Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization.*_

Here are the locations of present-day individuals who were found to carry similar Y-chromosome lineages to those of the Kurgan samples. Interestingly, the most strongly represented region is East-Central Europe, which was once the home of the Corded Ware cultural horizon. Please note, three Corded Ware remains from a burial site at Eulau, Eastern Germany, were recently found to belong to R1a, which was most likely R1a1-M17 based on their shared Y-STR haplotype (see here).

Christine Keyser et al., Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people, Human Genetics, Saturday, May 16, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s00439-009-0683-0

Ancient Siberians carrying R1a1 had light eyes

*My interpretation of the results here is that these ancient Siberians were largely of East-Central European origin, or from the same source as modern East-Central Europeans. They also most likely spoke Indo-Iranian (ie. Indo-European) languages. After migrating east they obviously came into contact with populations from East Eurasia and mixed with them. So there's nothing really surprising there, because it fits with what we know from archeology, as well as other aDNA studies. For example, a recent analysis of Corded Ware skeletons from Germany also found R1a (likely R1a1), as well as a rare mtDNA lineage present in modern Indo-Iranian Shugnans from Tajikistan.

So it's pretty clear there were Bronze Age expansions deep into Asia from somewhere in the west, probably Europe. They carried with them West Eurasian genes and physical characteristics, and perhaps Indo-European speech. But many of the details are still a mystery.*

**********​
Mystery People of the Tarim Basin

The mummies, which display curiously European features such as brown hair and long noses, were buried underneath upside-down boats, while the ancient surface layer was marked not by traditional grave markers, but a collection of large wooden poles driven into the ground. The cultural origins and identity of these people are unknown, but the site possesses many clues which may help archaeologists to answer these questions.

Carbon testing has determined that the 200 or so mummies unearthed at Small River Cemetery No.5 are the most ancient people found in the Tarim Basin to date, the oldest dating back to approximately 3,980 years ago.

*****​
These findings have led researchers to conclude that this group of people must have been the result of European and Siberian intermarriage before they began their eastward migration.

**********​
Below is a map of the Tarim Basin Civilization. Look at the geographical location of the civilization & note how close it is to Kashmir. It's amazing to know that that is what the people that lived in this region looked like just 4000 years ago, this also indicates & gives credence to a migration.




The Taklamakan Mummies(Tocharian mummies)

In the late 1980's, perfectly preserved 3000-year-old mummies began appearing in a remote Taklamakan desert. They had long reddish-blond hair, European features and didn't appear to be the ancestors of modern-day Chinese people. Archaeologists now think they may have been the citizens of an ancient civilization that existed at the crossroads between China and Europe.

Victor Mair, a specialist in the ancient corpses and co-author of &#8220;Mummies of the Tarim Basin&#8221;, said:"Modern DNA and ancient DNA show that Uighurs, Kazaks, Krygyzs, the peoples of Central Asia are all mixed Caucasian and East Asian. The modern and ancient DNA tell the same story.&#8221;

The discoveries in the 1980s of the undisturbed 4,000-year-old &#8221;Beauty of Loulan&#8221; and the younger 3,000-year-old body of the &#8221;Charchan Man&#8221; are legendary in world archaeological circles for the fine state of their preservation and for the wealth of knowledge they bring to modern research. In the second millennium BC, the oldest mummies, like the Loulan Beauty, were the earliest settlers in the Tarim Basin. 

*****




One of the most famous Tocharian mummies found, the so-called "Beauty of Loulan"; and right, her face as reconstructed by an artist.

&#8220;Beauty of Loulan&#8221; The oldest mummies found in the Tarim Basin come from Loulan located at the east end of the egg shaped Taklamakan Desert. Dressed only in shades of brown, she was alive as early as 2000 B.C. during the era of Abraham and the patriarchs. She died when she was about 40. Next to her head there is a basket which contains grains of wheat.

**********​
The Mystery Behind the 5,000-Year-Old Tarim Mummies




*Tocharian Nordic mummy found in 1989: Disfigured female with blonde hair*

*So what were a group of Indo-Europeans doing so many thousands of miles east of their established territory? From their full beards, deep-set eyes and high noses &#8211; as well as associated texts and artefacts found with the mummies &#8211; it is thought they were Tocharians, herders who travelled east across the Central Asian steppes and whose language was Indo-European in kind. Some speculate that these Tocharians may have profited from prehistoric trade along a route that would later become the Silk Road.*

**********​
Anyway, that's enough evidence for now. I will respond to the remaining posts later when I get the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nassr

bronxbull said:


> All the gods of Hinduism are parts of the trinity and the five natural forces are the primary things.
> 
> The debate of monotheism vs polytheism is a silly one and is not of importance.
> 
> I guess acc to nassr,evolution happens to everyone except his ilk.



Young Lady, evolutionary process does not and can not progress from a bull to a bronxbull except probably through a mythological process. And who would know more about it than an evolutionized filmi bronxbull itself. 

On a serious note, monotheism and polytheism in Vedic and Hindu beliefs have been discussed time and time again by a number of Indian Vedic and Hindu scholars and can not be trivialized as silly and unimportant. Both the belief systems are prevalent since a long time and there existence can not be negated. There are still many forming part of India&#8217;s Vedic and Hindu belief system see the Vedas as monotheist in essence. There are many others, who believe in polytheism as well. Therefore, negation is not the answer and is certainly not acceptable to those who follow Vedic monotheism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bronxbull

Vedic monotheism is the beginning and it doesn't have an opinion about polytheism and it doesn't see it as a grave crime like Islam does,just because u n me have ten fingers and ten toes,it doesn't mean anything and I don't know which scholars you talk about,real scholars are no the suit wearing,whiskey drinking pseudos so their opinions don't have a clear point of view at all.


----------



## Nassr

bronxbull said:


> Vedic monotheism is the beginning and it doesn't have an opinion about polytheism and it doesn't see it as a grave crime like Islam does,just because u n me have ten fingers and ten toes,it doesn't mean anything and I don't know which scholars you talk about,real scholars are no the suit wearing,whiskey drinking pseudos so their opinions don't have a clear point of view at all.



Since the 19th and 20th centuries, some reformers like Swami Dayananda Saraswati, founder of the Arya Samaj and Sri Aurobindo have attempted to re-interpret the Vedas to conform to modern and established moral and spiritual norms. Dayananda considered the Vedas (which he defined to include only the samhitas) to be source of truth, totally free of error and containing the seeds of all valid knowledge. Contrary to common understanding, he was adamant that Vedas were monotheistic and that they did not sanction idol worship. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda

Dayananda&#8217;s anti-polytheist and non-idol worship teachings resulted in numerous attempts on his life by Hindus, many of whom were known religious leaders, who believed that his teachings were against Hinduism and amounted to a grave crime. Incidentally, Swami Dayananda was anti-Islam and anti-Muslim to the core. 

As I have read, Swami Dayananda did not drink whisky or any such drinks. 

And we are not discussing Islam. In fact the era of history that we are discussing here, advent of Islam or other Abrahamic religions had not even taken place.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Nassr said:


> p(-)0ENiX, I know you are not cherry picking while trying to prove your point of view and it is visible in your comments, as you also highlight the divergent views as well. However, you must understand that all these genetic studies are clearly influenced by their sources of reference from other disciplines which are needed to arrive at final conclusions and therefore, more than not, end up supporting the views of a particular hue.



Yeah, I have noticed that some genetic studies are influenced by their source of reference, especially Indian ones that go to extremes in deception to prove their claims. If you read one of the articles in my last post, you will notice that the author actually mentions the existence of Hindu fundamentalist ideologies that influence genetic studies in India. The Out of India theory is probably among the most ridiculous tales I have heard in a long time. Some people even challenge the Out of Africa theory, & that just shows how fast science progresses. At this point, I think I have used a variety of sources concerning different regions to prove my claims. The studies related to the Scythians & the Tarim Basin Civilization are a good example of that. 



Bang Galore said:


> You may well be right that I'm picking sources that buttress my point of view. However I'm offering up no theory or support thereof_(no matter what anyone assumes, I'm not responsible for any assumption)_, I'm merely pointing out the holes & the disputed claims of those supporting the AIT/AMT.
> 
> I don't take your point on genetics as being obnoxious.. My point there too is the same as earlier, to show that there are many who hold different opinions and that there is no unified backing of any claim. If you see my earlier posts, I have pointed out that people will pick what suits them.



Are you serious about your claim of neutrality? So far, every post you have made regarding this subject has advocated the false Out of India theory. If you were truly neutral, you would have pointed out other theories along with their benefits & drawbacks. The fact remains that your posts have been aimed at discrediting the Indo-Iranian migrations, & you haven't been successful at doing that. Most modern evidence points to a migration, even the demographics of the region around Kashmir in the past give credence to a migration. All of your claims have been refuted. The Indo-Iranian migration theory isn't the same as Max Mueller's discredited Aryan Invasion Theory, stop confusing both of them or making them out to be the same. It remains a fact that Indo-Iranian languages split from Greek & Albanian around 6000 years ago, & modern research points to an Indo-Iranian migration. No one is picking the theory that suits them; in fact the Indo-Iranian migrations make sense from a genetic, linguistic, archaeological, & historic point of view. Indo-European tribes spread all across Andronovo, the Sintashta culture is evidence of that. The Scythians migrations are in fact well documented, & proof that migrations to Afghanistan & the Indus are feasible. King Maues for instance was the first Indo-Scythian king that conquered Gandhara, driving the Indo-Greeks towards their territories in the east. 



Bang Galore said:


> I have little interest in being either rude or getting personal. You are no exception. I have always felt it best to disagree without being disagreeable. The only harsh response was when you made a needless remark accusing me of lying. I regret that response of mine, I should have let that pass unanswered. My response was probably due to the fact that in a post made earlier, I had commended you on your civility in debate and your response promptly removed any delusion on that score. I don't complain, this is an online forum and I rarely take any opinion seriously. However, considering that you replied to a post where i refrained from any harshness with one like the above, I feel it best that I no longer quote or make any reference to you from now on. You are free to do whatever you want but this will be my last post addressed to you.



What do you mean by "_you are no exception_"? If you are implying that you wanted to have a civil discussion, then you should not have started with the insults. I just took a quick glance at my earlier posts, & I noticed that all I told you was to not provide us with false information. There was nothing insulting about that, neither is it the same as calling someone a liar, whereas many portions of your posts after that were insulting. What delusions? Go back & read your posts & you will notice that it's you who started with the insults. Are you saying that my post #363 was harsh? You obviously didn't read it then, because so far it's only your posts that reject all evidence & insult others. Apart from that, you have even posted deceitful genetic studies, some of which other sources have declared false propaganda. I don't care if you do not want to continue this discussion, but do not pretend to be the victim that gets insulted without cause.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eastwatch

Nassr said:


> At the time of Indus Valley Civilization, the land occupied by them was known as Meluhha. Greeks described India as a land east of river Indus (including its delta), which came much later in history and they also did not include the areas of the Meluhha i.e. river Indus (including its delta) and areas west of it.
> 
> As I said earlier, it was only during the rule of Mauryas, Muslims and British that these areas were politically unified for a limited period, out of a total of 9000 years of known history. I agree that the political units west of Indus may have had good or bad relations with the political units east of river Indus. However, this does not in any way justify identifying the whole area as India.



Now read about east Indian Kingdom of Gangaridai.Alexander released Porus of Punjab to form an united joint military to thwart a big invasion from the Kingdom of Gangaridai in the eastern India comprising of Bengal. 

Read the account below. Troops from Gangaridai were ready to face the joint Porus/Alexander troops and were advancing towards Punjab, which was already defeated by Alexander:
=================================================================

Greek, Roman, and Egyptian accounts on Gangaridai[edit source | editbeta]

During Alexander's invasion[edit source | editbeta]

Alexander's battle in Ancient India by Charles Le Brun, 1673.
Diodorus Siculus wrote of the area and army:

"When he (Alexander) moved forward with his forces certain men came to inform him that Porus, the king of the country, who was the nephew of that Porus whom he had defeated, had left his kingdom and fled to the nation of Gandaridai... He had obtained from Phegeus a description of the country beyond the Indus: 

First came a desert which it would take twelve days to traverse; beyond this was the river called the Ganges which had a width of thirty two stadia, and a greater depth than any other Indian river; beyond this again were situated the dominions of the nation of the Prasioi and the Gandaridai, whose king, Xandrammes, had an army of 20,000 horse 200,000 infantry, 2,000 chariots and 4,000 elephants trained and equipped for war"

.... "Now this (Ganges) river, which is 30 stadia broad, flows from north to south, and empties its water into the ocean forming the eastern boundary of the Gandaridai, a nation which possesses the greatest number of elephants and the largest in size." &#8211;Diodorus Siculus (c.90 BC &#8211; c.30 BC). Quoted from The Classical Accounts of India, Dr R.C. Majumder, p. 170-72/234.

Diodorus Siculus further describes "Gandaridae":

"Among the southern countries the first under the Kaukasos is India, a kingdom remarkable for its vast extent and the largeness of its population, for it is inhabited by very many nations, among which the greatest of all is that of the Gandaridae, against whom Alexander did not undertake an expedition, being deterred by the multitude of their elephants. 

This region is separated from farther India by the greatest river in those parts (for it has a breadth of thirty stadia), but it adjoins the rest of India which Alexander had conquered, and which was well watered by rivers and highly renowned for its prosperous and happy condition." &#8211;Diodorus Siculus (1st century AD). Quoted from Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature, John W. McCrindle, p. 201.

Quintus Curtius Rufus noted the 2 nations Gangaridae and Prasii:

"Next came the Ganges, the largest river in all India, the farther bank of which was inhabited by two nations, the Gangaridae and the Prasii, whose king Agrammes kept in field for guarding the approaches to his country 20,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry, besides 2,000 four-horsed chariots, and, what was the most formidable of all, a troop of elephants which he said ran up to the number of 3,000." &#8211;Quintus Curtius Rufus (wrote between 60-70 AD). Quoted from The Classical Accounts of India, p. 103-128.

Plutarch noted both Gangaridae and Prasii together:

"The Battle with Porus depressed the spirits of the Macedonians, and made them very unwilling to advance farther into India... This river (the Ganges), they heard, had a breadth of two and thirty stadia, and a depth of 1000 fathoms, while its farther banks were covered all over with armed men, horses and elephants. For the kings of the Gandaritai and the Prasiai were reported to be waiting for him (Alexander) with an army of 80,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 8,000 war-chariots, and 6,000 fighting elephants." &#8211;Plutarch (42-120 AD). Quoted from The Classical Accounts of India, p. 198.

Megasthenes in Indika wrote about Gangaridai:

"Now this river, which at its source is 30 stadia broad, flows from north to south, and empties its waters into the ocean forming the eastern boundary of the Gangaridai, a nation which possesses a vast force of the largest-sized elephants. Owing to this, their country has never been conquered by any foreign king: for all other nations dread the overwhelming number and strength of these animals. 

[Thus Alexander the Macedonian, after conquering all Asia, did not make war upon the Gangaridai, as he did on all others; for when he had arrived with all his troops at the river Ganges, he abandoned as hopeless an invasion of the Gangaridai and India when he learned that they possessed four thousand elephants well trained and equipped for war.]" &#8211;Megasthenes (c. 350 BC-290 BC). Quoted from the Epitome of Megasthenes, Indika. (Diod. II. 35-42. ), Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian. Translated and edited by J.W. McCrindle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bang Galore

There is an utterly pointless line taken by some here branding anyone questioning evidence for the AIT/AMT as either supporters of the OOIT or driven by a Hindu nationalistic ideology. I have always pointed out that it is best not to bother with perceived intentions but stick with the case as presented. Surely the irony of a Pakistani(&Muslim) accusing others of having a jaundiced view on a matter which is also connected to a major Hindu religious scripture cannot be completely lost.. There would not be much discussion here if that line was taken to dismiss any Pakistani opinion. Assumptions of motive does not allow for commonsensical discussion.

My own position, in many posts has been to question supposedly stated facts of the AIT/AMT, I have never advanced any alternate theory, in fact I have pointed out in many places that that suffers from the same malady as the AIT, even more so. If my questioning of the AIT/AMT seems like support for any other theory, that is a presumption in the minds of those making that assumption & needs no rebuttal from me. Neither am in a particular need of or care about certificates and those insisting on issuing them. Name calling is a cheap but very common tactic. Adds nothing to the debate.


My point has been fairly straightforward. The AIT has been a dominant theory for nearly a couple of centuries. Lack of evidence for any invasion has forced the theory to change constantly towards one favouring migration. Even that theory has been criticized by almost every major archaeologist for not being based on any evidence but simply a hypothesis based on an unexplained linguistic connection. There has been so much resistance from archaeologists so much so that the preeminent AIT/AMT scholar Michael Witzel developed a new hypothesis to explain why no great change happened which actually involved no migration from the North but a transference of cultural characteristics to a new population, an aryanisation if you will, of local population in the immediate neighbourhood of the sub continent . Obviously he wasn't indulging in this exercise if he believed as some here do, that the evidence for migration_(let alone invasion)_ was as cut & dry as is being bandied about here.

Over the next few posts_(as time permits)_, I will make my points on the supposed evidence from the Rg veda & the Avesta, the Mittani question, the Indo-Iranian connection and will also discuss what is said about archaeological digs elsewhere supposedly showing an "Aryan" connection.


----------



## bronxbull

Nassr said:


> Since the 19th and 20th centuries, some reformers like Swami Dayananda Saraswati, founder of the Arya Samaj and Sri Aurobindo have attempted to re-interpret the Vedas to conform to modern and established moral and spiritual norms. Dayananda considered the Vedas (which he defined to include only the samhitas) to be source of truth, totally free of error and containing the seeds of all valid knowledge. Contrary to common understanding, he was adamant that Vedas were monotheistic and that they did not sanction idol worship.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda
> 
> Dayanandas anti-polytheist and non-idol worship teachings resulted in numerous attempts on his life by Hindus, many of whom were known religious leaders, who believed that his teachings were against Hinduism and amounted to a grave crime. Incidentally, Swami Dayananda was anti-Islam and anti-Muslim to the core.
> 
> As I have read, Swami Dayananda did not drink whisky or any such drinks.
> 
> And we are not discussing Islam. In fact the era of history that we are discussing here, advent of Islam or other Abrahamic religions had not even taken place.



I know Arya Samaj very well,I went to an Arya Samaj school myself,DAV.

With all due respect to him,i dont agree with his anti idol worship stance even though giving the most value to havans and the vedas is the right thing to do so.


----------



## Nassr

bronxbull said:


> I know Arya Samaj very well,I went to an Arya Samaj school myself,DAV.
> 
> With all due respect to him,i dont agree with his anti idol worship stance even though giving the most value to havans and the vedas is the right thing to do so.



If you knew it well, why on earth were you denying the practice of monotheism in Hinduism. Please do not deny the reality within India because you do not want to see it. That is what ostrich generally do when it hides its face in the sand and ends up dirtying its face. 

You must be a good looking young lady, why smear the beauty with sand.


----------



## bronxbull

Why r u stuck on this mono,poly rut.

You are the ostrich stuck in it and what's with the random flirting dude?

It is amongst the least important issues,we respect Arya samajis and their view but we don't have to accept it.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Very interesting post eastwatch, so greeks knew about countries east of Indus in detail but were to scared to advance further.



bronxbull said:


> Why r u stuck on this mono,poly rut.
> 
> You are the ostrich stuck in it and *what's with the random flirting dude?*
> It is amongst the least important issues,we respect Arya samajis and their view but we don't have to accept it.


----------



## Nassr

bronxbull said:


> Why r u stuck on this mono,poly rut.
> 
> You are the ostrich stuck in it and what's with the random flirting dude?
> 
> It is amongst the least important issues,we respect Arya samajis and their view but we don't have to accept it.



Do you ever nod in agreement when some one states the same thing earlier, or is it your custom to always move your face in disagreement when you actually mean yes.


----------



## bronxbull

I disagree because I expect you to discuss real issues.not non issues.


----------



## Nassr

bronxbull said:


> I disagree because I expect you to discuss real issues.not non issues.



Bibi, Allah tera bhala karay, it is you who came in between and bully your way through a perfect discussion, though the discussion never meandered between the Bronx and the Bull.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Bang Galore said:


> There is an utterly pointless line taken by some here branding anyone questioning evidence for the AIT/AMT as either supporters of the OOIT or driven by a Hindu nationalistic ideology. I have always pointed out that it is best not to bother with perceived intentions but stick with the case as presented. Surely the irony of a Pakistani(&Muslim) accusing others of having a jaundiced view on a matter which is also connected to a major Hindu religious scripture cannot be completely lost.. There would not be much discussion here if that line was taken to dismiss any Pakistani opinion. Assumptions of motive does not allow for commonsensical discussion.





Bang Galore said:


> My own position, in many posts has been to question supposedly stated facts of the AIT/AMT, I have never advanced any alternate theory, in fact I have pointed out in many places that that suffers from the same malady as the AIT, even more so. If my questioning of the AIT/AMT seems like support for any other theory, that is a presumption in the minds of those making that assumption & needs no rebuttal from me. Neither am in a particular need of or care about certificates and those insisting on issuing them. Name calling is a cheap but very common tactic. Adds nothing to the debate.



No one accused everyone against the Indo-Iranian migrations as a supporter of the Out of India theory or of being a Hindu fundamentalist. The only reason I called in to question your claims of neutrality is because of your denial of genetic evidence & constantly making claims that support the Out of India theory without taking the validity of those claims in to consideration. It's funny how you are implying that Pakistanis & Muslims are racists or prejudiced against the Vedic scripture or the Avesta simply on account of our nationality & religion, that isn't true at all. By the way, when you make a post aimed at someone, be sure to mention them or quote them. I never dismissed your opinions because of your nationality or religion, you have displayed considerable bias throughout this discussion. The only way a logical debate would have taken place is if you had not pointlessly ignored every bit of evidence thrown your way in support of the Indo-Iranian migrations.

Forget about the Aryan Invasion theory, because no one advocates that theory these days anyway. The Indo-Iranian migrations should not simply be considered a modified version of the Aryan Invasion theory. These Indo-European migrations take in to consideration all the Indo-European people that have migrated & had contact with the people of the Indus, some of whom like the Scythians are in fact well known. I do not give a crap about your claims, neither am I giving out any certificates whatsoever for supporting a particular theory. I already clarified in my last post that it was in fact you that started with the insults, so stop pretending to be the victim & accusing others of name calling. The cheapest & most pathetic tactic I have seen here so far for attempting to win a debate is your denial of all evidence & simply calling its validity in to question. In any case, everyone can read, & I am certain they will be able to figure who started with the insults provided they go through the previous posts. 



Bang Galore said:


> My point has been fairly straightforward. The AIT has been a dominant theory for nearly a couple of centuries. Lack of evidence for any invasion has forced the theory to change constantly towards one favouring migration. Even that theory has been criticized by almost every major archaeologist for not being based on any evidence but simply a hypothesis based on an unexplained linguistic connection. There has been so much resistance from archaeologists so much so that the preeminent AIT/AMT scholar Michael Witzel developed a new hypothesis to explain why no great change happened which actually involved no migration from the North but a transference of cultural characteristics to a new population, an aryanisation if you will, of local population in the immediate neighbourhood of the sub continent . Obviously he wasn't indulging in this exercise if he believed as some here do, that the evidence for migration_(let alone invasion)_ was as cut & dry as is being bandied about here.



Plenty of evidence has been provided for archaeological, historical, linguistic, & even genetic sources from modern day studies. None of the archaeologists have a problem with the Tarim Basin Civilization; an advanced Indo-European civilization close to Kashmir. Similarly, genetic studies have already proven Scythian migrations as do historical records. The views of all researchers including archaeologists & geneticists evolve over time. At this point the Kurgan hypothesis with a combination of the Paleolithic Continuity theory is considered the most feasible hypothesis. The Aryan Invasion Theory also gets falsified due to Max Mueller's incorrect method for dating the invasion. Whereas, the Indo-Iranian migrations correspond to the time Indo-Iranian languages & culture appeared in the Indus valley. The evidence for migration today is actually quite high based on the amount of genetic & historic evidence that researchers have gathered. In order to transfer culture or language to another population around 6000 years ago would have required nothing less than a migration, as has been pointed out by other sources that I have posted earlier. 



Bang Galore said:


> Over the next few posts_(as time permits)_, I will make my points on the supposed evidence from the Rg veda & the Avesta, the Mittani question, the Indo-Iranian connection and will also discuss what is said about archaeological digs elsewhere supposedly showing an "Aryan" connection.



There are plenty of Zoroastrian sources dealing with the Avesta that discuss a migration. Besides, scriptural evidence can often be manipulated, especially because there is still a lot of discussion regarding the dating & completeness of portions of the Avesta. I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you, so please do not address your posts at me. This topic is a waste of time, & most people still consider a combination of the Kurgan hypothesis & the Paleolithic Continuity Theory as the most feasible model for the spread of Indo-European languages & people. If you must provide your views, continue your discussion with someone else.


----------



## ManUNITEDglory

Some Indian told me that Aryans from North India always conquered South India


----------



## Bang Galore

p(-)0ENiX said:


> I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you, *so please do not address your posts at me.*



I know I said I will not address you but I must make my point to this sentence of yours. There are no posts of mine now addressed to you, the one you are quoting neither had a mention or a quote from you. Unless you believe that all my posts are necessarily addressed to you, there is no sense in the above statement. I have said that I will not quote you but that does not bar me from making my points on this forum. Please feel free to not be burdened by any necessity to imagine that all my posts are addressed to you. Beyond this, I have absolutely no interest in saying anything to you. Please do not imagine that since I do not feel the necessity to be rude in every post that I hold your attitude in anything but contempt. I have stopped referring to you & as per your above post, you seem to suggest that you share that opinion. So feel free to move on .


----------



## Icewolf




----------



## ManUNITEDglory

Was the aryan invasion a myth?


----------



## bronxbull

Nassr said:


> Bibi, Allah tera bhala karay, it is you who came in between and bully your way through a perfect discussion, though the discussion never meandered between the Bronx and the Bull.



Miya,

mauka abhi bhi hain.

Aryan Invasion is a myth.


----------



## Bang Galore

_*Linguistic Arguments for AIT/AMT*_




> *Neutral Source:*
> 
> _Indo-Aryan migration is a *theory based primarily on linguistics* and the Kurgan hypothesis which suggests that the proto-Indo-Aryan people of South Asia were settlers from Central Asia who migrated to northern part of the Indian subcontinent more than two millennia ago. Models of this theory discuss scenarios of prehistoric migrations of Indo-Aryans to their historically attested areas of settlement in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, postulated to have started around 1500 BC. *Claims of migration are drawn primarily from linguistic research. According to Shaffer, archaeological evidence for a mass population movement, or an invasion of South Asia in the pre- or proto- historic periods, has not been found. At best, there is evidence of small-scale migrations approaching South Asia. Archaeological evidence suggests that the change from the Indus Valley civilization to Vedic civilization could have been a gradual cultural change. *It has been proposed by some scholars that the Indo-Aryan language derives from an earlier Proto-Indo-Iranian stage, usually identified with the Bronze Age Sintashta and Andronovo culture northeast of the Caspian Sea. Migration of Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers to and within Northwestern parts of South Asia is consequently presumed to have taken place in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, contemporary to the Late Harappan phase (ca. 1700 to 1300 BC).* Linguistics has been the primary basis of Aryan Immigration theories; no evidence of massive migration has been found through examination of skeletal remains. The ancient Harappans were not markedly different from modern populations in Northwestern India and present-day Pakistan.* Craniometric data showed similarity with prehistoric peoples of the Iranian plateau and Western Asia, although Mohenjodaro was distinct from the other areas of the Indus Valley
> 
> Indo-Aryan migration theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_




The AIT is primarily supported by a linguistic argument which goes like this. In whatever place one presumes to position the original homeland(Central Asia, Southern Russia), one has to first account for the presence of every member of the Indo-European family to be present & then all of them to migrate in a particular order, every single one of them with no exceptions and which is followed by a return by one of the earliest migrating groups back to the original homeland after all others have left. Why one group cannot simply stay there is this; the Indo-Aryans, the Iranians, the Greeks & the Armenians have to be the last to leave with the Indo Aryans & Iranians separating last after the Greeks at first & the Armenians later separated from this group. The evidence for this line of separation is from the Isoglosses.

Why is this important? Some suggest that they do not subscribe to the dating normally provided for Aryan Migration since other evidence conflicts with it but still subscribe to the theory itself and offer up other earlier dates as a concession. However the linguistic pattern of migration as set out now requires a certain date since there are other migrating branches who need to be dated to their earliest attested lands by the time the Indo-Aryans & the Iranians end up in their final places. Earlier than 1500 BCE & all existing linguistic hypothesis start to fall by the wayside.

The linguistic "evidence" is also used to test any hypothesis put forward. Contrary to what some here like to portray, there is no overwhelming consensus on a particular homeland theory, only preferred hypothesis, each of whom are vehemently disputed by scholars supporting another theory.


The problem with any long migration_(Linguistically)_ is that it simply fails to explain the *Greek-Indo-Iranian *problem. All evidence(linguistic) points to an extremely late separation between Greek & Indo-Iranian, in the very last stages of the PIE. A long migration southwards & an early separation between Greek & Indo-Iranian from the very north or a North-South migration from the Anatolian homeland makes it difficult to explain the close grammatical correspondence between them & is a point constantly raised by linguistic opponents of the Anatolian homeland theory even though the same problem crops up even for a northern homeland. A problem that remains to be solved.

There is also the Tocharian problem. Linguists simply have not come with any clear theory on the Tocharians, they simply mess up any pattern of linguistic migration that is sort to be set out. In any migration theory put out, Tocharian was among the first group of languages to leave the "original homeland"(2nd after Hittite) and moved towards central asia _(Hock dialectological arrangement makes a case)_. Yet the Indo-Iranians who are the last to migrate & having to pass through central asia, never did have any contact with the Tocharians at all_(on linguistic evidence)_

Even notable linguists cannot agree on a particular homeland theory. To suggest that it is a settled matter is simply not keeping with the facts. This is not to suggest that either hypothesis are incorrect, merely that there is no overwhelming consensus.



*Other questions/controversies:*

*# Centum-Satem*

The discovery of centum characteristics in Bangani , a N.Indian language has confused many scholars who seem unable to reconcile the presence of a even traces of a Centum language in the sub-continent with the prevailing linguistic theories. After initial attempts at discrediting the research, scholars have largely taken the claim more seriously.



> _From: "Hans H. Hock" hhhock@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Bangani
> 
> Pasted from <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pehook/bangani.hock.html>
> 
> The controversy over Bangani and the authenticity of its apparent evidence for a centum language in northern South Asia does not seem to be coming to an end. In the opinion of some scholars, the claims by Dr. George van Driem and Dr. Suhnu Ram Sharma that their own fieldwork shows Dr. Claus-Peter Zoller's centum forms in Bangani to be spurious has in effect laid the claim -- and the controversy -- to rest. Recent fieldwork by Professor Anvita Abbi (Linguistics and English, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi) supports Zoller's evidence and in so doing casts doubt on the fieldwork and/or claims of van Driem and Sharma. As a consequence, Zoller's evidence must be taken seriously and its implications for Indo-European comparative linguistics and for South Asian linguistic prehistory must be carefully considered.
> As is well known, in the course of fieldwork on Bangani, a language of northern South Asia, Zoller unearthed lexical items that appear to show centum developments of PIE palatalo-velars, instead of the satem outcomes expected in an Indo-Aryan language. At the same time, the language also contains lexical layers that are clearly Indo-Aryan and therefore satem; some of these result from recent influence of languages such as Hindi, others exhibit features typical of the northern languages belonging to the Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian family.
> Among the forms with centum features are various words derivable from PIE *GenH-, such as OgnOM 'unborn' and gOnNO 'give birth', as well as kOtrO 'fight' (cf. Skt. Zatru-, Gaul. catu- 'battle') and dOkru 'tear' (*(d)aKru). [O = open _o_; G(h), M = nasalization, N = retroflex nasal, z = s with hacek, Z = palatal voiceless sibilant, S = retroflex voiceless sibilant, K = PIE palatalo-velars, uu = long [u:], I = Slav. front jer.]
> While some of the forms are marked as doubtful, either by Zoller or by Abbi, and some other forms involve etymologies from Pokorny that many Indo-Europeanists would consider uncertain, there remains an impressive residue. What is especially interesting is that dOkru 'tear', with its initial d-, suggests affiliation with a western Indo-European language (cf. Gk. dakru, Lat. dacruma > lacrima, Germ. Zaehre, Engl. tear), while more eastern members show forms without d-: Skt. aZru, Av. asru, Lith. azara, Toch. B akruuna. More western affiliation is also suggested by lOktO 'milk' and gOsti 'guest (of honor)', which have good correspondences in Gk. galakt-, Lat. lact- and Lat. hostis, Gmc. *gasti-, OCS gostI, but not in more eastern Indo-European languages. Note that these forms do not necessarily contain original palatalo-velars (the fact that OCS has _gostI_ may be attributable to the transition-area status of Slavic and Baltic between satem and western centum languages); but they are nevertheless important, since they suggest western IE (rather, than, say Tocharian or even Indo-Iranian) origin.
> Van Driem and Sharma claim that their fieldwork suggests that Zoller's forms are spurious, that some are based on misidentification and others are simply non-existent. In a recent summary of arguments pro and con, Dr. Kevin Tuitte further suggests that Zoller may have fallen victim to fieldwork consultants' tendency to provide evidence that they think may please the investigator. Even a priori, however, the latter suggestion is dubious, since it would be hard to imagine how illiterate villagers would be able to know that words like _dOkrO, lOktO, gOsti_ would please an investigator (to have that knowledge would require more than a superficial understanding of comparative Indo-European linguistics).
> In January 1997 I had the opportunity to meet with Abbi and to go over some of her Bangani notes from fieldwork that she recently conducted in situ. She will provide a fuller report on her work in due course, but has asked me to provide a preliminary report, so as to set the record straight. While van Driem and Sharma appear not to have actually entered Bangani-speaking territory but limited themselves to interviewing Bangani speakers on the fringes of the territory, Abbi went into the territory and interviewed, among others, at least one monolingual speaker of Bangani. According to her fieldwork, most of Zoller's forms are genuine.
> Her fieldwork also confirms that the lexicon of Bangani contains at least three layers: Words of the type _dOkrO, lOktO, gOsti_, words that exhibit "northern" Indo-Aryan features, and words that seem to be borrowed from more southern Indo-Aryan languages, such as Hindi.
> Given these circumstances, Bangani poses several challenges to linguistics.
> First, there is the question of what appears to be western centum influence&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;_
> *
> Hans Henrich Hock
> Professor of Linguistics and Sanskrit
> Linguistics, 4088 FLB, University of Illinois
> 707 S. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801
> e-mail: hhhock@staff.uiuc.edu
> Acting Director, Program in South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies*









*#* _*The odd phenomenon of Iranian sharing some isoglosses with Armenian/Phrygian & Greek which is not shared with Indo-Aryan; the change of *s > h  from initial *s before a vowel, from intervocalic  *s, and from some occurrences of *s before & after sonants, while *s remained before & after a stop (MEILLET, (PAUL JULES) ANTOINE) and also the change of the original Proto-Indo-European *tt to ss (while it remained tt in Indo-Aryan) (Hock). This makes the common theory of a separation of the Greek & Armenian branches with Indo-Iranian suspect as it suggests that Indo-Aryan & Iranian were separate dialects from each other long before the separation from other dialects*_

*Scholars who agree:*

*



WINN (1995): "&#8230;a period of close contact between Indic & Iranian people brought about linguistic convergence, thus making the two languages misleading similar"

Click to expand...

*
*



Meillet(1908): "It remains quite clear, however that Indic & Iranian developed from different Indo-European dialects, whose period of common development was not long enough to effect total fusion."

Click to expand...

*

*# The Uralic Connection*

A substantial number of words found specifically in the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic languages are borrows from Indo-Aryan or Iranian (Vladimir Napolskikh has proposed that borrowings in Finno-Ugric indicate that the language was specifically of the Indo-Aryan type) This has been used to argue as constituting proof for an Indo-Iranian migration through Uralic Homelands. The problem with that is simple. _*The borrowing are in in a single direction; from Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian to Uralic. There is not a single agreed example of a reverse borrowing. *_The chance of that happening is in the realm of the highly improbable. This is all the more so because included are such words like for Bactrian camels which are purely central asian animals. Essentially suggesting that the absurd idea that Indo-Iranians somehow knew about Bactrian camels even while still far away in the Uralic homelands on the way to central Asia.

*



"The name & cult of the Bactrian camel were borrowed by the Finno-Ugric speakers from the Indo-Iranians in ancient times" - Kuzmina(2001)

Click to expand...

*
*



"Another problem is how to account for Indo-Iranian isolates which have been borrowed into Uralic&#8230;..the new vocabulary which most probably was acquired by the Indo-Iranians in Central Asia." - Lubotsky (2001)

Click to expand...

*


> _
> "So called &#8220;Andronovo culture&#8221; is an archaeological myth. There are no features of &#8220;Steppe cultures&#8221; in cultures of India and Iran*. And there are no Finno-Ugric borrowings in languages of Avesta and Rig Veda"*_
> 
> _*S.A.Grigoryev (THE SINTASHTA CULTURE AND
> SOME QUESTIONS OF INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINS.)
> Institute of history and archaeology.
> Ural brunch of Russian Academy of Sciences.
> Chelyabinsk.Russia
> *_


----------



## Pakistani E

Dravidians rule. All power to the Dravidians, I hope they recover their freedom from those evil Aryans.


----------



## eastwatch

ManUNITEDglory said:


> Was the aryan invasion a myth?



It is a myth because Indians love to portray themselves as the invaders to north, east and west. Indians believde India is the cradle of Homo Sapien's evolution and human's earliest civilization. Other than an Indian Eve (Hawa), who else can be the mankind's 1st mother?


----------



## goldstruck

eastwatch said:


> It is a myth because Indians love to portray themselves as the invaders to north, east and west. Indians believde India is the cradle of Homo Sapien's evolution and human's earliest civilization. Other than an Indian Eve (Hawa), who else can be the mankind's 1st mother?



We dont believe in Adam/Eve bull$hit...

Also, scientifically, the first humans spread from Africa, in Kenya. But India was one of the major places where civilization started, since in the ice age most of europe and central asia was frozen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

*These are some documents & excellent researches that I want to share concerning the Indo-Iranian languages & people. * 

Bronze Age Languages of the Tarim Basin​
The earliest accounts of the Tarim Basin depict a society whose linguistic and ethnic diversity rivals the type of complexity one might otherwise encounter in a modern transportation hub. The desert sands that did so much to preserve the mummies, their clothes, and other grave goods also preserved an enormous collection of documents, written on stone, wood, leather, oremploying that great Chinese inventionpaper. A German expedition to the Tarim Basin in the early 20th century returned with texts in 17 different languages. We can get some appreciation of the linguistic complexity if we put ourselves in the place of a traveling merchant working the Silk Road in the 8th century CE. A typical trader from the West may have spoken Sogdian at home. He may have visited Buddhist monasteries where the liturgical language would have been Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, but the day-to-day language was Tocharian. If his travels took him south to Khotan, he would have to deal in Khotanese Saka. Here, if he had been captured by a raider from the south, he would have had to talk his way out of this encounter in Tibetan or hoped for rescue from an army that spoke Chinese. He could even have bumped into a Jewish sheep merchant who spoke Modern Persian. And if he knew which way the wind was blowing, he would have his sons investing their time in learning Uyghur, the language of a major Turkish tribe who would descend on the Tarim Basin in the 9th century to form its next major ethno-linguistic group.

*****​
*Iranians*

*From a linguistic point of view, we need to explain how languages from two major Indo-European language groups managed to spread into the Tarim Basin, and evaluate as far as possible whether they were the languages spoken by those Bronze Age individuals whose remains were mummified. Purely from a geographical perspective, neither language is likely to have entered the Tarim Basin from either the east (where we find Chinese) or the south (Tibetan), thus limiting their approach to either the mountains to the west or the steppes to the north. We also know that the Saka were known to the ancient Greeks as Scythians, and were clearly a people of the northern steppes, famous as horse-riding nomads who periodically challenged the civilizations to their south. They are attested in historical and archaeological sources from about the 8th century BCE, and are identified with ancient regional cultures such as the Tagar of the Minusinsk Basin (8th to 1st century BCE), located to the north of the Tarim, or cemeteries to its west such as Shambabay/Xiangbaobao on the Chinese side of the Pamirs.*

*****​
The tall hats of the female mummies from Subeshi might also pass for a Saka trait, and so identification of some of the mummies with the Saka or Iranian speakers in the northeast Tarim is a serious possibility. But here we are dealing with people and languages which, if our archaeological identifications can be trusted, date only to the last half of the 1st millennium BCE. Can we determine an earlier date for Iranian speakers in the Tarim? *The Bronze Age antecedent to the Iron Age Scythians/Saka is the Andronovo cultural complex, a series of related cultures that spanned the area between the Urals and the Yenisei from ca. 2000900 BCE. Its linguistic identification is somewhere within the general Indo-Iranian branch of languages and, at least within the steppeland regions, it is presumably Iranian before the 1st millennium BCE. The Andronovo cultural complex provides a broad umbrella of cultural traits which importantly include the use of tin bronze, an extensive series of characteristic metal implements and ornaments, the use of chariots, and distinctive horse-gear. *Economically, the culture was versatile: in some regions, it was clearly semi-nomadic, while in others, it adopted irrigation agriculture. 

Its presence is attested in the Jungghar/Zhungeer Basin at cemeteries at Sazicun and Adunqiaolu, where the ceramics are clearly related to the Andronovo complex. People associated with this cultural complex may have lived in the Tarim Basin, although the evidence is strongly circumstantial. We do not have clear examples of Andronovo settlements marked by its distinctive ceramic styles. While some of its burials share what may be generic elements with those found in the Tarimuse of timber chambers or stone ciststhe Andronovo type of east Kazakhstan, the Fedorovo culture, practiced cremation as well as inhumation. In short, direct evidence for Andronovo sites is so far absent from the Tarim Basin. *It must be noted that Andronovo metalwork has been recovered from a number of sites, e.g. Xintala, Qizilchoqa, and Yanbulaq as well as the Agarshin hoard from Toquztar. In addition, the initial appearance of horses and wheeled vehicles in the Tarim, and the introduction of the chariot to China, are all attributed to Andronovo contacts. This evidence dates from ca. 1300 BCE onwards and advances considerably the potential presence of Iranian speakers in the Tarim, although it does not provide us with the settlements and burials that might better constitute a smoking gun.*

*****​
*Tocharians *

The one language group that is most clearly anchored in the Tarim, Tocharian, lacks any obvious external source. So the line of reasoning that might link linguistic evidence with the archaeological record becomes even more dubious. To render matters even more difficult, Iranian speakers from the Andronovo culture of the Iron Age could enter the Tarim Basin from both the north and the west, so this would seem, at first, to remove any potential homeland for the Tocharians since they should not have come from precisely where we derive another language group. There are two ways out of this problem. The first involves suggesting a long and untraceable trek across the Eurasian steppe to the Tarim Basin. As the Andronovo culture is sister to the Timber-grave culture of the European steppe also seen as the antecedent to Iranian speakersthis trek would have to start somewhere to the west of the Dnieper and would rival prehistoric journeys such as the migration of southern Athabascans from Canada to the American Southwest. Such an extraordinary historical event is rarely the type of solution that is likely to satisfy either archaeologists or linguists.The alternative approach is to select a staging area much closer to the Tarim Basin that predates any of the proposed Iranian-associated migrations. One culture that might fit the bill is the Afanasievo culture of the Altai and Minusinsk regions. This was an Early Bronze Age culture which may have appeared before 3000 BCE (the start date is a serious problem) and continued to ca. 2500 BCE. 

The Afanasievo is known from settlements that practiced both cereal agriculture and the raising of domestic livestock; however, most evidence of this culture comes from about 50 cemeteries. The Afanasievo burials are in pits, either single or collective, surrounded by stone enclosures, both rectangular and circular. Grave goods include ceramics that are generally decorated over much of their body; shapes are large pointed base vessels and small footed vessels that have been interpreted as censers for burning either an aromatic or hallucinogenic substance. The Afanasievo culture is linguistically attractive because its own antecedents appear to lie in the European steppe, the same region that provides the point of departure for the Indo-Iranian expansion some thousand years later. *This provides a convenient explanation for why the Tocharian languages are ultimately related to Indo-Iranian as members of the Indo-European language family, but also as to why they are very different, in that they separated from the rest of the Indo-Europeans at an early date.* Admittedly, this still requires an enormous trek from the Volga-Ural region east to the Yenisei with very little evidence of intermediate stop-overs other than an Afanasievo cemetery near Karaganda.

Indo-European homeland and migrations: half a century of studies and discussions (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 2013)​
The growth of farming economy in Europe became more active with the split of the proto-language and the dispersal of the Indo-Europeans. The astonishing scope and speed of that process were afforded by the use of the domesticated horse and wheeled vehicles. The Indo-Europeans did not have to be pioneers in this field, but they were probably skillful in spreading other peoples innovations. Recent work on the Botai culture of North Kazakhstan makes it possible to suppose a contribution of the Proto-Yeniseian people to the development of horse domestication. *For approximately fifteen hundred years serious preparatory work on horse domestication and the use of wheeled vehicles had been going on in different parts of Eurasia.*

*Then, almost suddenly, the results are witnessed. On the border of the 3rd and 2nd mil. BC both of these important innovations appear together, usually in a context implying the presence of Indo-Europeans: traces of Near East-type chariots and the ritual use of the horse are clear in (probably Ancient Iranian) Margiana (Gonur), we see chariots on the Anatolian type of seals in Kanish; Hurrian sculptures and other symbols of horse abound in Urke as if foretelling the future Mespotamian-Aryan and Hurrian excellent training of horses in Mitanni (as later in Urartu). One of the first examples of the sacrificial horses used together with chariots in an archaic ritual was found in Sintashta; the following studies of the cities of the Transuralian Sintashta-Arkaim area made it clear that some Indo-European (and maybe Iranian as well) elements were at least partly present there. The movement of Indo-Europeans to the north of the Caspian Sea in the northeast direction documented in the Sintashta-Arkaim complex led them much farther to the Altai-Sayany area where recent genetic investigations found traces of a Caucasoid element. *

*Another Indo-European group moving in a parallel eastward direction using the South Silk Road caused the presence of a similar anthropological group among the population of Central Asia. It may be supposed that the Caucasoid anthropological type of the Iranian and/or Tocharian population of Eastern Turkestan, attested in the mummies recently found there as well as in the contemporary images of the native people, should be considered as the result of these migrations from the West to the East.* The problem whether the boats played a role comparable to that of chariots at the time of early migrations is still to be decided by maritime archaeology.* It seems that before the efficient use of chariots and horses, long-term mass movements were hardly possible. The first changes in the geographical position of separate dialects, e.g. when the Anatolians separated the Greeks from the rest of the East Indo-European group (that included the Armenians and Indo-Iranians), were caused by rather small-scale migrations close to the original homeland in the Near East.*

The Politico-Economic Impact of the Horse on Old World Cultures: An Overview​
*Indo-Aryan Expansion South* 

*The Andronovo (2000900 BC) were Indo-European speaking agro-pastoralists of the eastern steppes, who with the acquisition of the chariot expanded both east and south. In these wanderings, their language became sufficiently differentiated to form the Aryan branch of the Indo-European linguistic phylum. Their southern migrations toward India, following different routes, extended over a thousand years or more. Moving south from the Tobol-Ishim steppe, their first encounter with settled irrigation agriculturalists in Margiana was hostile. But subsequently across Margiana and Bactria there appears to have been social interaction between the two groups. At different oasis sites, evidence of hallucinogenic beverages, fire cults, and mortuary practices closely matched rituals known to characterize later Swat cultures of Pakistan and those of Vedic India. Over the centuries, repeated migrations of these Indo-Aryan speaking peoples traveling south toward India was evidenced in the archaeological record by chiefly tombs with models of battle chariots, flourishing metallurgy, and proliferation of weapons. At Pirak on the Kachi plain, terracotta figurines of mounted horsemen c. 1700 BC are indicative of regular travel on horseback. The Early Iron Age was signalled by the appearance of Yaz I culture (15001000 BC), as the smelting of iron daggers and arrowheads spread from the steppes across the Iranian plateau through Baluchistan to India. Along the Ganges, iron axes were used to clear vegetation and iron ploughs to till soil, earlier impervious to copper and bronze tools. And in the Deccan (800 BC), megalithic stone circles with burials have been found surrounding a central mound.*

In these graves lay sacrificed horses elaborately fitted with iron bits, copper ornaments and trappings, closely paralleling ancient funerary practices of the faraway steppes. *Thus in the course of a thousand years, southward migrations of Indo-Aryan charioteers significantly impacted southern Asia. While the horse and chariot wrought military and political upheaval, efficient stockbreeding and the introduction of iron strengthened the economies of these lands. But changes were not only political and economic in nature.* The invaders also brought with them from the steppes their religion, in which the horse and war chariot featured dramatically in the cosmic symbolism of myth and ritual. From the Rgveda, the ten sacred books of Sanskrit hymns, we learn that the horse-chariot was believed to control the sun. Martial symbol of world rule, the horse was carrier of the gods, the white horse drawing the chariot as the primeval force that moves as fast as light. Because of its antiquity, the Rgveda allows us to trace correspondences with mythical traditions of other Indo-European cultures migrating out of the steppesinto Anatolia, as we have seen, and west into Europe. *The oldest of gods, Sanskrit Dyaus-pitr (Sky Father), appears in the early verses and has cognates in Greek Zeus-pater, Latin Ju-piter, and Germanic Tyr. Similarly, the adventures of the Vedic Asvin twins have western parallels in Greek Castor and Polydeuces, Roman Castor and Pollux, and Saxon Hengist and Horsa.*

*Iranians, Cavalry, and Achaemenids*

During the first millennium BC, other Aryan speakers of the Srubnaya culture, a western counterpart of Andronovo, migrated south from the steppes along the shores of the Caspian toward Iran. Later in the millennium, these Iranian speakers would invade the Middle East. In the seventh century BC, Cimmerian cavalry attacked Urartu in Anatolia, then Assyria and Phrygia, while Scythian horsemen undertook devastating raids into Mesopotamia and Syria. Other Iranians, the Medes, had bred the famous Nisaean cavalry mount, the finest horse of antiquity. In 612 BC Medean cavalries sacked Assur and Nineveh. The Achaemenid Cyrus II later would storm Sardis; his cavalry dominating the battlefield. *As successful in the east as in the west, Cyrus also consolidated Medean territories as far away as remote Gandhara.*

Migration, Trade and Peoples PART 3: ARYANS AND NOMADS​

*THE HOMELAND OF THE EARLY ARYAN SPEAKERS - IN THE LIGHT OF LOANWORDS IN PROTO-FINNO-UGRIAN - ARCHAEOLOGICAL COUNTERPARTS OF THE COMMUNITIES - SPEAKING PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN AND PROTO-ARYAN*

*The vocabulary associated with wheeled vehicles that can be reconstructed for the Indo-European protolanguage dates the disintegration of Proto-Indo-European c 3500 BC: before this there were no wheeled vehicles anywhere. (Anthony 1995) This date and distribution of the earliest vehicle &#64257;nds in turn give a good starting point for locating the archaeological culture where Proto-Indo-European was spoken.* It should be a culture connected through a chain of genealogically related cultures with the often widely dispersed areas where the various branches of Indo-European were &#64257;rst attested. This and various other criteria have suggested the Srednij Stog culture (c 4500-3350 BC) of Ukraine as the most likely candidate. (Mallory 1989) 

Important indications for the location of Proto-Indo-European and of Proto-Aryan (and its successors) are the numerous loanwords borrowed from these languages into Proto-Uralic or Proto-Finno-Ugrian (here taken as synonyms). In all likelihood, Proto-Finno-Ugrian was spoken in the successive Lyalovo (c 5000-3650 BC) and Volosovo (c 3650-1900 BC) cultures, which had their centre on the upper Volga. The Lyalovo culture (characterized by Pitted Ware) expanded around 3900 BC to Karelia, Finland and the Baltic (the ceramic developed into Combed Ware in these regions); in the southwest, on the upper Don, the Lyalovo culture was in contact with the Srednij Stog culture. Around 2300 BC, the southern part of the Volosovo culture was intruded by the Abashevo culture (c 2800-1900 BC), which was descended from the Srednij Stog culture via the intervening Pit Grave culture (c 3500-2800 BC). As a result of this development, several Proto-Finno-Ugrian speaking communities seem to have had a ProtoAryan speaking elite minority, whose later absorption into the majority left Aryan loanwords in early Finno-Ugrian. (Carpelan and Parpola 2001) 

*In the southern Urals, the Abashevo culture gave rise to the Sintashta-Arkaim culture (c 2200-1800 BC), the graves of which contain the earliest known horse-drawn chariots (c 2000 BC) The Sintashta-Arkaim culture in turn is the source of the Andronovo cultural complex, which spread widely in southern Siberia and Central Asia between 1800 and 1300 BC. (Epimachov and Korjakova 2004)*

*THE SOUTHWARD MIGRATION OF ARYAN SPEAKERS 
AND THE BACTRIA-MARGIANA ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEX*

*The homeland of the Aryan or Indo-Iranian languages thus was in the steppes of South Russia and northern Central Asia. Yet, as their latter name indicates, they have long been spoken predominantly in India and in Iran (India and Iran denoting here South Asia and Greater Iran in the sense of the Achaemenid Empire). This implies a southward movement from northern Central Asia through southern Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan) approximately in the course of the second millennium BCE. During this time, southern Central Asia was in the control of the agriculturally based Bactria and Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) (c 2500-1300 BC). The archaeological record shows that between 1800 and 1300 BC, the Andronovo tribes have been coming to southern Central Asia in increasing numbers, until eventually almost every BMAC settlement was surrounded by their campsites (cf. Gubaev et al 1998; Cattani 2004 [2005]; Hiebert 2001; 2002; Hiebert & Moore 2004 [2005]; Francfort 2005: 295-304).*

*Undoubtedly the BMAC originally was non-Indo-European in its language, as it owed its birth to forces coming from earlier cultures of southern Turkmenistan, Elam, Iran and Baluchistan (Francfort 2005: 258-261). But it seems that during the second millennium BC, the BMAC was linguistically Aryanized, because the Andronovo culture did spread from the north to the region of the BMAC, but not further to India and Iran and thus did not transport the IndoIranian languages there, while on the other hand the BMAC did spread both to Iran and South Asia. Also, an aristocratic grave that recently came to light at Zardcha Khalifa in Tajikistan has shown that the elite of the BMAC had adopted the horse-drawn chariot from the Sintashta-Arkaim culture (Bobomulloev 1997).* The Vikings sailing from Scandinavia to the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea through the rivers of Ukraine and Russia took over the rule in the local communities speaking Old Russian. *In the Hurrian-speaking kingdom of Mitanni, the Proto-Indo-Aryan speaking rulers adopted in its entirety the local culture where they had seized the power, including the religion, the Hurrian language and the use of the cuneiform script. In these two parallels, the incoming minority language was eventually absorbed, but in the case of the BMAC, the number of Aryan speakers was replenished by successive waves of immigrants from the north.*

*THE GANDHÂRA GRAVE CULTURE, ITS BMAC BACKGROUND, AND THE HORSE*

Situated in and around the Swât Valley in northern Pakistan, on the route that leads from Afghanistan to South Asia, the Gandhâra Grave culture (c 1600-600 BC) occupies a strategic location at one of the principal entrances from Central Asia. *This entrance was undoubtedly used by the Rigvedic Aryans, as the Kabul River, the Swât River and other waterways of this region are mentioned in the Rigveda. The horse and the horse-drawn chariot occupy a position of central importance in the culture of the Rigveda. It is therefore very signi&#64257;cant that the Gandhâra Grave culture has produced the earliest known evidence of the domesticated horse from this part of South Asia.* (Around the same time, the domesticated horse appears at Pirak near the Bolan Pass that connects the highlands of Baluchistan with the plains of the southern Indus Valley.) 

The Gandhâra Grave culture &#64257;rst appears during the late part of the Ghâlegay IV Period, between c 1600 and 1400 BC. At this phase it is represented by the black-grey, burnished ware  widespread hroughout all the occupation phases of all the valleys settlements excavated so far, which is comparable to the BMAC ceramics at Dashly, Shah Tepe, Tepe Hissar and Tureng Tepe (Stacul 1987: 121f.). *The hypothesis that its presence in the Swât Valley results from immigrations from the west is supported by the evidence of the only known late Ghâlegay IV Period graveyard at Kherai in Indus Kohistan. Here the burial customs are very similar to those typical of the BMAC in southern Bactria, with inhumed bodies placed on their sides with the knees drawn up in a hocker position.* (Stacul 1987: 64-65, 71-73, 122) Besides the greyburnished ware, the late Ghâlegay IV Period had black-on-red painted pottery related to the Cemetery H culture of the Punjab plains. The horse is depicted on several shards of this kind of ceramics at Bir-kot-ghwandai in Swât. (Stacul 1987: 123) Late Ghâlegay IV Period levels of this same settlement have produced bones of the domestic horse and donkey. (Stacul 1987: 123) 

The BMAC parallels cited from northern Iran are dated to c 1800-1600 BC. This Gorgan Grey Ware is considered to be the source of the intrusive Early West Iranian Grey Ware that suddenly appears in great quantities all along the Elburz mountains, in Azerbaijan and around Lake Urmia c 1500 BC. *The latter ceramic has plausibly been linked with the arrival of the Proto-Indo-Aryan speakers at the Mitanni kingdom in Syria (Young 1985; Parpola 2002a: 78). The presence of the post-Harappan Cemetery-H type ceramics in Swat on the other hand suggests that the carriers of the Gandhâra Grave culture at the Ghâlegay IV Period had close relationship with the Punjab plains and that part of them probably in&#64257;ltrated to that region. *The Cemetery H culture (c 1700-1300 BC) had introduced cremation as a new mode of disposal of the dead, contrasting with the Harappan practice of inhumation burial.

*(Please read the link below from the source directly because some characters aren't appearing on the browser.)*

The Indo-Iranian substratum​
4.2. The phonological and morphological similarity of loanwords in Proto-Indo-Iranian and in Sanskrit has important consequences. First of all, it indicates that, to put it carefully, a substratum of Indo-Iranian and a substratum of Indo-Aryan represent the same language, or, at any rate, two dialects of the same language. *In order to account for this fact, we are bound to assume that the language of the original population of the towns of Central Asia, where Indo-Iranians must have arrived in the second millennium BCE, on the one hand, and the language spoken in Punjab, the homeland of the Indo-Aryans, on the other, were intimately related.* At the present stage, it is useless to speculate about the possible identity of these languages, but this does not affect the argument.

*Another consequence is that the Indo-Iranians must still have formed a kind of unity during their stay in Central Asia, albeit perhaps dialectally diversified. Judging by the later spread of the Indo-Aryans  to the south-west in the case of the Mitanni kingdom and to the south-east during their move to Punjab , they were situated to the south of the Iranians, forming the vanguard, so to peak, of the Indo-Iranian movement. Accordingly, the Indo-Aryans were presumably the first who came in contact with foreign tribes and sometimes passed on loanwords to the Iranians.* In this way, we may account for the difference between Skt. si&#62209;kat&#62512;- and Iranian *sikat&#62512;- `sand, gravel' or Skt. s&#61803;c&#62055;&#62209;- and Iranian *s&#61803;&#62055;- `needle', which cannot reflect a single proto-form. At the stage when words with Skt. s- arrived at the Iranian territory, PIIr. *s had already become Iranian *h, and PIIr. *c&#62209; had turned into PIr. *s, so that these words entered Iranian with PIr. *s-. This direction of borrowing (rather than from Iranian to Sanskrit, as is usually assumed) also explains the irregular correspondences within Iranian. For instance, the word for `sand, gravel' has no less than four different formations in Iranian, viz. *sik&#62512;- (OP&#62417;ik&#62512;-, Bel. six, Pashto &#61850;&#601;ga), *sikai&#62255;a- (Median Sikayauvati- `made of gravel', the name of a fortress, Munji s&#601;gya, I&#61850;k. se&#62216;&#611;io, sigioh), *sikat&#62512;- (Pahlavi sygd = sikat, Sogd. &#61850;ykth, Khot. siyat&#62512, *sikit&#62512;- (Kurdish sigit `earth', Oss. syg&#62209;yt/sigit `id.', etc.; the word for needle has two forms, viz. *s&#61803;k&#62512;- (LAv. s&#61803;k&#62512;-) and *sauani&#62255;a- (MiP sozan, Khot. saujsan~a-, Oss. s&#61803;&#658;&#62055;n/so&#658;&#62055;n&#61926;, etc.) (Abaev 1958-95 III: 164-165, 187-188).

*****​
5.2. *Starting with the assumption that loanwords reflect changes in environment and way of life, we get the following picture about the new country of the Indo-Iranians. The landscape must have been quite similar to that of their original homeland, as there are no new terms for plants or landscape. The new animals like camel, donkey, and tortoise show that the new land was situated more to the south.* There was irrigation (canals and dug wells) and elaborate architecture (permanent houses with walls of brick and gravel). Agriculture still did not play an important role in the life of Indo-Iranians: presumably, they did not change their life-style and only used the products (`bread'!) of the farmers, hardly tilling the land themselves. The paucity of terms for military technology (only *gad&#62512;- f. `club') can be seen as an indication of Aryan military supremacy.

*It seems further obvious to me that the Soma cult was borrowed by the Indo-Iranians.* This picture, which is drawn on exclusively linguistic arguments, is a strong confirmation of the traditional theory that the Indo-Iranians come from the north. *Most probably, the Indo-Iranians moved from the Eurasian steppes in the third millennium BCE (Pit-Grave culture, 3500-2500 BCE) in eastern direction, first to the region of the lower Volga (Potapovo, etc., 2500-1900 BCE) and then to Central Asia (Andronovo culture, from 2200 BCE onwards).*

*As we have seen above, there are reasons to believe that the Indo-Aryans formed the vanguard of the Indo-Iranian movement and were the first to come into contact with the original inhabitants of the Central Asian towns. Then, presumably under pressure of the Iranians, who were pushing from behind, the Indo-Aryans moved further to the south-east and south-west, whereas the Iranians remained in Central Asia and later spread over the Iranian plateau. The urban civilization of Central Asia has enriched the Indo-Iranian lexicon with building and irrigation terminology, with terms for clothing and hair-do, and for some artifacts.* It is tempting to suggest that the word *gad&#62512;- `club, mace' refers to the characteristic mace-heads of stone and bronze abundantly found in the towns of the so-called Bactria-Margian Archaeological Complex. Also *u&#62255;&#62512;c&#62209;&#62055;- `axe, pointed knife' may be identified with shaft-hole axes and axe-adzes of this culture.

6. Finally, I would like to shortly discuss the implications for the contacts between Indo-Iranian and Uralian speakers, which is the actual theme of this conference. As is well known, Uralic has heavily borrowed from Indo-Iranian, but I agree with those scholars who believe that many of the apparent early borrowings rather reflect an etymological relationship between Uralic and Indo-European, and I doubt that there are Proto-Uralic borrowings from Indo-European. At any rate, borrowings from Indo-Iranian start with the Finno-Ugrian period. *It is remarkable that the oldest layer of borrowings often concerns words which are only attested in Sanskrit and not in Iranian* (e.g. FU *ora- `awl' : Skt. &#62512;&#62209;r&#62512;- `awl'; FV *res&#62209;m&#61924; `rope' : Skt. ras&#62209;mi&#62209;- m. `rein', ras&#62209;ma&#62209;nm. `id.'; FV *onke `hook' : Skt. an&#62215;ka&#62209;- `hook'; FP *ant&#1079; `young grass' : Skt. a&#62209;ndhas- `grass', etc.). *This fact can be explained by the vanguard position of the Indo-Aryans, who were the first to come into contact with the Uralic population on their move to the east. The Iranians, who came slightly later, lived in the neighboorhood of the Uralians for a very long time and continuously contributed to the enrichment of the Uralian vocabulary.*

*Another problem is how to account for Indo-Iranian isolates which have been borrowed into Uralic. It is hard to believe that the new vocabulary, which was acquired by the Indo-Iranians in Central Asia, could reach the Uralians in time, so that we only have two options: either the Indo-Iranian isolates are of Indo-European origin, or the Uralians borrowed these words from an Iranian source at a later stage.* To the first group may belong PIIr. *rac&#62209;m- `rope, rein' : FV *res&#62209;m&#61924; `rope' (the -m- is only attested in Sanskrit); PIIr. *mak&#61850;- `fly, bee' : FU *mek&#61850;e `bee' (the fact that the word can be reconstructed for FU precludes a late date for borrowing); PIIr. *sur&#62512;- `alcohol' : PP *sur `beer' (the PP word cannot be a late borrowing from Iranian because of its *s-) and PIIr. *dasi&#62255;u- `foreigner' : Vog. tas `stranger' (the Uralic word cannot be due to late borrowing from Iranian because of the preserved *s-). On the other hand, I assume that FV *oras&#62209;e `(castrated) boar' was borrowed from Iranian (PIIr. *u&#62255;ar&#62512;j&#62209;ha- `wild boar' can hardly be an IE word). The same probably holds for FP *s&#62209;uka `chaff, awn' because this form is only found in Iranian (LAv. s&#61803;k&#62512;- `needle') and further for PP vo&#62215;rk `kidney' (PIIr. *u&#62255;r&#62245;tka-), FP/FV *s&#62209;aka `goat' (PIIr. *sc&#62209;&#62512;ga-/sc&#62209;aga-), PP *n&#62209;an&#62209; `bread' (PIIr. *nagna-), PP *maj&#61924;k / maj&#61924;g `stake' (PIIr. *mai&#62255;&#61803;kha-).

**********​
I also suggest referring to the 3 sources below. I did not have time to go through all of them, & some of the earlier sources I have mentioned on this post were read by me some time back. 

The point is that I may have forgotten to include some necessary details because I do not remember all of the information contained in these documents.

Most of these sources aren't that old & are in fact fairly recent. That is important due to the constantly evolving & rapid flow of knowledge when it comes to research.

Ancient Indo-Europeans (Part 1)

Ancient Indo-Europeans (Part 2)

The Nasatyas, the Chariot and ProtoAryan Religion 

Unfortunately, the first 2 sources (Ancient Indo-Europeans Part 1 & 2) might not be a 100% complete. Those are the only copies that I found.

I advise people to read about the Kurgan hypothesis & the Paelolithic Continuity theory. I have explained them earlier in previous posts. The point that needs to be repeated is that all members of the Indo-European family were not present in the Proto-Indo-European homeland because many of those groups had settled & resided in Europe since Paleolithic times. There were some migrations from Europe towards the Proto-Indo-European homeland that had branched out & vice versa. What that means is that Proto-Indo-European speakers migrated from Europe towards the East, & some members of that group as in the case of Croations migrated back. The others such as the Indo-Iranians & Scythians continued migrating towards the East. All Indo-European people are essentially related, the difference is the period of settlement & migration.

As far as languages are concerned, Uralic speakers & Indo-Iranian speakers were in constant contact with each other. As they migrated, the Indo-Aryans were the first to come across new regions, thus they transferred the words towards Indo-Iranians due to their ethnic ties with them. The Indo-Iranians who were still following the Indo-Aryans passed on those words to Uralic speakers. The point to note is that the migrations didn't occur in a day, but instead took a considerable amount of time. Some words of Indo-European origins in Uralic languages may also have been provided by the Scythians. That is the explanation provided by some of the sources above. 

This along with the countless authentic researches that I have mentioned previously point towards one conclusion & that is the migration of Indo-Iranians of course. Recent archaeological, linguistic, genetic, & historical sources confirm this. It has already been mentioned previously in my previous post that languages & cultures did not travel in ancient times without the flow of people. After establishing themselves on the north western regions of the Sub-Continent, the cultural dominance of the Indo-Aryans further expanded their languages & there were obviously some albeit fewer migrations towards the east of the Sub-Continent as well.

I shall respond to some other posts where I was mentioned or quoted later when I get the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

@p(-)0ENiX

I do not know if others read your lengthy posts. I read all what you post with a lot of interest. Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shinigami

its amazing how the term "indo european" stuck. when its obviously bulls*it. no major population migration took place from europe to india, although they might have branched from the same tree. one went east, the other went west


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Bang Galore said:


> I know I said I will not address you but I must make my point to this sentence of yours. There are no posts of mine now addressed to you, the one you are quoting neither had a mention or a quote from you. Unless you believe that all my posts are necessarily addressed to you, there is no sense in the above statement. I have said that I will not quote you but that does not bar me from making my points on this forum. Please feel free to not be burdened by any necessity to imagine that all my posts are addressed to you. Beyond this, I have absolutely no interest in saying anything to you. Please do not imagine that since I do not feel the necessity to be rude in every post that I hold your attitude in anything but contempt. I have stopped referring to you & as per your above post, you seem to suggest that you share that opinion. So feel free to move on .



Your last post was obviously addressed to me because it refers to Pakistanis & Muslims that have accused you of being biased & questioned your neutrality over the subject of the Indo-Iranian migration. Go and read your previous post that I replied to again, it does not mention me or even quote me, but you are essentially referring to other members on this thread & I am among the few that you had a discussion with. I do not believe or imagine that all of your posts are addressed to me so stop coming up with ridiculous ideas. 

Before complaining about other people's attitudes or rudeness, note that it's in fact you that started with the insults as such you better hold your own behavior in contempt. 



Bang Galore said:


> *Contrary to what some here like to portray*, there is no overwhelming consensus on a particular homeland theory,



Who is "some here" referring to if not those that you had a discussion with? That is the point that I was trying to make about you addressing people without mentioning them. Modern day research points to a migration, you may continue to believe whatever you want though. In any case, that is the end of our discussion.


----------



## Wholegrain

@p(-)0ENiX 

Burushaski language in Gilgit-Baltistan is an isolate, its not Dardic, Iranic or Indic and doesn't belong to Indo-European languages at all, do you know where it came from?


----------



## Lalashersingh

I didn't read the thread, but indians are not aryans, they are 90% dravidians, you just have to look at them to tell that, at least places likes northern pakistan, afghanistan, Iran etc... have some connection to aryans


----------



## Indianpatriot1

Usual bulls@it repackaged.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Wholegrain said:


> @p(-)0ENiX
> 
> Burushaski language in Gilgit-Baltistan is an isolate, its not Dardic, Iranic or Indic and doesn't belong to Indo-European languages at all, do you know where it came from?



At this point, I doubt anyone knows about Burushaski's origins. What we know for a fact is that Indo-Iranian languages have influenced Burushaski, but due to the isolation of the region it's spoken in, the language retains its grammatical structure. Some have postulated that the language has roots in the Phrygian tongue that could have arrived through Anatolia along with Alexander's army. The Burusho people do have some stories regarding origins from a village founded by remnants of Alexander's army. However, as per genetic studies, they do not descend from Macedonians or any other Hellenic group. That means that even if the hypothesis for Burushaski's origin from Phrygian, & the Burusho people's story of origin from a specific village was true, all it would indicate is that a bunch of Indo-Iranian locals in ancient times adopted that language as their own.

The link below discusses the possibility of Burushaski having Indo-European origins, but it also contains a link to an article critical of the supposed Indo-European link.

Is Burushaski Indo-European?

People speaking language isolates isn't really unheard of, the Elamite language for instance is also considered an isolate, but Israelite traditions maintain that Elamites are Semitic people.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Lalashersingh said:


> I didn't read the thread, but indians are not aryans, they are 90% dravidians, you just have to look at them to tell that, at least places likes northern pakistan, afghanistan, Iran etc... have some connection to aryans



98% dravidians, only kashmiris & punjabis are non dravidian there.


----------



## Wholegrain

goldstruck said:


> We dont believe in Adam/Eve bull$hit...
> 
> Also, scientifically, the first humans spread from Africa, in Kenya. But India was one of the major places where civilization started, since in the ice age most of europe and central asia was frozen.



Ice age civilization? What history book are you reading?


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Wholegrain said:


> Ice age civilization? What history book are you reading?



RSS (extremist hindu organization) mandir issue books and they have changed history books of schools all over India. Ice age is very recent, Indian civilization is million of years old.

NASA Images Find 1,750,000 Year Old Man-Made Bridge


----------



## Lalashersingh

shan said:


> 98% dravidians, only kashmiris & punjabis are non dravidian there.



even among punjabis, I find many people who look tamil. The truth is there is no such thing as aryan, most south asians are dravdian mostly, yes only some kashmiries, northern pakistani groups, some afghan and central asian groups are probably somewhat aryan


----------



## Ayush

Wholegrain said:


> Ice age civilization? What history book are you reading?



when did he say ice age civilisation??


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Lalashersingh said:


> even among punjabis, I find many people who look tamil. The truth is there is no such thing as aryan, most south asians are dravdian mostly, yes only some kashmiries, northern pakistani groups, some afghan and central asian groups are probably somewhat aryan



Pakistanis dont look like they did 2000-4000 years ago because of mixing with ASI woman, but vedic civilization is our legacy. Pure ANI doesnt exist anywhere in South Asia, and Vedic Civilization was South Asian so other regions doesnt have any claim on it.


----------



## Indischer

I have travelled the length and breadth of India and I can confidently state that in every region of India, the local population always has folks whose skin colour vary from light brown to dark brown. the frequeny might vary as one moves from North to South and East to West, but nevertheless, it's readily visible everywhere. 

It's been proven through DNA analysis too that almost everyone on the Indian mainland is a blend of Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian populations. But interestingly, the Ancestral South Indians are not the same as Dravidians. The Dravidians merely represent an earlier Caucasian group that entered the subcontinent much earlier than Aryans(and intermingled more with ASI). The Veddah people of Sri Lanka are seen as proof of this. Thus, the Dravidians and Aryans are both classified as dark skinned Caucasians. The Aryans and Dravidians, hence, must be seen only as a cultural group and not an ethnic group.


----------



## Indischer

There have also been speculations by linguists that the earliest Dravidians may have descended from the region called Elam, in today's Iran. The Elamo-Dravidian language group has therefore been proposed, linking Elamite with the Dravidian language group. This is interesting because if this were true, it would mean that the citizens of IVC spoke some kind of dravidian language.


----------



## TopCat

According to Hindu mythology, All Gods like Ram, Arjun etc are Aryans or light skinned and the real winner but all the Ashuras and Rakshaks, Monkeys etc are Dravid or dark skinned people from south and the loosers.

 .. very sad


----------



## Indischer

iajdani said:


> According to Hindu mythology, All Gods like Ram, Arjun etc are Aryans or light skinned and the real winner but all the Ashuras and Rakshaks, Monkeys etc are Dravid or dark skinned people from south and the loosers.
> 
> .. very sad



It's acually not true. This is just a modern interpretation that needs to be recorrected. The God Shiva and Krishna are both described as having a dark complexion. In fact, Krishna literally means Black in Sanskrit. Draupadi too is described as Dusky in the Mahabharata. You will find many such examples. But yes, most texts are biased heavily in favor of the higher castes.


----------



## TopCat

Indischer said:


> It's acually not true. This is just a modern interpretation that needs to be recorrected. The God Shiva and Krishna are both described as having a dark complexion. In fact, Krishna literally means Black in Sanskrit. Draupadi too is described as Dusky in the Mahabharata. You will find many such examples. But yes, most texts are biased heavily in favor of the higher castes.



Kirshna was the God himself taken a shape but yet fell in love with Radha the lighter skinned. Even God could not help himself eventually. 

Shiva was the symbol of destruction. So he must be dark skinned.


----------



## Indianpatriot1

The whole AIT / AMT theory has been pretty much debunked by modern genetic studies. Look up papers from Reich et al, the latest being of June 2013. The only persons clinging to the AIT nonsense tenaciously are a bunch of tenured white professors of Indology, the most prominent being Witzel and Farmer.


The full paper, which is pretty technical, is here:

AJHG - Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

This has to be read in conjunction with their other earlier work:

*In a nutshell the findings are:

1. The South Asian population is largely a mixture of two Genetic streams, the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI)

2. ANI has genetic similarities to the Western Europeans and Central Asians, but not to the Arabs or Eastern Europeans.

3. The ASI is sui generis, not having resemblance to any other group. For purposes of genetic marking however, the markers of Onge tribal group of Andaman Islands have been taken as a reference since the original ASI references are not available.

4. The ANI - ASI mixing took place between 1900-4000 years ago. While this may look like evidence of AIT / AMT, it is not so because the ANI component has been present in the subcontinent itself for at least 12500 years. It is presumed that the ANI- Western European split occurred around that time

5. There is a general North West - South East and Caste Ranking wise gradation in the ANI Component. Populations in the North Western parts and the higher Hindu castes have higher ANI

The postulated theory is:

1. The ANI populations came to India at least 12500 years ago and settled in the North Western part of the sub continent. These were the IVC and the Vedic people.

2. The ASI origins are not known. They may have come to the sub continent before or after the ANI

3. With the drying of North Western India, the IVC started declining, prompting a movement of ANI people to the east and the south

4. The ANI encountered the ASI population leading to intermixing and start of caste system, which, when established, stopped further intermixing.

This however is not the whole story. Large population groups also have west Asian markers introduced through subsequent invasions. *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

You dont get it do you? ANI mean aryans and ASI mean native Indians. So AMT is correct unless you include whole South Asia in India which will be biggest bs ever. It has been proven by genetics and the paper you mentioned that Pakistan was land of ANI till centuries later our forefathers decided to mix with ASI.


----------



## Indianpatriot1

shan said:


> You dont get it do you? ANI mean aryans and ASI mean native Indians. So AMT is correct unless you include whole South Asia in India which will be biggest bs ever. It has been proven by genetics and the paper you mentioned that Pakistan was land of ANI till centuries later our forefathers decided to mix with ASI.



Take your BS elsewhere. It is clear you cant read scientific papers. 

As for jat Muslims, I will puncture your pretensions slowly. You were not there in the subcontinent till 6th Century AD and have nothing to do with IVC / Vedic civilization.

Zor ka Jhatka dheere se lage.


----------



## Indischer

shan said:


> You dont get it do you? ANI mean aryans and ASI mean native Indians. So AMT is correct unless you include whole South Asia in India which will be biggest bs ever. It has been proven by genetics and the paper you mentioned that Pakistan was land of ANI till centuries later our forefathers decided to mix with ASI.



ANI did not originate in modern Pakistan. Their locus was somewhere in today's Northwest Iran. Repost from my earlier scrap: It's been proven through DNA analysis too that almost everyone on the Indian mainland is a blend of Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian populations. But interestingly, the Ancestral South Indians are not the same as Dravidians. The Dravidians merely represent an earlier Caucasian group that entered the subcontinent much earlier than Aryans(and intermingled more with ASI). The Veddah people of Sri Lanka are seen as proof of this. Thus, the Dravidians and Aryans are both classified as dark skinned Caucasians. The Aryans and Dravidians, hence, must be seen only as a cultural group and not an ethnic group


----------



## Indianpatriot1

Indischer said:


> ANI did not originate in modern Pakistan. Their locus was somewhere in today's Northwest Iran. Repost from my earlier scrap: It's been proven through DNA analysis too that almost everyone on the Indian mainland is a blend of Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian populations. But interestingly, the Ancestral South Indians are not the same as Dravidians. The Dravidians merely represent an earlier Caucasian group that entered the subcontinent much earlier than Aryans(and intermingled more with ASI). The Veddah people of Sri Lanka are seen as proof of this. Thus, the Dravidians and Aryans are both classified as dark skinned Caucasians. The Aryans and Dravidians, hence, must be seen only as a cultural group and not an ethnic group



Nothing is known about the ASI. For genetic marking , the Onge have been taken as a reference. But this is not correct because the genetic distance between the Onge and even the lowest Indian castes is very large. The Onge are negrito, and no population group in India shows Negrito features. Similarly, for ANI, the Baloch are taken but this is again guesswork.

The Dravidians could have been Elamites / Sumerians . Further research is needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
 1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Indianpatriot1 said:


> Take your BS elsewhere. It is clear you cant read scientific papers.
> 
> As for jat Muslims, I will puncture your pretensions slowly. You were not there in the subcontinent till 6th Century AD and have nothing to do with IVC / Vedic civilization.
> 
> Zor ka Jhatka dheere se lage.



If punjabis had nothing to do with IVC/Vedic then lets forget about native Indians. German aryan theory sound more believble in that case. Im not even jatt but dalit. It seem now AMT doesnt sound absurd when one takes actual south asian countries in to equation unlike maha bharat crap


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Indianpatriot1 said:


> Nothing is known about the ASI. For genetic marking , the Onge have been taken as a reference. But this is not correct because the genetic distance between the Onge and even the lowest Indian castes is very large. The Onge are negrito, and no population group in India shows Negrito features. Similarly, for ANI, the Baloch are taken but this is again guesswork.
> 
> The Dravidians could have been Elamites / Sumerians . Further research is needed.



For 100% ASI people see my picture and read my sig. The paper take Georgians as ANI instead of Baloch.


----------



## Indianpatriot1

shan said:


> If punjabis had nothing to do with IVC/Vedic then lets forget about native Indians. German aryan theory sound more believble in that case. Im not even jatt but dalit. It seem now AMT doesnt sound absurd when one takes actual south asian countries in to equation unlike maha bharat crap




Rant rant...rant


----------



## Indianpatriot1

shan said:


> For 100% ASI people see my picture and read my sig. The paper take Georgians as ANI instead of Baloch.



Now that you have revealed your caste, I can understand your extreme insecurity about your genetic makeup.

We give 2 hoots about the genetics of South Asia. It is just a topic of academic interest for us. Hindus have an unbroken cultural history for 1000s of years and dont need certificates from low caste converts.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Indianpatriot1 said:


> Now that you have revealed your caste, I can understand your extreme insecurity about your genetic makeup.
> 
> We give 2 hoots about the genetics of South Asia. It is just a topic of academic interest for us. Hindus have an unbroken cultural history for 1000s of years and dont need certificates from low caste converts.



hahahaha 

You again exposed your mentality. How the f i will be dalit  See the picture in my avatar and you can see who have inferiority complex  aka the wannabe aryans 

Hindus didnt exist before Islamic invasions, name given by foreign people and you guys adopted it just like India etc. Everything is adopted in India from Vedic Aryans to name India.


----------



## Lalashersingh

shan said:


> You dont get it do you? ANI mean aryans and ASI mean native Indians. So AMT is correct unless you include whole South Asia in India which will be biggest bs ever. It has been proven by genetics and the paper you mentioned that Pakistan was land of ANI till centuries later our forefathers decided to mix with ASI.



ANI is not only aryan, ANI is a mixture of everybody that came from outside of south asia and mixed with the local ASI. In fact, Aryans themselves were not a huge population, their dna is probably 10% of total ANI.


----------

