How ancient DNA may rewrite prehistory in India

[padamchen]

In our Marxist historian books it has been written that Aryan came in waves. Those who settled later called the earlier Aryans, Dasas like divodasa and ling worshipers of the indus valley as dsyus. They all fought against each other.

I was just educating our Iranian friend about our Out of India theory of human migration.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

I was just educating our Iranian friend about our Out of India theory of human migration.

Cheers, Doc

Did Iranians go through same migrations or did they get more like Arabs? How much different were the people of indus and Mauryas from dairus and Cyrus ? In appearance.

 

[Sinnerman108]

I think there is a tacit recognition albeit very uncomfortable in hindu clergy of the fact that
aryans came from north west !

Oh the horror !

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

I think there is a tacit recognition albeit very uncomfortable in hindu clergy of the fact that
aryans came from north west !

Oh the horror !

This thesis doesn't prove anything. What it says is already known to the populace. Main contention is how much they acquired from Harappans.

Puranas and many shashtras were written after the influx of Scythians, hunas, yanavas,kushanas which may explain a variation from vedic. Plus many of these were absorbed into Kshatriya class.

 

[Sinnerman108]

This thesis doesn't prove anything. What it says is already known to the populace. Main contention is how much they acquired from Harappans.

Puranas and many shashtras were written after the influx of Scythians, hunas, yanavas,kushanas which may explain a variation from vedic. Plus many of these were absorbed into Kshatriya class.

Not interested in that,
but taking this into consideration, once can understand the religious political parties in hindu-stan and their problems.

 

[padamchen]

I think there is a tacit recognition albeit very uncomfortable in hindu clergy of the fact that
aryans came from north west !

Oh the horror !

It's not their upper castes who are the problem.

Out of India is political revisionism. Simple.

How else do you try and unite a continent under one umbrella using an Abrahamic worldview of faith and try and cobble together race and ethnicity cleave lines with a saffron paste?

Cheers, Doc

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

Not interested in that,
but taking this into consideration, once can understand the religious political parties in hindu-stan and their problems.

Why Harappans are our common ancestor and a key to unlock the mystery of sub continent.

 

[Sinnerman108]

It's not their upper castes who are the problem.

Out of India is political revisionism. Simple.

How else do you try and unite a continent under one umbrella using an Abrahamic worldview of faith and try and cobble together race and ethnicity cleave lines with a saffron paste?

Cheers, Doc

I think it the the upper class's claim of superiority that will be under threat if indeed the north western route is proven.

Why Harappans are our common ancestor and a key to unlock the mystery of sub continent.

The key to unlocking almost every big problem is Iran's history.
All Abrahamic religions will converge and come to peace, once we fully understand ancient Iran.

 

[pakdefender]

Hindu fascist ideologues came up with the out of india theory , their claim is that all modern human expansion took place out of india and all inventions trace back to india ( even time travel , no kidding ). They have created elaborate tall tales to support this super stupid theory of out of india

The key point they want to dispel is that no inwards migration or conquest took place inwards to india so that india does not appear like non-uniform entity of with native population either assimilated or defeated

 

[ای ایران]

Did Iranians go through same migrations or did they get more like Arabs? How much different were the people of indus and Mauryas from dairus and Cyrus ? In appearance.

We're not like Arabs. The Arab population in Iran is small. Arab migrations into Iran have only made an impact in Khuzestan (southwest Iran) and some parts of Hormozgan (southern Iran) but that was much later in history than what the BBC article talks about. Other Arab settlers to Iran didnt alter the population.

And we're not similar to South Asians either. This is just self-evident. The only similarities would have been with the original people that took Sanskrit language to India, but they obviously were not Indian and have died out in your main South Asian gene pool which the BBC article said is still just under half derived from the 'first Indians'.

In Iranian history South Asians have always been looked at as being a foreign race that is very different from Iranians and mostly described in the view of Persians as being dark skinned, thin/skinny bodies, different civilization with different customs, cultures, beliefs etc

You can see representations of how Persians viewed themselves and how they viewed foreigners like Indians/South Asians in Achaemenid royal reliefs at Perspolis. The differences are shown through body size/staure and facial differences, and differences in ethnic attire and way of life.

Iranians (Persians and Medes) according to their own view:

Indians from Hindush (modern Pakistan and northwest India) as represented in the view of the Achaemenid Persians:

These are the earliest surviving depictions of how Persians have viewed South Asians historically. In later writings they are described as foreign and being of a different race.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

To clarify the ancient samples used for 'South Asia' are from Northern Pakistan [Swat], Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakistan and Russia. Non from present day India.

Line 164

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/03/31/292581.full.pdf

These are the earliest surviving depictions of how Persians have viewed South Asians historically. In later writings they are described as foreign and being of a different race.

It's wrong to use the term 'South Asia' as it's a blunt instrument and akin to using 'Middle Eastern' to cover Iran. The satrapies mentioned on the eastern fringe of Achaemenid Empire are Gandhara, Arachosia, Hinduš and Sattagydia. These roughly proximate with Pakistan and it's provinces today as -

Gandhara ~ Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province.
Arachosia ~ Balochistan Province
Hinduš ~ Sindh Province
Sattagydia ~ Punjab Province

We can't know exact boundaries and it is even possible that Persian influence was only limited up to the Indus River [which is about centre of Pakistan] and even if was beyond that it never stretched over into India.


Hindush, or more often Hidush (Old Persian cuneiform: , H-i-du-u-š, also transliterated as Hindūš since the nasal "n" before consonants was omitted in the Old Persian script, and simplified as Hindush).[4][5] was the easternmost satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire, following the Achaemenid invasion of the Indus Valley circa 515 BCE.

The territory may have corresponded to the area covering the lower and central Indus basin (present day Sindh and the southern Punjab regions of Pakistan).[6] To the north of Hindush was Gandhara (spelt as Gandara by the Achaememians), whose capital was at Taxila. These areas remained under Persian control until the invasion by Alexander.[7]

Alternatively, some authors consider that Hindush may have been located in the Punjab area.[8]



You can look at various map of Achaemenid Persian Empire [all display slight differances] but non extend into modern India. Todays Pakistan forms the eastern flank of the empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sattagydia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/india-iii-relations-achaemenid-period

 

[Tokhme khar]

What we know for a fact is that Indo-Iranian is the parent race of Indo-aryan.

This is a fact on the IE language family tree.

@Tokhme khar

As I said to you on the other thread ....

Cheers, Doc

 

[艹艹艹]

I love indians talking about their history

 

[padamchen]

We're not like Arabs. The Arab population in Iran is small. Arab migrations into Iran have only made an impact in Khuzestan (southwest Iran) and some parts of Hormozgan (southern Iran) but that was much later in history than what the BBC article talks about. Other Arab settlers to Iran didnt alter the population.

And we're not similar to South Asians either. This is just self-evident. The only similarities would have been with the original people that took Sanskrit language to India, but they obviously were not Indian and have died out in your main South Asian gene pool which the BBC article said is still just under half derived from the 'first Indians'.

In Iranian history South Asians have always been looked at as being a foreign race that is very different from Iranians and mostly described in the view of Persians as being dark skinned, thin/skinny bodies, different civilization with different customs, cultures, beliefs etc

You can see representations of how Persians viewed themselves and how they viewed foreigners like Indians/South Asians in Achaemenid royal reliefs at Perspolis. The differences are shown through body size/staure and facial differences, and differences in ethnic attire and way of life.

Iranians (Persians and Medes) according to their own view:

Indians from Hindush (modern Pakistan and northwest India) as represented in the view of the Achaemenid Persians:

These are the earliest surviving depictions of how Persians have viewed South Asians historically. In later writings they are described as foreign and being of a different race.

What is the carbon dated period of these reliefs from Persepolis?

The hair, nose bridge, brow and cheekbones are all already quite different.

Cheers, Doc

 

[ای ایران]

It's wrong to use the term 'South Asia' as it's a blunt instrument and akin to using 'Middle Eastern' to cover Iran. The satrapies mentioned on the eastern fringe of Achaemenid Empire are Gandhara, Arachosia, Hinduš and Sattagydia. These roughly proximate with Pakistan and it's provinces today as -

Gandhara ~ Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province.
Arachosia ~ Balochistan Province
Hinduš ~ Sindh Province
Sattagydia ~ Punjab Province

We can't know exact boundaries and it is even possible that Persian influence was only limited up to the Indus River [which is about centre of Pakistan] and even if was beyond that it never stretched over into India.

South Asia is the same as saying India / Indian subcontinent.

The term Hindush is where the word Hendu in Old and Middle Persian comes from (pronounced Hendi in Modern Persian). Hendu / Hendi = Indian in all forms of Persian (Old, Middle, Modern). In Greek and Latin the equivalent words are "Indos" (Greek) and "Indian" (Latin) which probably came from the Persian word "Hendu". Hendu / Indos / Indian are originally all just broad racial designations in Persian, Greek and Latin for the natives of the Indian subcontinent / South Asia because they were viewed by Persians, Greeks and Romans as all belonging to a common origin and civilization.

There is obviously some overlap between how anicent Indians viewed themselves and their country in their own writings and how they were later on viewed by Persians and Greeks. So Hendu / Indian / South Asian isnt an entirely arbitrary categorisation by Persians and Greeks.

Also the extent to where Darius the Great invaded in India and forced the local rulers he beat there to pay the annual tributes doesnt matter. There isnt some magical line on the ground that Darius drew in India that suddenly seperated brother from brother, neighbour from neighbour and native from native like the Berlin wall or the Korean DMZ. Achaemenids did not alter or interfere with their native customs, society, geography and way of life, they just extracted annual taxes and tributes from them under the threat of renewed military force.

Anyway the previous person asked the question 'how different in appearance' were Persians during the time of Cyrus and Darius to the "people of Indus and Mauryas" and the answer is very different.

In both Persian and Greek sources Indians / Indus tribes / South Asians whatever term you want to call them are depicted and described as being of a dark complexion and being thin/skinny and light / light boned and with peculiar clothing, often half naked and with no shoes. They are viewed in Persian history as being of a very foreign land and race from Iranians.