Aryans vs Dravidians?

[Shabaz Sharif]

even among punjabis, I find many people who look tamil. The truth is there is no such thing as aryan, most south asians are dravdian mostly, yes only some kashmiries, northern pakistani groups, some afghan and central asian groups are probably somewhat aryan

Pakistanis dont look like they did 2000-4000 years ago because of mixing with ASI woman, but vedic civilization is our legacy. Pure ANI doesnt exist anywhere in South Asia, and Vedic Civilization was South Asian so other regions doesnt have any claim on it.

 

[Indischer]

I have travelled the length and breadth of India and I can confidently state that in every region of India, the local population always has folks whose skin colour vary from light brown to dark brown. the frequeny might vary as one moves from North to South and East to West, but nevertheless, it's readily visible everywhere.

It's been proven through DNA analysis too that almost everyone on the Indian mainland is a blend of Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian populations. But interestingly, the Ancestral South Indians are not the same as Dravidians. The Dravidians merely represent an earlier Caucasian group that entered the subcontinent much earlier than Aryans(and intermingled more with ASI). The Veddah people of Sri Lanka are seen as proof of this. Thus, the Dravidians and Aryans are both classified as dark skinned Caucasians. The Aryans and Dravidians, hence, must be seen only as a cultural group and not an ethnic group.

 

[Indischer]

There have also been speculations by linguists that the earliest Dravidians may have descended from the region called Elam, in today's Iran. The Elamo-Dravidian language group has therefore been proposed, linking Elamite with the Dravidian language group. This is interesting because if this were true, it would mean that the citizens of IVC spoke some kind of dravidian language.

 

[TopCat]

According to Hindu mythology, All Gods like Ram, Arjun etc are Aryans or light skinned and the real winner but all the Ashuras and Rakshaks, Monkeys etc are Dravid or dark skinned people from south and the loosers.

.. very sad

 

[Indischer]

According to Hindu mythology, All Gods like Ram, Arjun etc are Aryans or light skinned and the real winner but all the Ashuras and Rakshaks, Monkeys etc are Dravid or dark skinned people from south and the loosers.

.. very sad

It's acually not true. This is just a modern interpretation that needs to be recorrected. The God Shiva and Krishna are both described as having a dark complexion. In fact, Krishna literally means Black in Sanskrit. Draupadi too is described as Dusky in the Mahabharata. You will find many such examples. But yes, most texts are biased heavily in favor of the higher castes.

 

[TopCat]

It's acually not true. This is just a modern interpretation that needs to be recorrected. The God Shiva and Krishna are both described as having a dark complexion. In fact, Krishna literally means Black in Sanskrit. Draupadi too is described as Dusky in the Mahabharata. You will find many such examples. But yes, most texts are biased heavily in favor of the higher castes.

Kirshna was the God himself taken a shape but yet fell in love with Radha the lighter skinned. Even God could not help himself eventually.

Shiva was the symbol of destruction. So he must be dark skinned.

 

[Indianpatriot1]

The whole AIT / AMT theory has been pretty much debunked by modern genetic studies. Look up papers from Reich et al, the latest being of June 2013. The only persons clinging to the AIT nonsense tenaciously are a bunch of tenured white professors of Indology, the most prominent being Witzel and Farmer.


The full paper, which is pretty technical, is here:

AJHG - Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

This has to be read in conjunction with their other earlier work:

In a nutshell the findings are:

1. The South Asian population is largely a mixture of two Genetic streams, the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI)

2. ANI has genetic similarities to the Western Europeans and Central Asians, but not to the Arabs or Eastern Europeans.

3. The ASI is sui generis, not having resemblance to any other group. For purposes of genetic marking however, the markers of Onge tribal group of Andaman Islands have been taken as a reference since the original ASI references are not available.

4. The ANI - ASI mixing took place between 1900-4000 years ago. While this may look like evidence of AIT / AMT, it is not so because the ANI component has been present in the subcontinent itself for at least 12500 years. It is presumed that the ANI- Western European split occurred around that time

5. There is a general North West - South East and Caste Ranking wise gradation in the ANI Component. Populations in the North Western parts and the higher Hindu castes have higher ANI

The postulated theory is:

1. The ANI populations came to India at least 12500 years ago and settled in the North Western part of the sub continent. These were the IVC and the Vedic people.

2. The ASI origins are not known. They may have come to the sub continent before or after the ANI

3. With the drying of North Western India, the IVC started declining, prompting a movement of ANI people to the east and the south

4. The ANI encountered the ASI population leading to intermixing and start of caste system, which, when established, stopped further intermixing.

This however is not the whole story. Large population groups also have west Asian markers introduced through subsequent invasions.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

You dont get it do you? ANI mean aryans and ASI mean native Indians. So AMT is correct unless you include whole South Asia in India which will be biggest bs ever. It has been proven by genetics and the paper you mentioned that Pakistan was land of ANI till centuries later our forefathers decided to mix with ASI.

 

[Indianpatriot1]

You dont get it do you? ANI mean aryans and ASI mean native Indians. So AMT is correct unless you include whole South Asia in India which will be biggest bs ever. It has been proven by genetics and the paper you mentioned that Pakistan was land of ANI till centuries later our forefathers decided to mix with ASI.

Take your BS elsewhere. It is clear you cant read scientific papers.

As for jat Muslims, I will puncture your pretensions slowly. You were not there in the subcontinent till 6th Century AD and have nothing to do with IVC / Vedic civilization.

Zor ka Jhatka dheere se lage.

 

[Indischer]

You dont get it do you? ANI mean aryans and ASI mean native Indians. So AMT is correct unless you include whole South Asia in India which will be biggest bs ever. It has been proven by genetics and the paper you mentioned that Pakistan was land of ANI till centuries later our forefathers decided to mix with ASI.

ANI did not originate in modern Pakistan. Their locus was somewhere in today's Northwest Iran. Repost from my earlier scrap: It's been proven through DNA analysis too that almost everyone on the Indian mainland is a blend of Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian populations. But interestingly, the Ancestral South Indians are not the same as Dravidians. The Dravidians merely represent an earlier Caucasian group that entered the subcontinent much earlier than Aryans(and intermingled more with ASI). The Veddah people of Sri Lanka are seen as proof of this. Thus, the Dravidians and Aryans are both classified as dark skinned Caucasians. The Aryans and Dravidians, hence, must be seen only as a cultural group and not an ethnic group

 

[Indianpatriot1]

ANI did not originate in modern Pakistan. Their locus was somewhere in today's Northwest Iran. Repost from my earlier scrap: It's been proven through DNA analysis too that almost everyone on the Indian mainland is a blend of Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian populations. But interestingly, the Ancestral South Indians are not the same as Dravidians. The Dravidians merely represent an earlier Caucasian group that entered the subcontinent much earlier than Aryans(and intermingled more with ASI). The Veddah people of Sri Lanka are seen as proof of this. Thus, the Dravidians and Aryans are both classified as dark skinned Caucasians. The Aryans and Dravidians, hence, must be seen only as a cultural group and not an ethnic group

Nothing is known about the ASI. For genetic marking , the Onge have been taken as a reference. But this is not correct because the genetic distance between the Onge and even the lowest Indian castes is very large. The Onge are negrito, and no population group in India shows Negrito features. Similarly, for ANI, the Baloch are taken but this is again guesswork.

The Dravidians could have been Elamites / Sumerians . Further research is needed.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Take your BS elsewhere. It is clear you cant read scientific papers.

As for jat Muslims, I will puncture your pretensions slowly. You were not there in the subcontinent till 6th Century AD and have nothing to do with IVC / Vedic civilization.

Zor ka Jhatka dheere se lage.

If punjabis had nothing to do with IVC/Vedic then lets forget about native Indians. German aryan theory sound more believble in that case. Im not even jatt but dalit. It seem now AMT doesnt sound absurd when one takes actual south asian countries in to equation unlike maha bharat crap

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Nothing is known about the ASI. For genetic marking , the Onge have been taken as a reference. But this is not correct because the genetic distance between the Onge and even the lowest Indian castes is very large. The Onge are negrito, and no population group in India shows Negrito features. Similarly, for ANI, the Baloch are taken but this is again guesswork.

The Dravidians could have been Elamites / Sumerians . Further research is needed.

For 100% ASI people see my picture and read my sig. The paper take Georgians as ANI instead of Baloch.

 

[Indianpatriot1]

If punjabis had nothing to do with IVC/Vedic then lets forget about native Indians. German aryan theory sound more believble in that case. Im not even jatt but dalit. It seem now AMT doesnt sound absurd when one takes actual south asian countries in to equation unlike maha bharat crap

Rant rant...rant

 

[Indianpatriot1]

For 100% ASI people see my picture and read my sig. The paper take Georgians as ANI instead of Baloch.

Now that you have revealed your caste, I can understand your extreme insecurity about your genetic makeup.

We give 2 hoots about the genetics of South Asia. It is just a topic of academic interest for us. Hindus have an unbroken cultural history for 1000s of years and dont need certificates from low caste converts.