Aryan invasion theory denial

[Lux de Veritas]

It's Not Revisionist History When It's Actually Accurate | Murali Balaji

During the 1800s, Orientalist scholars such as Max Müller developed the theory that ancient India, specifically the northern part that includes modern day Pakistan, was invaded by a group called the Aryans, a term derived from the Sanskrit term arya (noble) and used commonly in the Rig Vedas, one of Hinduism's oldest sacred texts. Their assumption of an invasion was guided by a number of contextual factors, including the assumption that the Earth, at least according to Christian beliefs, was only several thousand years old.

Moreover, the homology between Sanskrit and contemporary European languages such as English and German was, and remains, a persuasive argument for a "Proto-Indo-European" (PIE) language from which Sanskrit, English, German and other languages descended. During Müller's time, it also seemed appropriate to situate the original PIE-speaking group in the middle of the various territories the descendant languages currently occupy. By this logic, Sanskrit speakers would have come to India somewhere from the West. Hence, the Aryan Invasion Theory. All subsequent data for more than a century was fit into this model.

But a funny thing happened to the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT): evidence emerged that the so-called Aryans could have been indigenous to India. The long-puzzling remains of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, for example, discovered after the AIT was developed, suggested practices that are similar to those of contemporary Hinduism, undercutting the belief that Hinduism was a religion imposed from the outside into the subcontinent.

Additionally, even the linguistic basis for the theory came into question, as research on the traditional dichotomies between so-called Aryan and Dravidian languages revealed more linguistic diversity than previously understood. Slowly, even the most hardcore proponents of Aryan Invasion Theory began to shift to a more nuanced explanation, called Aryan Migration Theory, to explain how Aryans mingled with Dravidians in waves, eventually establishing Vedic culture in the subcontinent. Aryan Migration Theory, however, has failed to account for recent genealogical and archaeological findings that suggest more indigenous roots. Several studies conducted over the past decade show that an Aryan Invasion or Migration simply could not have occurred the way scholars had previously surmised, including a 2011 study and one conducted by National Geographic.

While I won't go as far as to say that the Aryan debate is settled, it's clear that children in schools probably don't need to be inundated with information about conflicting theories that do little to help us understand the development of ancient Indian society. Aryan Invasion or Migration Theory continues to be prominently featured in textbooks, while states such as California are still using outdated understandings about Aryan Invasion Theory as a basis for content standards. This is why HAF is pushing for an evidence-based reform and revision of educational content, especially in light of how Common Core is being implemented across the country. Perhaps in reforming instructional materials, we can better appreciate the rich legacy of ancient Indian society, including developments in Hinduism, and the emergence of Buddhism and Jainism.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I think the PIE might look like these Tajik women, and they originated from Central Asia.

And in Russia/Eastern Europe, they mixed with the blonde Cromagnid, thus you have the new Slavic Nordid type.

Many Slavic women simply look like a depigmented version of these Tajik women.

 

[Devdas]

Aryan Invasion — History or Politics? | Archaeology Online
The term 'Aryan' has no racial or ethnic connotations prior to German nationalism. It refers specifically to noble Indians in the Indian context.

Essentially, Germany, a then weak and demoralized nation, with little culture that wasn't heavily Jewish-influenced, looked to claim Indian history and achievements as their own. For Indians, this should be nothing short of infuriating.

Moreover, no Indian texts refer to caste as having any basis other than occupation. It's true caste is hereditary, but every society has at one point or another maintained a hereditary nobility. Is the monarchy in England, for example, a racist institution? Obviously not. Indian caste is no different. It's impossible to differentiate India's castes by either looks or genes, which tend to be regionally and not otherwise distinct.

Groups like the Rajputs, Jats, Gurjars, etc. all came from the same stock, and then branched out into separate castes/communities. The same is true for every regional caste system and nobility in general.

Please don't bother suggesting otherwise. It's disgusting that even today people try to instill fictionalized accounts of Indian history to weaken and divide internally a great culture and society such as ours.

 

[INDIC]

It's Not Revisionist History When It's Actually Accurate | Murali Balaji

During the 1800s, Orientalist scholars such as Max Müller developed the theory that ancient India, specifically the northern part that includes modern day Pakistan, was invaded by a group called the Aryans, a term derived from the Sanskrit term arya (noble) and used commonly in the Rig Vedas, one of Hinduism's oldest sacred texts. Their assumption of an invasion was guided by a number of contextual factors, including the assumption that the Earth, at least according to Christian beliefs, was only several thousand years old.

Moreover, the homology between Sanskrit and contemporary European languages such as English and German was, and remains, a persuasive argument for a "Proto-Indo-European" (PIE) language from which Sanskrit, English, German and other languages descended. During Müller's time, it also seemed appropriate to situate the original PIE-speaking group in the middle of the various territories the descendant languages currently occupy. By this logic, Sanskrit speakers would have come to India somewhere from the West. Hence, the Aryan Invasion Theory. All subsequent data for more than a century was fit into this model.

But a funny thing happened to the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT): evidence emerged that the so-called Aryans could have been indigenous to India. The long-puzzling remains of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, for example, discovered after the AIT was developed, suggested practices that are similar to those of contemporary Hinduism, undercutting the belief that Hinduism was a religion imposed from the outside into the subcontinent.

Additionally, even the linguistic basis for the theory came into question, as research on the traditional dichotomies between so-called Aryan and Dravidian languages revealed more linguistic diversity than previously understood. Slowly, even the most hardcore proponents of Aryan Invasion Theory began to shift to a more nuanced explanation, called Aryan Migration Theory, to explain how Aryans mingled with Dravidians in waves, eventually establishing Vedic culture in the subcontinent. Aryan Migration Theory, however, has failed to account for recent genealogical and archaeological findings that suggest more indigenous roots. Several studies conducted over the past decade show that an Aryan Invasion or Migration simply could not have occurred the way scholars had previously surmised, including a 2011 study and one conducted by National Geographic.

While I won't go as far as to say that the Aryan debate is settled, it's clear that children in schools probably don't need to be inundated with information about conflicting theories that do little to help us understand the development of ancient Indian society. Aryan Invasion or Migration Theory continues to be prominently featured in textbooks, while states such as California are still using outdated understandings about Aryan Invasion Theory as a basis for content standards. This is why HAF is pushing for an evidence-based reform and revision of educational content, especially in light of how Common Core is being implemented across the country. Perhaps in reforming instructional materials, we can better appreciate the rich legacy of ancient Indian society, including developments in Hinduism, and the emergence of Buddhism and Jainism.

Aryan invasion theory is one of the greatest historical fabrication. In Hinduism the Arya and Dravida has no racial meaning. The term Arya refers to believer of Hinduism and the term Dravida was a geographic term for the three kingdoms of Chola, Pandya and Chera(Kerala). British faked them into races to create divide between North and South Indians. Being an Indian, I will believe in the things written in in our ancient books instead of some colonial garbage written by British-German historians for their own vested interests. Till now, these historians couldn't find any proof of invasion, instead of twisting the meaning of Hindu mythology or wrongly translating the Sanskrit verses.

I think the PIE might look like these Tajik women, and they originated from Central Asia.

And in Russia/Eastern Europe, they mixed with the blonde Cromagnid, thus you have the new Slavic Nordid type.

Many Slavic women simply look like a depigmented version of these Tajik women.

could you find me any proof that any other race except Indians and Iranians ever called themselves as Aryans.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Aryan invasion theory is one of the greatest historical fabrication. In Hinduism the Arya and Dravida has no racial meaning. The term Arya refers to believer of Hinduism and the term Dravida was a geographic term for the three kingdoms of Chola, Pandya and Chera(Kerala). British faked them into races to create divide between North and South Indians. Being an Indian, I will believe in the things written in in our ancient books instead of some colonial garbage written by British-German historians for their own bested interests. Till now, these historians couldn't find any proof of invasion, instead of twisting the meaning of Hindu mythology or wrongly translating the Sanskrit verses.



could you find me any proof that any other race except Indians and Iranians ever called themselves as Aryans.

The Tajiks are eastern Iranians, of course they also descended from the Proto-Indo-Iranians.

Some Tajiks in China also have the blondism tendency, but their blondism is just not stable. When the PIE with some blondism tendency absorbed many blonde hunter gatherers in Europe, their offsprings the Balto-Slavic people have the stable blondism.

Here is the Tajik in China with the blondism tendency.

 

[INDIC]

The Tajiks are eastern Iranians, of course they also descended from the Proto-Indo-Iranians.

Some Tajiks in China also have the blondism tendency, but their blondism is just not stable. When the PIE with some blondism tendency absorbed many blonde hunter gatherers in Europe, their offsprings the Balto-Slavic people have the stable blondism.

Here is the Tajik in China with the blondism tendency.

Tajik have an Indo-Iranian origin and the gene pool of the region has always been changing throughout the history. But what makes those Slavs or German as Aryans, is there any historical proof for that they ever called themselves as Aryans in any time of the history before those Germans-British screwed the Indian history and brought disgrace to our religion to fake themselves as Aryans.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Tajik have an Indo-Iranian origin and the gene pool of the region has always been changing throughout the history. But what makes those Slavs or German as Aryans, is there any historical proof for that they ever called themselves as Aryans in any time of the history before those Germans-British screwed the Indian history and brought disgrace to our religion to fake themselves as Aryans.

The Tajiks from China are different from the Tajiks from Tajikistan, they were isolated from the mountainous area.

They carry over 70% of R1a, and their phenotype is mostly the high headed eastern Mediterranid with some blondism tendency, which is the phenotype of the PIE.

Slavs are about 1/2 Aryans, while Germans are about less than 1/4, and the western Germans have genetically nothing to do with the Aryans.

 

[Devdas]

Haplogroup R-M173 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soares 2010 felt in their review of the literature, that the case for South Asian origins is strongest, with the Central Asian origin argued by (Wells 2001) being also worthy of consideration.

The Modern studies for R-M17 suggest that it could have originated in South Asia. It could have found its way initially from Western India (Gujarat) through Pakistan and Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming to Europe"..."as part of an archaeologically dated Paleolithic movement from east to west 30,000 years ago (Underhill 2009).

I can assure you that no 'Aryan', even in the racial sense, has ever had blue eyes or light hair. As mentioned this was made up by 19th and 20th century German nationalists.

 

[KingMamba]

The only ethnic Aryans are the Iranians the rest just took the word from them. All Iranian literature describes Aryan in a ethnic and racial sense, Darius and Xerses descibed themselves as of Aryan stock. Sanskrit took the term from Avestan after the Aryan migration and gave it a new meaning. Meanwhile Germans are as Aryan as Africans are White.

 

[INDIC]

The Tajiks from China are different from the Tajiks from Tajikistan, they were isolated from the mountainous area.

They carry over 70% of R1a, and their phenotype is mostly the high headed eastern Mediterranid with some blondism tendency, which is the phenotype of the PIE.

Slavs are about 1/2 Aryans, while Germans are about less than 1/4, and the western Germans have genetically nothing to do with the Aryans.

Many of us Indians and Iranians feel uncomfortable with the word Aryan being associated with some hypothetical white race with blonde hair and blue eyes, Aryan has cultural meaning according to Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, not racial meaning. Similar to that Dravida was the name of the region in the southernmost reaches of South India, Dravida/Dravidian was not a race until British-Germans faked them as a race to create a myth of white race's superiority and divide North India-South India to strengthen the British rule.

I don't thing Germans or Slavs are Aryans, they can use the term PIE but Aryan was exclusive only to Indo-Iranian people in cultural sense.

 

[RazPaK]

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Haplogroup R-M173 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







I can assure you that no 'Aryan', even in the racial sense, has ever had blue eyes or light hair. As mentioned this was made up by 19th and 20th century German nationalists.

As i mentioned above, the proto-Aryans were mostly dark haired/brown eyed eastern Mediterranid with some blondism tendency.

This means some minorities can have light hair and light eyes.

 

[Devdas]

The Tajiks from China are different from the Tajiks from Tajikistan, they were isolated from the mountainous area.

They carry over 70% of R1a, and their phenotype is mostly the high headed eastern Mediterranid with some blondism tendency, which is the phenotype of the PIE.

Slavs are about 1/2 Aryans, while Germans are about less than 1/4, and the western Germans have genetically nothing to do with the Aryans.

There are many different subclades of R1a, buddy, and the types present in India are absent in Europe. What your argument eventually boils down to is that all humans have distant common ancestors, which no one is denying. Go away.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Many of us Indians and Iranians feel uncomfortable with the word Aryan being associated with some hypothetical white race with blonde hair and blue eyes, Aryan has cultural meaning according to Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, not racial meaning. Similar to that Dravida was the name of the region in the southernmost reaches of South India, Dravida/Dravidian was not a race until British-Germans faked them as a race to create a myth of white race's superiority and divide North India-South India to strengthened the British rule.

I don't thing Germans or Slavs are Aryans, they can use the term PIE but Aryan was exclusive only to Indo-Iranian people in cultural sense.

Aryans originated in Central Asia, not Europe.

They were caucasoids, but not Europeans.

There are many different subclades of R1a, buddy, and the types present in India are absent in Europe. What your argument eventually boils down to is that all humans have distant common ancestors, which no one is denying. Go away.

I know, the Indo-Iranian R1a is the direct descendant of the PIE R1a, while the Slavic/European R1a is a mutated version.

 

[Devdas]

As i mentioned above, the proto-Aryans were mostly dark haired/brown eyed eastern Mediterranid with some blondism tendency.

This means some minorities can have light hair and light eyes.

If that were true, everyone in India would have light eyes today. Studies show that blue eyes all came from a single common ancestor in Europe. The gene then rapidly spread through Europe because it was sexually selected for. If Aryans had blue eyes, they either purposely bred it out because they found it unattractive or harmful, or they never had it to begin with. I'm leaning towards the latter.