Aryans vs Dravidians?

[Agnostic_Indian]

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

what ????????

think before you shoot..

 

[Nassr]

@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 – 1300) which peaked between 3000 – 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 – 1316 BC and Haroon (Aaron) 1439 – 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’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’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in the 1940s did not only constitute creation of a Muslim political entity at the expense of India’s Hindu domination. It was also embedded in thousands of years of historical and geographical realities. These aspects clearly emerge from Jinnah’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 “Narrative of Various Journeys in Balochistan, Afghanistan, and the Punjab.” 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 – 1300 BC). Mohenjodaro (2600 BC – 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, “The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan,” 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’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 – 600 BC, discounted such linkages. Also, the fact that Indus Valley Civilization’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 “Home of Indus Valley Civilization,” 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’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]

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]

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.

 

[Nassr]

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]

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 .???

 

[Nassr]

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]

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.

 

[Nassr]

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.

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

 

[INDIC]

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.

 

[Babbar-Khalsa]

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 .

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

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]

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.