'Aryan invasion of India', is a 'Myth'

[Joe Shearer]

@INDIC

The point of the comparison, which was obviously an exaggerated and overblown one, was that using old paradigms in a contemporary discussion is perhaps a little futile.

You may or may not be aware: the term Aryan was the battleground for much of European racism, some of it by the pioneering Indologist scholars themselves, but much more by professional racists. The term Dravidian was drawn from Dravid and Dramil, but you need to read up on how it entered international discussion. Nobody sane and reasonably well-read makes the mistake,any longer, of confusing either of these terms with a race-name.

Before jumping to conclusions about the correctness of the definition in what has rather airily been termed 'ancient books of India', we need to ask ourselves why the Indian point of view was completely ignored by the international community of scholars. We need to remind ourselves about the horrible state of knowledge of our own ancient books among the tightly restricted community that only permitted itself access to these books. Let us not pretend that the Indian society, especially the Indian intellectual community then, even remotely resembled society and the equivalent intellectual community now.

India's ancient books and their supposed precise classification of Aryan and Dravidian were never in the discussion thanks to the failures of our own intellectual community. Let us stop whining about those who dragged us kicking and screaming into the present, and concentrate on re-building our knowledge of these areas.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

It is nowadays commonly changed to aryan migration.Invasion is no longer used as such.Rather a blending of peoples and cultures.Shiva is thought to be a pre aryan deity,as is shakti.Brahma and vishnu however are rigvedic deities.The word aryan by the way means 'noble'.A wide range of peoples worldwide historically have claimed themselves the 'true aryans',though why is a perplexing question.Because there is no outstanding achievement of the 'aryans'-whoever they are, that really outshines everyone else and makes it so desirable to be considered their descendants.They were just another of many nomadic peoples of human history.Its mostly hype.

 

[Joe Shearer]

R1b was originally Non-Indo-European, but later it got Indo-Europeanized by their R1a cousins.

There are two branches of R1a, the Indo-Iranian one and the Balto-Slavic one.

As for the Scythians, those blonde Scythians belonged to the Balto-Slavic branch, while the Mediterranean Scythians belonged to the Indo-Iranian branch.

<sigh>

Here we go again.

There is no identity between race and language. Not all blondes or red-heads spoke Balto-Slavic; not all who spoke Balto-Slavic were blondes or red-heads.

You might like to look up Tarim Mummies, or Takla Makan Mummies, or Tocharian, or Tokharian. In China, they were known as the Yueh-Chi, the 'moon' clan, after one of their ruling clans; in Tocharian, they called themselves the Kushans.

Tell me something I do not know! everyone knows the so called Aryan migration/invasion was a white man lie but history books was written by the white man

No Abrahamic religion or culture can be deemed to be called a 'Arya' only those who follow Dharma and Vedic teachings can be Arya the rest are mleccha.

Necessary but not sufficient. Only the dwija were Arya, not others. Only Hindus were Dwija, not others. There were no Buddhist or Jaina Arya, only Hindu. Converts from the Kirata tribes were not Arya, not ever.

Peddle your concealed racism elsewhere.

 

[Icewolf]

Obviously Dravidian deny Aryan invasion because it shows their "culture" as imposed on them

 

[MilSpec]

Only 'upper cast Brahmins' claim this 'historical fallacy' to their name. Gosh they oppressed people of Bharat for thousands of years, based on a complete lie.

Do people really care about being nordic, a poll would have been interesting... I personally don't give a hoot about my racial makeup...

 

[padamchen]

You dug up a 2014 thread.

Were you coming up for air?

 

[Indos]

Having a keen interest in history, I purchased a book of Iranian history during my visit to Tehran a few years ago. This book which is in Farsi mentions that caste system existed in Iran until the Sasanian times. Even during the Achaemenids, there were 4 strata (Qeshr in Farsi). The priests, ruling class and the aristocracy, skilled workers such as builders, smiths, carpenters etc. and finally the tillers of the land. There were a lot of slaves as well but these were not classified as most were prisoners of war and sold off if not ransomed. This sound very similar to the Indian caste system.

Even in the Greek States that championed democracy, slavery was allowed and voting limited to citizens. Romans also had senatorial class and the plebeians.
Therefore I think that Indian caste system is quite old. In my view caste system or stratification of the society was an economic necessity in the ancient times. Only exception is the concept of ‘untouchables’ which appears unique to the Indian society.

In addition to the slave girls, it was common practice of the powerful to take sexual advantage of the females from the poor and the less fortunate; especially of the conquered people. Therefore it is not surprizing the Aryan genes are found among all strata of the Indian society. Geneticists have found that Chengiz Khan genes are present among 16-million people in the world, means that only one person has fathered 0.5% of the world population!

Genghis Khan a Prolific Lover, DNA Data Implies

Chengiz was from the 13th Century, can you imagine what could have happened to the female population of the conquered in pre historic times?

There were many invasions of the subcontinent by nomadic tribes from the Central Asian Steppes, whether you call it Aryan or by any other name is immaterial. My personal view is that Indus civilization was destroyed by the people who later called themselves 'Arya Putr' These were closely related to tribes who settled in Iran and what is today called Afghanistan.

However there was definitely lot of intermarriage with the indigenous population which explains high percentage of common genes.

A very good explanation about this matter.

 

[Asian.Century]

Biggest myth of history, Aryan invasion of India. First India only came into existence on 1947 August 15. The word India never existed in historical records other than British made records.

 

[Indos]

I have read a lot about the debate about whether Aryan invasion did or did not happen. Thus far I have not come across any conclusive proof that it did not. My belief that it did happen is primarily based upon three factors.

First is the similarity between the Indian & the Iranian languages. This is true that language does not make a race. Nevertheless language connections do imply racial & cultural similarities.

Second is the destruction of Indus civilization. No civilization is completely destroyed in one blow. The very fact that it migrated eastwards implies that probably foreign invaders pushed the local population eastwards.

Finally the presence of a stratum of population called ‘Untouchables’ or Dalits as they are called in India. Until quite recently Dalits were not even allowed to enter the temples. In my view, Dalits are the indigenous or original inhabitants of the subcontinent.

Besides, when it is proven that Achaemenid Emperor Darius invaded Indus valley around 518 BC. Alexander defeated Porus in 326 BC. It is also logical to believe that Aryan could have invaded India around 1500 BC.

Aryan meaning noble in old Hindu text reinforces the theory that nobility or the ruling classes were of Aryan stock. Additionally, rulers of the region north of the Gandhara were Yavnas, Sakas, Kushans or Hunas in later times and were indeed not of the Aryan stock.

However this debate has been going on for more 60 years and is not going to be resolved in this forum.

Another good explanation, very make sense