What's new

Aryan migration is a FACT

. .

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!!
 
.
Indo Aryan languages map:


Major_Indo-Aryan_languages.png
 
.
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!!

Here Is Some Food For Thought

http://beyondheadlines.in/2014/04/american-scientist-proves-brahmins-are-foreigners/
 
. . .

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.

Yeah, I found it interesting how higher castes have more in common with Iranians than Dravidians.

Not entirely true.

Castes became rigid only around 300 - 400 AD. Genetically speaking, not culturally.

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.

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.

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.

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
 
.
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
 
.
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

The Sanghi narrative is hogwash. No need to waste time on it.

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

I am not sure I said that. It can't be ruled out, considering the mixture of tales of Zarathustra's place of origin, but I think what I wrote about the graphic may have given you a wrong impression. Let me check. More this evening.
 
.
Aryan this
Aryan that

Foreigners still rule India then. Does it matter what genetics they belong to. Status quo has not changed in India for a good 2000 years. It just keeps wearing different with more foreign elements added to it.

Status quo wars. The Mahabharata may explain it.

LoL

Who cares?

Like it's not like India is genetically experimenting with Aryan babies or like they have pure bred vigilante mobs running around.

This is just Pakistani propaganda.
 
.
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.
 
.
What happened to Aryan Invasion theory though? was it a myth or jury is still out on it?

Ranjeet, as a Jat, you are as "foreign" as I am. Just been here a tad longer.

It's just that your guys got Hinduised and assimilated.

Mine did not.

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.

Funny bit (for him) is that he's as "foreign" as I am.

His guys probably hitting our soil 6-800 years earlier.

A blip in the Indian time continuum.

Cheers, Doc
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom