Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I haven't watched the video and will do so after the day is done. Just looking at the graphics on display, I prefer a homeland further east, more or less to the south and the south-east of the Caspian Sea, because it gives us a reasonable explanation for the expansion into modern-day Iran of the Iranian languages; on the other hand, this depiction (in your first post) is more accommodating of the Tokharian language, an Indo-European language of the Centum branch inexplicably locked into the Takla Makan region when first taken note of.
Perhaps there may be something to say further, once I've seen the video!!
Yeah, I found it interesting how higher castes have more in common with Iranians than Dravidians.Here Is Some Food For Thought
http://beyondheadlines.in/2014/04/american-scientist-proves-brahmins-are-foreigners/
It's damn obvious to most foreigners like me. The Sikhs, Jatts and Pakistanis I see are mostly fair and Iranian look alike, even those Bollywood actors especially the Muslim ones.Here Is Some Food For Thought
http://beyondheadlines.in/2014/04/american-scientist-proves-brahmins-are-foreigners/
Here Is Some Food For Thought
http://beyondheadlines.in/2014/04/american-scientist-proves-brahmins-are-foreigners/
Yeah, I found it interesting how higher castes have more in common with Iranians than Dravidians.
It's damn obvious to most foreigners like me. The Sikhs, Jatts and Pakistanis I see are mostly fair and Iranian look alike, even those Bollywood actors especially the Muslim ones.
Not exactly foreigners; that is the wrong term to use. But that there is a significant element of immigrant blood in a percentage of 'upper caste' Indians is a fairly accepted fact.
Your pardon, this is a quick reply, as I have no time to read the attachment right away, but if you permit, I will answer in detail in the evening. The little time I got while travelling in a taxi, I spent on correcting a fool who tried to teach me about what I directly did and observed as a professional. It was irritating me to read his nonsense, and I spent time - stupid mistake, but my blood pressure was driving me, not my brain - correcting him.
I will certainly get back; bear with me.
Not entirely true.
Castes became rigid only around 300 - 400 AD. Genetically speaking, not culturally.
I have to suffer all kinds of fools in corresponding on PDF, and am very slowly getting used to this by now. The stupidest are Chinese fan-boys who have no objective other than sly insults and personal insinuations.
Jatts are descendants of a migrant group - groups - from the period immediately following the fall of the Maurya Empire. Their cognates are distributed over Balochistan and Afghanistan; for a drive-by troll, that is close enough to Iranian to be one and the same thing.
Sikhs and Punjabi Pakistanis are not consistently of the same complexion or of the same physique; within these identical groups - the Sikhs are Punjabis who follow the Sikh religion, and there is no other difference with the Muslim Pakistani or Muslim Indian from the Punjab, or the Hindu Indian from the Punjab - there are two distinct sets of people. But you wouldn't know that, nor would you wish to know that, would you? Doesn't serve your agenda.
They have little to do with Iranians, except that their language is descended from Suraseni Prakrit, that is itself descended from Indo-Aryan, that is descended from Indo-Iranian; modern Iranian is also descended from Indo-Iranian, but has gone through a number of generational changes and shifts.
Other than this, there is ethnic commonalty, that is considerably diluted; those who carried the Aryan languages into India settled down thickly in the Punjab and across the mountain ranges into modern Tajikistan and into modern Iran and Afghanistan. In India, they were part of a multi-ethnic society, with a very thin layer on top of the autochthones, and the resultant Mendelian effects; in the belt from Tajikistan through to Iran, there was no such admixture, there were practically no autochthones, or at least, none that we know of.
While I was a teacher, I felt an obligation to take time and to explain, patiently, to the backward members of the class all concepts and facts, without losing my temper. But that was because they were genuinely in need; they were not being mischievous or wicked. Facing people who post what they do because of spite and malice is not the same thing; it is very annoying.
Not exactly foreigners; that is the wrong term to use. But that there is a significant element of immigrant blood in a percentage of 'upper caste' Indians is a fairly accepted fact.
Yes Sir But The Point Is That It Totally Exposes The Traditional Sanghi Narrative That Aryans Were Natives Of India.There Is A Harvard Study That Also Has The Same Conclusion.
Take Your Time Sir
Joe are you saying that the Aryan influx happened into India and Iran in parallel and was not a flow from Iran into India?
This is new for me.
Everything I have read (I do not deny bias, both personal and gravitational in the form of what I choose to read) points to something different.
Cheers, Doc
What happened to Aryan Invasion theory though? was it a myth or jury is still out on it?
What happened to Aryan Invasion theory though? was it a myth or jury is still out on it?
Just at this moment, the old Anglo-German (Teuto-Britannic?) school has been put on the defensive; the current best opinion among mainstream historians is that the number of migrants was far less than a torrent. No invasion, more like migration, in tribes, small groups and perhaps even individuals, perhaps a re-grouping into tribes after crossing over, and spread across the Ganges Valley in smaller and smaller numbers. It is believed that their influence was rather similar to the Anglo-Saxons in a Romanised Britain, where the population at the height of the Anglo-Saxon invasion contained less than 10% in Anglo-Saxons, 90% in Britons.
There is a consensus that it actually happened, except among the revisionists, among whom only one is an acknowledged historian.
My tuppence. You will probably get a better, revised answer from someone cutting and pasting from the Internet.