Aryans vs Dravidians?

[p(-)0ENiX]

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?

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.

 

[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]

@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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[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

 

[Nassr]

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.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

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.

 

[Nassr]

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.

 

[Tikolo]

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.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

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.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

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.

 

[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

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

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.

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".

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.

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.

^ 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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

 

[INDIC]

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.