Aryans vs Dravidians?

[Water Car Engineer]

Case in point, Asin first movie in south india

Now in bollywood

She looks the same, except one is without makeup. That's pretty obvious.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

History is very vast ...i cant tell everything here ......The kingdom of Bharat was indeed there ....but later on people segregated as per their religions ......e.g most people in Western India ( present day Pakistan and Afghanistan) embraced Islam because of arabic infulence ......while people of central and southern India kept practicing their religion . It was no religion at all . It was called "sanatan dharma" . The arabs called it Hindusim . These got segragated further into different states . Indeed , British again united the India/Aryavart/Bharatvarsh.

Then they saw that down the line the people had grown deep separations in terms of their religion . Thus they decided that India should be segregated into present day India and Pakistan .

The historical timelines are too vast and intermingled so as to lead to a particular conclusion .

First of all kingdom of Bharat is myth, it didn't actually exist. I though this discussion was about historical and scientific facts?

She looks the same, except one is without makeup. That's pretty obvious.

The first one is from movie and with makeup, seriously even blind person can see the work done on face.

You are too preoccupied with 'akhand Bharat '..............just to make things clear .....nobody is asking Pakistan or Bangladesh or Nepal to merge again and make "akhand bharat"..........everyone should remain happy in their own country .

As if Indians have any say in this. The discussion here is about Akhand Bharat which actually never existed in the first place apart from in minds of Hindutvas.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

The first one is from movie and with makeup, seriously even blind person can see the work done on face.

Like not at all. The second picture she's done up. The first one looks really regular. That's really it.

 

[Nassr]

Sir ..i will suggest you to read maharbharat again ......saying that Uttar Pradesh was Bharat is like saying Karachi is Pakistan ..........The Aryavart was composed of India , pakistan , bangladesh , Nepal , Afghanistan . The area of Iran and beyond was called "yavandesh" .

i am not trying to lobby that all these people were hindus ....infact i believe that religion didnot exist ......people followed what the sages said

I have posted this before as well.

The shape of India is described in the 'Mahabharata' as an equilateral triangle, which was divided into four smaller equal triangles. The apex of the triangle is Cape Comorin, and the base is formed by the line of the Himalaya mountains. No dimensions are given, and no places are mentioned.

Another description of India is that of the Nava-Khanda, or Nine-Divisions, which is first described by the astronomers Parasara and Varaha-Mihira, although it was probably older than their time and was later adopted by the authors of several of the Puranas. According to this arrangement, Pdnchdla was the chief district of the central division, Magadha of the east, Kalinga of the south-east, Avanta of the south, Anarta of the south-west, Sindhu-Sauvira of the west, Hdrahaura of the north-west, Madra of the north, and Kauninda of the north-east. But there is a discrepancy between this epitome of Varaha and his details, as Sindhu-Sauvira is assigned to the south-west, along with Anarta. There however is absolutely no agreement among the scholars with regard to deciphering the exact location of Sindhu-Sauvira and different scholar state different locations.

With regard to the detailed lists of the 'Brihat-Samhita' with those of the Brahmanda, Markandeya, Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas; although there are sundry repetitions and displacements of names, as well as various readings, yet all the lists are substantially the same. Some of them, however, are differently arranged. All of the Puranas, for instance, mention the Nine Divisions and give their names, but only the Brahmanda and Markandeya state the names of the districts in each of the Nine Divisions; as the Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas agree with the Mahabharata in describing only five Divisions in detail, namely, the middle Province and those of the four cardinal points. The names of the Nine Divisions given in the Mahabharata and the Puranas differ entirely from those of Yaraha-Mihira.

 

[Nassr]

History is very vast ...i cant tell everything here ......The kingdom of Bharat was indeed there ....but later on people segregated as per their religions ......e.g most people in Western India ( present day Pakistan and Afghanistan) embraced Islam because of arabic infulence ......while people of central and southern India kept practicing their religion . It was no religion at all . It was called "sanatan dharma" . The arabs called it Hindusim . These got segragated further into different states . Indeed , British again united the India/Aryavart/Bharatvarsh.

Then they saw that down the line the people had grown deep separations in terms of their religion . Thus they decided that India should be segregated into present day India and Pakistan .

The historical timelines are too vast and intermingled so as to lead to a particular conclusion .

As the name Bharat has been derived from the Hindu religious scriptures, its emanation essentially formulates itself as a part of the belief system, irrespective of the reality. If some one states that it did not exist, it may also challenge the belief and I would not like to do this, despite many reservations.

Within the realm of known history, the sub-continent has historically and geographically been divided in to two distinctly different areas namely, the Indus Valley and its adjoining plains, and the Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains. These two areas have been divided by a watershed which separates these areas. The known history of Indus valley and its adjoining plains is over 9000 years old. In those 9000 years, it has been politically united with Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains only three times i.e. during the times of Mauryan, Muslim and the British rule. For the remaining 7000-8000 years, the Indus Valley and its adjoining plains have remained a separate political entity. Therefore, the area where Pakistan exists today, the Meluhhans existed since 9000 years and therefore, the history of Pakistani landmass is also 9000 years old and most of it has been without any unity with India.

This has also been stated by a number of scholars like Robert Kaplan, Khan A. Sufyan and Aitzaz Ahsan amongst others.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Yes Sapta Sindhu was Uttar Pradesh. We evil yindoos diverted rivers to the west with our evil genius so that we can claim Pakistani territories in 1947. What foresight! Wah!

The places named directly or indirectly in the Rig Veda can be classified into five basic geographical regions, from west to east, on the basis of present-day terminology: Afghanistan, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Amongst these, Uttar Pradesh of the present-day is more or less equivalent to the land known in ancient literature as Aryavarta or Madhyadesa. Neither the word Aryavarta, nor the word Madhyadesa, is found in the Rig Veda. Nor is there any direct reference in the hymns to any place in Uttar Pradesh. But, the hymns IX.96 and X.179.2 composed by a Bharata Rishi who attributed his compositions to his remote ancestor, Pratardana present an important mention. Pratardana was a king of KASI, which is in eastern Uttar Pradesh. This can only mean that the Bharata Kings of the early period of the Rig Veda were Kings of KASI and, in the light of the other information in the Rig Veda, the land of the Bharatas extended from KASI in the east to Kurukshetra in the west. (This description has been given by Shrikant G. Talageri in his historical analysis of Rig Veda.)

This means that, essentially Uttar Pradesh is what Bharat is referred to in the primary Vedic and Hindu scripture Rig Veda and not the whole of India from north to South.

 

[Tikolo]

never thought nawaz is a kashmiri.it shows even kashmiris have 30 percent dravidian genes in them like punjabis or is it just like pak kashmiris look like him(just like how pak punjabis look diff from indian ones).the indian kashmiris i regularly watch on tv look like afghans.

nawaz sharif does not look dravidian, his whole family is so fairskinned, his daughter:

most kashmiries in my experience are more similar to afghans in looks, rather then south asians, they lack the typical indid looks which has (veddoid) features

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

nawaz sharif does not look dravidian, his whole family is so fairskinned, his daughter:

most kashmiries in my experience are more similar to afghans in looks, rather then south asians, they lack the typical indid looks which has (veddoid) features

Nawaz ehinicity is Punjabi and not Kashmiri, anyway that guy is an idiot. Having 30% ASI component doesnt make one Dravidian, even Dravidians dont have 100% ASI genes in them.

 

[Nassr]

Yes Sapta Sindhu was Uttar Pradesh. We evil yindoos diverted rivers to the west with our evil genius so that we can claim Pakistani territories in 1947. What foresight! Wah!

There are many Indian scholars who believe that the so-called Vedic Aryans during the period of Rig Veda were inhabitants of the area called Sapta Sindhu i.e. Punjab. It is further believed by these scholars that the habitat of the so-called Vedic Aryans, during the period of composition of the Rigveda, was the central part of this area, the Sapta Sindhu or Punjab, the Land of the Five Rivers bounded on the east by the Saraswati and on the west by the Indus. Their eastern horizon was western Uttar Pradesh and their western horizon was Afghanistan. The region in Haryana (old Punjab) known as Kurukshetra or Brahmavarta in ancient times was considered to be the holiest place on earth. However, neither the word Kuruksetra, nor the word Brahmavarta, is found in the Rigveda.

However, there are many other scholars who now challenge this assumption and state that the habitat of the so-called Vedic Aryans during the period was considerably to the east of the Punjab. That is why I quoted the source of my post by stating that this description has been given by Shrikant G. Talageri in his historical analysis of Rig Veda. He states and goes to great lengths in his book to highlight that it was Uttar Pradesh where the so-called Vedic Aryans lived.

You may not agree with Mr Shrikant G. Talageri, with whom many scholars do agree with. Of-course there are many who do not agree with him as well.

I do not know why are you getting angry with me. Calm down, I never called you anything. I don not even know if Mr Talageri did that.

 

[Tikolo]

Nawaz ehinicity is Punjabi and not Kashmiri, anyway that guy is an idiot. Having 30% ASI component doesnt make one Dravidian, even Dravidians dont have 100% ASI genes in them.

They are kashmiri, but obviously have lived in punjab for a while, read his early life section: Nawaz Sharif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyways you are right, ASI is not even Dravidian, which is a language term, ASI has existed in south asia for well before 40,000 years, they were the first humans to arrive in south asia we before things like aryans, dravdians etc... even came up

but one thing is that having a high ASI does give you some type of look, for example Tamils who have 60% ASI will look different (darker/veddoid) then lets say a punjabi with 30-35% ASI, who will mostly likely look more west asian because of his 65-70% ANI ancestry

Also for kashmiries, I think only the pandits have been sampled, and they are showing 30% ASI, I think muslims onces have mixed more with outsiders like afghans, so they might have less ASI then pandit kashmiries

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

They are kashmiri, but obviously have lived in punjab for a while, read his early life section: Nawaz Sharif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyways you are right, ASI is not even Dravidian, which is a language term, ASI has existed in south asia for well before 40,000 years, they were the first humans to arrive in south asia we before things like aryans, dravdians etc... even came up

but one thing is that having a high ASI does give you some type of look, for example Tamils who have 60% ASI will look different (darker/veddoid) then lets say a punjabi with 30-35% ASI, who will mostly likely look more west asian because of his 65-70% ANI ancestry

Also for kashmiries, I think only the pandits have been sampled, and they are showing 30% ASI, I think muslims onces have mixed more with outsiders like afghans, so they might have less ASI then pandit kashmiries

Nawaz is ethinically punjabi, they were not Kosher speaking kashmiris. They moved from Punjab to Kashmir and then back to punjab. And yes you are right about ASI component.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

I have no problem with any conjecture, including yours. My point is to the reference to the vedas. The Rg veda knows no land outside the subcontinent(including Afghanistan). Period. Any other supposed references are simply not supported by evidence from the Rg veda. The Avesta does show an indication of some migration but please remember that they knew of the Punjab(Hapta-HAndu) as one of their home lands, something that would be very odd in a straightforward migration from central Asia. They also knew nothing of western Iran. Essentially they shared a portion of the homeland with the vedic Aryans before moving further west with vedic aryans occupying the Punjab. Does not prove any great migration from elsewhere. As far as separation from the vedic Aryans goes, please note that the separation seems to be post a major part of the Rg veda. Every scholar has noted that the language of the 8th Mandala of the Rg veda, a late part is similar to the language of the Iranians. Had a separation taken place elsewhere, surely you would expect the commonality in the early part of the Rg veda and not in those parts which are pretty much accepted as having been composed in the vedic heartland.

What conjecture? You haven't provided any proof & have simply posted source less claims. Genetic evidence does point to a migration, & most of the literature today has no issues with the theory of Indo-Iranian migration. The only people complaining are those that are still obsessed with the old Aryan Invasion Theory. You yourself have been using Max Mueller's debunked theory to derive dates knowing that it's incorrect in the first place. Did you visit the links that I provided you with? The Indo-Iranians may not have known much about Western Iran initially, but as they spread further in to the Iranian plateau, they were aware of it. In fact the Median people who are also Indo-Iranians & referred to themselves as Aryans had an empire stretching all the way to Anatolia. There is no arguing that the Vedic & Avestan scriptures show common geographical names, & the fact that they speak related languages, gives credence to them being related.

The original speakers of sister languages are always related, as in the case of Arabic & Hebrew. I have heard of the 8th Mandala being the most similar to Avestan, but that isn't a claim by every scholar, it's only a claim made by some. So please do not provide us with false information. Regardless, I doubt any of us are experts in Sanskrit & Avestan, but if it's true that the 8th Mandala is most similar to Avestan, it would make no difference whatsoever. Languages evolve over time, they borrow from each other, & the Indo-Iranian tribes were naturally in contact. Sanskrit borrowed many loan words from unknown languages, the point is that the evolution of a language in no way implies that the Indo-Iranian people didn't go their separate ways. Plenty of evidence points to their similar origins. Another important point to note is that the Median Empire began in 678 BCE, just over 2000 years ago, & there is no mention of them that I know off during the Elamite period. The Elamites are considered Semites by some sources, including the Hebrew scriptures.

So what if the Vedas does not categorically mention a migration or know off any land outside Afghanistan? Some sources use the Vedas to in fact figure out the Aryan homeland, but it any case I will leave that aside for now. Some of your views give the impression that you are a supporter of the Out of India Theory (OIT). In any case, the quote below should be interesting. Please note that all of my quotes from other sources in this post are in Italic form.

The Aryan Migration Theory: Last Word

"No memories of an Aryan migration. Another OIT line. First of all, it is quite typical of most people to have no memories or false memories of wherever they came from. The Romans said they came from Greece. The Gypsies say they came from Egypt.

However, the Vedas do contain vague references to former habitations, such as what appears to be the BMAC and there are references to journeys over mountains and mountain passes. Many place names in Afghanistan are from proto-II words from Central Asia and often lead back to ancient Central Asian enemies of the Arya referred to in the Vedas. One of these is the Parni, associated with the BMAC and later with a northern Iranian group. They had stone forts and well-built cow stables in northern Iran that look a lot like earlier BMAC structures.

The route of migration did not take place over the high passes of the Himalayas and the Pamirs. Few groups have migrated over these treacherous mountains in the last 2000 years. Instead, the migration went from the BMAC down through northern Iran to Herat in West Afghanistan to the Gomal River in near Ghazni in East Afghanistan to the Swat Valley.

There are frequent references in the Vedas to southward and eastward movements of various groups of Arya. There are no references to westward groups as would be required by the OIT. Some of these movements to the south and east are described in military terms as victorious conquests. There are also references in the late Vedas of movements of the Arya east from the Afghan/Pakistan border to Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and all the way to Bihar."

Language Proximity of Central Asia with the Upper Indus Supported by Archaeology

"Given that the Rig Veda is commonly thought to have been written in the Upper Indus region, we have yet one more reason to look at the area immediately to the north and north-west of the upper Indus Valley i.e. the Pamir-Badakhshan region as being a strong candidate for the homeland of the ancient Aryans, the so-called Proto Indo-Iranians.

The language of the Rig Veda and the Old Avesta are so close that they are commonly thought to be dialects such as that spoken in two neighbouring provinces and that further, they emerged from a common language philologists call Proto Indo-Iranian, another name for the language of united ancient Aryans.

Panini, the author of a grammar on Classical Sanskrit which was derived from the Vedic language was a resident of Pushkalavati, Gandhara, which is now part of modern-day Charsadda District in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan and which included the Swat Valley now in northern Pakistan as well.

In the Swat-Chitral region, numerous archaeological sites have yielded graveyards dating between the second quarter of the second millennium BCE and the late centuries BCE, and with associated features leading the sites to be categorized as the Gandhara Grave Culture. The artefacts excavated from the sites show similarities and links with Central Asian as well as lower Indus Valley sites. The use of shell, coral and ivory were likely brought in via trade routes from the lower Indus plains and foothills.

A significant rock shelter site was excavated in the spring of 1967 near the township of Ghaligai / Ghalegay located on the east bank of the Swat River, some 12-15 km south of Mingora towards Barikot. At Ghaligai, the Swat Valley is a kilometres wide, flat, flood plain. Here, the river has many branches and frequently changes course. The valley itself is well cultivated and the crop fields slope gently down towards the river. Watercress and pumpkins are popular crops. Hills rise sharply for the valley. The eastern hills separate the Swat Valley from the Indus and Buner valleys while on the other side the western hills lie the Dir and Chitral valleys. The site has provided evidence of uninterrupted occupation for 3500 years starting from the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE. Three Carbon 14 dates of the earliest/lowest level give date from 2970 to 2930 BCE. artefacts from this level include pottery some with their inner surfaces burnished (presumably to make them water-proof from the inside). Some pottery shapes are similar to those found in Turkmenistan sites (Murgab Delta and the Kopet Dag hill base). Other artefacts found at Ghaligai as levell as Kili, Gul Hohammad, Sarai Kala, Jalilpur and Gumla show striking similarities and eveidence of trade of non-native materials primarily within the Aryan nations but also as far as the Arabian peninsula and China.

In a valley to the west of Ghaligai, archaeological finds at the Balambat site near Timergara (also spelt Timurgarh/Timargarha) and dated to 1500-600 BCE, show links with artefacts found in the lower Indus Valley site Mehrgarh as well as in Central Asian sites. [Balambat lies on the west bank of River Panjkora while Timergara lies across the river on the east bank. The name mean Timurgarh place of Timur (the Mohgul king). The Wikipedia page states that fire altars have also been found at Balambat indicating the resident to be "fire-worshippers" (sic). We are not concerned with the insulting language used in the Wikipedia page - rather, indications of the close links to an early Aryan settlement."

Helmut Humbach, the eminent Avestan scholar has this to say

"It must be emphasised that the process of polarisation of relations between the Ahuras and the DaEvas is already complete in the GAthAs, whereas, in the Rigveda, the reverse process of polarisation between the Devas and the Asuras, which does not begin before the later parts of the Rigveda, develops as it were before our very eyes, and is not completed until the later Vedic period. Thus, it is not at all likely that the origins of the polarisation are to be sought in the prehistorical, the Proto-Aryan period. More likely, Zarathushtra’s reform was the result of interdependent developments, when Irano-Indian contacts still persisted at the dawn of history. With their Ahura-DaEva ideology, the Mazdayasnians, guided by their prophet, deliberately dissociated themselves from the Deva-Asura concept which was being developed, or had been developed, in India, and probably also in the adjacent Iranian-speaking countries… All this suggests a synchrony between the later Vedic period and ZarathuStra’s reform in Iran."

What's the purpose of this paragraph? I am assuming this paragraph attempts to highlight religious differences. They don't mean anything either, religious beliefs evolved in the past among many civilizations including the Greeks & Romans. It does nothing to prove that the Indo-Iranian people weren't related.

The Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex has been mentioned previously in the sources that I referred to, here is a map of its location in Andronovo. Its proximity to modern day Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Iran should be noted. In fact the city of Balkh in Afghanistan is generally considered to be among the first cities the Indo-Iranian immigrants built or moved to.

This is not proof of an aryan migration to India, far from it. No archaeologist has accepted any theory of Aryan migration into the sub continent and this remains the single most problem for any version of the AIT. Dates are important because without the acceptances of the dates proposed by the AIT scholars, the whole edifice collapses. No matter that you are open to other dates, they simply cannot be accepted & still argue for any version of the AIT including migration. The linguistic evidence requires the Indo-Iranians to be the last to leave the homeland. An early date kills the support of the migration in every other area.

Please note, I did refer to genetic studies of the ANI_ASI which suggests their presence in India for a fairly long period. Please also note no archaeological evidence exists for any migration to India in the period of 4000BCE & 1000 BCE. Forget Max Mueller, the linguistic connection as proof of migration fails if earlier dates are accepted. As it stands this theory remains just that a theory. Genetic studies have given us an enormous amount of data but it is certainly not cut & dry as you suggest. The evidence of the Harvard study of the ANI-ASI has been used to debunk the AIT by many. The readings are simply not definite with people picking what suits them.

There is little to suggest for any migration and the earlier evidence of scriptures quoted(both vedic & Iranian) have been debunked pretty conclusively. This is not to suggest no migration ever took place, people have been migrating for millenia. Just that there is no evidence of any supposed Aryan migration.Only an unexplained linguistic connection. (A variation of the AIT suggests that only languages migrated, not the people but that too remains a unproven though a possible theory.)

The unearthing of those ancient cities in Russia, combined with evidence that they are over 4000 years old & that their rituals were similar to those in the Vedas is very important. Your continuous obsession with the Aryan Invasion Theory is infuriating seeing as I already told you that Max Mueller is claimed to have come up with those dates to conform to his Biblical beliefs. The Aryan Invasion Theory has long been discredited. The Aryan Migration Theory that I am discussing should not be considered an off shoot or a variation of the Aryan Invasion Theory. The dates we should focus on are those provided to us by archaeological, linguistic, & genetic researches. I notice that you are also assuming that Andronovo was home to all proto-Indo-Europeans. That isn't correct either. The majority of the Indo-Europeans in Europe have been present there since Paleolithic times. There have been some migrations towards mainland Europe from the east, as noticed by the presence of the R1a haplogroup in Eastern European ethnic groups such as the Croatians. However, as far the Indo-Iranians are concerned, Andronovo was most likely home to mainly the proto-Indo-Iranian people besides a few others.

You didn't refer to any genetic study, you simply posted your own claims without any source. I am not cherry picking sources, it's you who denied all the genetic evidence I provided you with in the past. I have already provided archaeological evidence in previous posts & in this post, & I will add other sources for archaeological evidence as well.

Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

"Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy."

Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, and waves of admixture (migration?)

"I want to highlight one aspect which is not in the abstract: the closest population to the “Ancestral North Indians”, those who contributed the West Eurasian component to modern Indian ancestry, seem to be Georgians and other Caucasians. Since Reconstructing Indian Population History many have suspected this. I want to highlight in particular two genome bloggers, Dienekes and Zack Ajmal, who’ve prefigured that particular result. But wait, there’s more! The figure which I posted at the top illustrates that it looks like Indo-European speakers were subject to two waves of admixture, while Dravidian speakers were subject to one!

The authors were cautious indeed in not engaging in excessive speculation. The term “Indo-Aryan” only shows up in the notes, not in the body of the main paper. But the historical and philological literature is references:

The dates we report have significant implications for Indian history in the sense that they document a period of demographic and cultural change in which mixture between highly differentiated populations became pervasive before it eventually became uncommon. The period of around 1,900–4,200 years BP was a time of profound change in India, characterized by the deurbanization of the Indus civilization, increasing population density in the central and downstream portions of the Gangetic system, shifts in burial practices, and the likely first appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion in the subcontinent. The shift from widespread mixture to strict endogamy that we document is mirrored in ancient Indian texts. [notes removed -Razib]"

"What these results imply is that there was admixture between very distinct populations in the period between 0 and 2000 B.C. By distinct, I mean to imply that the last common ancestors of the “Ancestral North Indians” and “Ancestral South Indians” probably date to ~50,000 years ago. The population in the Reich data set with the lowest fraction of ANI are the Paniya (~20%). One of those with higher fractions of ANI (70%) are Kashmiri Pandits. It does not take an Orientalist with colonial motives to infer that the ancient Vedic passages which are straightforwardly interpreted in physical anthropological terms may actually refer to ethnic conflicts in concrete terms, and not symbolic ones.

Finally, the authors note that uniparental lineages (mtDNA and Y) seem to imply that the last common ancestors of the ANI with other sampled West Eurasian groups dates to ~10,000 years before the present. This leads them to suggest that the ANI may not have come from afar necessarily. That is, the “Georgian” element is a signal of a population which perhaps diverged ~10,000 years ago, during the early period of agriculture in West Asia, and occupied the marginal fringes of South Asia, as in sites such as Mehrgarh in Balochistan. A plausible framework then is that expansion of institutional complexity resulted in an expansion of the agriculture complex ~3,000 B.C., and subsequent admixture with the indigenous hunter-gatherer substrate to the east and south during this period. One of the components that Zack Ajmal finds through ADMIXTURE analysis in South Asia, with higher fractions in higher castes even in non-Brahmins in South India, he terms “Baloch,” because it is modal in that population. This fraction is also high in the Dravidian speaking Brahui people, who coexist with the Baloch. It seems plausible to me that this widespread Baloch fraction is reflective of the initial ANI-ASI admixture event. In contrast, the Baloch and Brahui have very little of the “NE Euro” fraction, which is found at low frequencies in Indo-European speakers, and especially higher castes east and south of Punjab, as well as South Indian Brahmins. I believe that this component is correlated with the second, smaller wave of admixture, which brought the Indo-European speaking Indo-Aryans to much of the subcontinent. The Dasas described in the Vedas are not ASI, but hybrid populations. The collapse of the Indus Valley civilization was an explosive event for the rest of the subcontinent, as Moorjani et al. report that all indigenous Indian populations have ANI-ASI admixture (with the exceptions of Tibeto-Burman groups)."

According to the dates provided by those studies, the mixture of ANI-ASI occurred between 1900 to 4200 years ago. Suddenly, the dates don't seem to conflict with the discovery of the Aryan cities either. The unearthing of Aryan cities article is reliable & I think I remember telling either you or someone else in another thread that the researchers that took part in that excavation aren't frauds.

Recent findings in Archeogenetics and the Aryan Migration Theory

"A study conducted by Quintana-Murci [2000] present genetic evidence for the occurrence of two major population movements, supporting a model of demic diffusion of early farmers from southwestern Iranand of pastoral nomads from western and central Asiainto India, associated with Dravidian and Indo-Europeanlanguage dispersals, respectively.

A study conducted by R Spencer Wells et al focuses on the non-recombining portion of the Y-chromosome and provide an insight into the earliest patterns of settlement of anatomically modern humans on the Eurasian continent. Central Asia is revealed to be an important reservoir of genetic diversity, and the source of at least three major waves of migration leading into Europe, the Americas, and India. The genetic results are interpreted in the context of Eurasian linguistic patterns."

I don't think there is any need for more genetic studies but I can provide more sources if they are required even though these are accurate as well. By the way, I never suggested that genetic studies were clear-cut, but they do point to a migration. The Sintashta culture is also interesting & is often said to be related to proto-Indo-Iranian people & culture. The relation between Sanskrit & Avestan is already known so there is no need for me to discuss that further. Some archaeological evidence has also been provided below.

Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex

Material culture

The inhabitants of the BMAC were sedentary people who practised irrigation farming of wheat and barley. With their impressive material culture including monumental architecture, bronze tools, ceramics, and jewellery of semiprecious stones, the complex exhibits many of the hallmarks of civilization. The complex can be compared to proto-urban settlements in the Helmand basin at Mundigak in western Afghanistan and Shahr-i Shōkhta in eastern Iran, or at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley.

Sarianidi regards Gonur as the "capital" of the complex in Margiana throughout the Bronze Age. The palace of North Gonur measures 150 metres by 140 metres, the temple at Togolok 140 metres by 100 metres, the fort at Kelleli 3 125 metres by 125 metres, and the house of a local ruler at Adji Kui 25 metres by 25 metres. Each of these formidable structures has been extensively excavated. While they all have impressive fortification walls, gates, and buttresses, it is not always clear why one structure is identified as a temple and another as a palace. Mallory points out that the BMAC fortified settlements such as Gonur and Togolok resemble the qala, the type of fort known in this region in the historical period. They may be circular or rectangular and have up to three encircling walls. Within the forts are residential quarters, workshops and temples.
Extensive irrigation systems have been discovered at the Geoksiur Oasis.

Models of two-wheeled carts from c. 3000 BCE found at Altyn-Depe are the earliest complete evidence of wheeled transport in Central Asia, though model wheels have come from contexts possibly somewhat earlier. Judging by the type of harness, carts were initially pulled by oxen, or a bull. However camels were domesticated within the BMAC. A model of a cart drawn by a camel of c. 2200 BCE was found at Altyn-Depe.

The discovery of a single tiny stone seal (known as the "Anau seal") with geometric markings from the BMAC site at Anau in Turkmenistan in 2000 led some to claim that the Bactria-Margiana complex had also developed writing, and thus may indeed be considered a literate civilization. It bears five markings strikingly similar to Chinese "small seal" characters, but such characters date from the Qin reforms of roughly 100 AD, while the Anau seal is dated by context to 2,300 BCE. It is therefore an unexplained anomaly. The only match to the Anau seal is a small jet seal of almost identical shape from Niyä (near modern Minfeng) along the southern Silk Road in Xinjiang, assumed to be from the Western Han dynasty.

Interactions with other cultures

BMAC materials have been found in the Indus civilisation, on the Iranian plateau, and in the Persian Gulf. Finds within BMAC sites provide further evidence of trade and cultural contacts. They include an Elamite-type cylinder seal and an Harappan seal stamped with an elephant and Indus script found at Gonur-depe. The relationship between Altyn-Depe and the Indus Valley seems to have been particularly strong. Among the finds there were two Harappan seals and ivory objects. The Harappan settlement of Shortugai in Northern Afghanistan on the banks of the Amu Darya probably served as a trading station.

There is evidence of sustained contact between the BMAC and the Eurasian steppes to the north, intensifying c. 2000 BCE. In the delta of the River Amu Darya where it reaches the Aral Sea, its waters were channeled for irrigation agriculture by people whose remains resemble those of the nomads of the Andronovo Culture. This is interpreted as nomads settling down to agriculture, after contact with the BMAC. The culture they created is known as Tazabag'yad. About 1800 BCE the walled BMAC centres decreased sharply in size. Each oasis developed its own types of pottery and other objects. Also pottery of the Andronovo-Tazabag'yab culture to the north appeared widely in the Bactrian and Margian countryside. Many BMAC strongholds continued to be occupied and Andronovo-Tazabagyab coarse incised pottery occurs within them (along with the previous BMAC pottery) as well as in pastoral camps outside the mudbrick walls. In the highlands above the Bactrian oases in Tajikistan, kurgan cemeteries of the Vaksh and Bishkent type appeared with pottery that mixed elements of the late BMAC and Andronovo-Tazabagyab traditions.

Language

As argued by Michael Witzel and Alexander Lubotsky, there is a proposed substratum in Proto-Indo-Iranian which can be plausibly identified with the original language of the BMAC. Moreover, Lubotsky points out a larger number of words apparently borrowed from the same language, which are only attested in Indo-Aryan and therefore evidence of a substratum in Vedic Sanskrit. Some BMAC words have now also been found in Tocharian. Michael Witzel points out that the borrowed vocabulary includes words from agriculture, village and town life, flora and fauna, ritual and religion, so providing evidence for the acculturation of Indo-Iranian speakers into the world of urban civilization.

At this point, I have provided plenty of linguistic, genetic, & archaeological evidence for 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 as per the evidence gathered so far.

The out of India theory has many flaws & at this point isn't supported by genetic, historic, archaeological, or linguistic evidence. I am also going to post the inscription of Darius the Great as proof that the Persians were aware of their Aryan heritage.

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.

Another point that deserves to be mentioned is that the regions where the Indo-Iranians primarily settled contain people that are different from other ethnic groups in the Sub-Continent in terms of appearance. Many Iranians, Balochis, Pashtuns, & Kashmiris could pass for Mediterranean Europeans. Of course, some people in modern day Indian Punjab could also pass as Mediterranean, but at this point India is extremely mixed. In any case, I think I have provided sufficient & reliable evidence of all kinds to prove Indo-Iranian migrations.

As I said I subscribe to no conspiracy theory even if sometimes the so-called western scholars have twisted themselves into knots trying to prove what they already assume to be true i.e. the conclusion choosing the facts rather than the other way around. The name calling of the other side is well known & many have taken refuge in name calling to dismiss a hard to prove case.

I didn't call anyone any name whatsoever. Everyone knows that some Indians do feel threatened by the Indo-Iranian migration theory because it's considered a threat to their unity or heritage. I am not trying to prove the Indo-Iranian migrations simply because I already believe it to be true, & I seriously doubt Western scholars would do that either. If there wasn't an ample amount of evidence for the Indo-Iranian migration, I wouldn't have defended it. It's obvious that more research is required, & future studies will hopefully clear up any remaining doubts against the Indo-Iranian migrations.

The quote below is interesting, & the abbreviation "AMT" refers to the "Aryan Migration Theory".

The Aryan Migration Theory: Last Word

There is no evidence at all that the AMT was hatched as a British conspiracy (other popular theories say that the entire linguistic community was in on this conspiracy), nor has anyone offered any reason how or why the British could profit by making up the theory of a Bronze Age culture in India. Or why the British, who supposedly hated Indians and thought they were inferior, would invent a theory that said that Indians were in part related to the great British people.

(Btw, many thanks for the civility of the discourse, it is not very common here. I have no problem in any conjectures being supported because in the end, I have little hard evidence & no interest in offering any alternate theory. My brief is simply to point out that the supposed indisputable evidence is very supposed & hardly indisputable. How we read the evidence available may depend on what conclusion we are inclined to support. Still a very pleasant change from many others here)

There is lots of evidence to support Indo-Iranian migrations, & I am definitely not biased. You have shown considerable bias during the discussion on this thread, & on previous threads. It seems that you are a supporter of the out of India theory. I doubt any amount of evidence would convince you that an Indo-Iranian migration occurred even though plenty of genetic evidence has been provided as well. Human genes simply do not & can not lie.

That is not what I am saying, merely that any opposing argument must be met only by force of facts, not of innuendo & name calling to dismiss debating the argument(Hindu nationalists etc..etc...). A predetermined conclusion cannot then be sought to be supported by evidence, it must be the other way around.

Who called others names here? I repeat, it's highly unlikely that Western scholars are looking for proof to support predetermined conclusions. There might be some bias among a few individuals, but those people are likely to exist among researchers both for & against the Indo-Iranian migration theory.

I agree with you. However, identifying a person or a set of people as Hindu nationalists or Hindu/Muslim fundamentalists due to a particular thinking or ideology is certainly not name calling or an innuendo, unless deliberately used in the manner. I am not saying that it is not used as such, what I am saying is that it is for the person to identify the sense of such usage and then respond. Though in the mass that express their views here or other such forums, the sense looses to senselessness.

Name calling & innuendos do tend to ruin discussions & should be avoided, but it doesn't change the fact that some people could truly be biased in their views. The point is that no one should use claims of being insulted to gain sympathy for their views.

Give me solid proof sir ......all these years i have heard/read only assumptions .

I have provided as much evidence as I possibly could in this post, & in many other posts previously on multiple threads. There is no doubt that more research is required, & it's up to you to decide if you choose to accept or reject the evidence provided so far.

 

[dravidianhero]

Nawaz ehinicity is Punjabi and not Kashmiri, anyway that guy is an idiot. Having 30% ASI component doesnt make one Dravidian, even Dravidians dont have 100% ASI genes in them.

so how much of asi makes one dravidian?u r 30 to 35 percent asi+ani and i am 60 percent asi+4o per ani(according to tikolo).u r not much diff than me.if both language and asi dont make one dravidian then what makes one?
Ps:i repeat nawaz sharif doesnt look a kashmiri.he looks like indian

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

so how much of asi makes one dravidian?u r 30 to 35 percent asi+ani and i am 60 percent asi+4o per ani(according to tikolo).u r not much diff than me.if both language and asi dont make one dravidian then what makes one?
Ps:i repeat nawaz sharif doesnt look a kashmiri.he looks like indian

30% doesnt make one dravidian just like 30% doesnt make dravidian punjabi. Or 1% african doesnt make them african. You may find people like Nawaz on Indian punjab but outside of it? Bollywood is prime exemple of it where 98% Indians only get to play side roles.

And actually Nawaz can pass as pretty much every Pakistani ethinciy apart from black tribe Makranis. Kashmiris are more related to Pakistani population then Indian. They will generally have 25-30% of ASI just like Punjabis and not like 70% non-punjabi Indians.

On average pashtuns have 10% less ASI then punjabis and one can still tell the difference on average.

 

[Bang Galore]

What conjecture? You haven't provided any proof & have simply posted source less claims. Genetic evidence does point to a migration, & most of the literature today has no issues with the theory of Indo-Iranian migration. The only people complaining are those that are still obsessed with the old Aryan Invasion Theory. You yourself have been using Max Mueller's debunked theory to derive dates knowing that it's incorrect in the first place. Did you visit the links that I provided you with? The Indo-Iranians may not have known much about Western Iran initially, but as they spread further in to the Iranian plateau, they were aware of it. In fact the Median people who are also Indo-Iranians & referred to themselves as Aryans had an empire stretching all the way to Anatolia. There is no arguing that the Vedic & Avestan scriptures show common geographical names, & the fact that they speak related languages, gives credence to them being related.

Genetic evidence points to what? A migration out of Africa? Beyond that, it is pick & choose. I never said that the Iranians were never aware of western Iran, only that the Avesta is unaware of it. It is fundamentally important to any claims of migration from up North. You have zero idea of what is the prevailing linguistic theory & the dates attached, yet you insist on coming up with the same stuff repeatedly. There is no arguing that vedic & Avestan scriptures show same names? Really? I'm sure no argument from you but no else seems to buy that. The only names common between the two are those of the sub continent. There is no mention in the Rg veda of any geography outside that.

I have heard of the 8th Mandala being the most similar to Avestan, but that isn't a claim by every scholar, it's only a claim made by some. So please do not provide us with false information.

This is utter nonsense. You are indulging in the most blatant form of lying yet have no compunction accusing others of doing so. Prove it if you can. No Avestan scholar disagrees with what I said. The best that Rg veda scholars who support the AIT have been able to do is suggest that somehow the 8th Mandala was an early one but that has been conclusively rubbished. Very few want to go down that path.

Regardless, I doubt any of us are experts in Sanskrit & Avestan, but if it's true that the 8th Mandala is most similar to Avestan, it would make no difference whatsoever. Languages evolve over time, they borrow from each other, & the Indo-Iranian tribes were naturally in contact. Sanskrit borrowed many loan words from unknown languages, the point is that the evolution of a language in no way implies that the Indo-Iranian people didn't go their separate ways. Plenty of evidence points to their similar origins. Another important point to note is that the Median Empire began in 678 BCE, just over 2000 years ago, & there is no mention of them that I know off during the Elamite period. The Elamites are considered Semites by some sources, including the Hebrew scriptures.

You seem to have comprehension issues & an inability to read beyond what is convenient for your argument. Never said that they didn't go separate ways, pointed out that one of the homelands mentioned in the Avesta is the Punjab and that was the point of contact.

So what if the Vedas does not categorically mention a migration or know off any land outside Afghanistan? Some sources use the Vedas to in fact figure out the Aryan homeland, but it any case I will leave that aside for now. Some of your views give the impression that you are a supporter of the Out of India Theory (OIT). In any case, the quote below should be interesting. Please note that all of my quotes from other sources in this post are in Italic form.

Please do not bother with issuing certificates. You can assume whatever you want. Your sources are suddenly the only ones that can be "trusted" ? You are picking those"sources" which you think will advance your argument. Doesn't make them correct.

However, the Vedas do contain vague references to former habitations, such as what appears to be the BMAC and there are references to journeys over mountains and mountain passes. Many place names in Afghanistan are from proto-II words from Central Asia and often lead back to ancient Central Asian enemies of the Arya referred to in the Vedas. One of these is the Parni, associated with the BMAC and later with a northern Iranian group. They had stone forts and well-built cow stables in northern Iran that look a lot like earlier BMAC structures.

Standard AIT rubbish. This is so old as not even to be funny.

There are frequent references in the Vedas to southward and eastward movements of various groups of Arya.

There are none, forget frequent. This chicanery has long been exposed leaving only the likes of you to clutch at those straws.

There are no references to westward groups as would be required by the OIT. Some of these movements to the south and east are described in military terms as victorious conquests. There are also references in the late Vedas of movements of the Arya east from the Afghan/Pakistan border to Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and all the way to Bihar.[/I]"

This theory is not even trotted out by the AIT proponents anymore, this was the original invasion idea.

"Given that the Rig Veda is commonly thought to have been written in the Upper Indus region, we have yet one more reason to look at the area immediately to the north and north-west of the upper Indus Valley i.e. the Pamir-Badakhshan region as being a strong candidate for the homeland of the ancient Aryans, the so-called Proto Indo-Iranians.

The Rg veda is written on the banks of the Sarasvati, not the Indus area. All the geographic names in the oldest mandalas are largely those of Haryana. The rest is the usual humbug. So outdated that it is not even funny.

The language of the Rig Veda and the Old Avesta are so close that they are commonly thought to be dialects such as that spoken in two neighbouring provinces and that further, they emerged from a common language philologists call Proto Indo-Iranian, another name for the language of united ancient Aryans.

Ya, that was what I pointed out. The 8th Mandala

Panini, the author of a grammar on Classical Sanskrit which was derived from the Vedic language was a resident of Pushkalavati, Gandhara, which is now part of modern-day Charsadda District in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan and which included the Swat Valley now in northern Pakistan as well.

No relevance to a migration/invasion theory. The Rg veda speaks of the subcontinent including Afghanistan. Panini came much later.

Archaologists simply accept no major migration to the subcontinent. No amount of cherry picking will change that. Even AIT scholars like Witzel accept that archaeologist do not agree with any migration.

What's the purpose of this paragraph? I am assuming this paragraph attempts to highlight religious differences. They don't mean anything either, religious beliefs evolved in the past among many civilizations including the Greeks & Romans. It does nothing to prove that the Indo-Iranian people weren't related.

Obviously, not clear to you. It wasn't to highlight religious differences, it was to give you a link to the connection between the Rg veda & the Avesta & what major Avestan scholars say about it. Where the separation takes place was what we were discussion and that was in support. Essentially, if you still don't get it, it means that Avestan scholars agree that the Rg veda predates the Avesta & that the Avesta corresponds to a later part of the vedic period. essentially questioning the idea of the AIT as commonly suggested. This includes some of the above references that you brought in. Answers that.

The unearthing of those ancient cities in Russia, combined with evidence that they are over 4000 years old & that their rituals were similar to those in the Vedas is very important. Your continuous obsession with the Aryan Invasion Theory is infuriating seeing as I already told you that Max Mueller is claimed to have come up with those dates to conform to his Biblical beliefs. The Aryan Invasion Theory has long been discredited. The Aryan Migration Theory that I am discussing should not be considered an off shoot or a variation of the Aryan Invasion Theory. The dates we should focus on are those provided to us by archaeological, linguistic, & genetic researches.

What rituals? You seem to labour under the belief that no one apart from you can read. I can & so can most archaeologists. They still don't agree that there is any migration Btw, on the one hand you dismiss "Max Mueller" dates and on the other hand you bring up supposed evidence saying something similar in dating. Problem with cherry picking arguments.

I notice that you are also assuming that Andronovo was home to all proto-Indo-Europeans. That isn't correct either. The majority of the Indo-Europeans in Europe have been present there since Paleolithic times. There have been some migrations towards mainland Europe from the east, as noticed by the presence of the R1a haplogroup in Eastern European ethnic groups such as the Croatians. However, as far the Indo-Iranians are concerned, Andronovo was most likely home to mainly the proto-Indo-Iranian people besides a few others.

My dear chap, there is a pattern required for the linguistic expansion. you cannot make your own theories of who went where & when.

The authors caution about this evidence of admixture:

It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe.

Dr Lalji Singh quoted the facts from a study published in the journal 'Nature' in August 2009.

The study had been conducted by Singh and Kumarasamy Thangaraj of CCMB, Hyderabad, in collaboration with David Reich of Harvard Medical University and Nick Patterson and Alkes L Price of the Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

"We studied 1 million genetic markers in 132 individuals from 25 groups of Indians to conclude that they all were mixtures of ANI as well as ASI. ANI shows some lineage to the Europeans," said Singh.

Questioning the Aryan Dravidian theory, he added: "If true, the theory would imply that only the upper castes of India should have European lineage."

"But the study clearly shows that the mainland populations of India, irrespective of caste and tribe, have a European lineage, along with being a mixture of ANI and ASI."

Picking & choosing has problems.



We will have to disagree on this. I will call you out every time you make claims on either the Rg veda or the Avesta supporting your conjecture but beyond that, there is no point in this discussion. We have no meeting ground and nor is one likely.