Aryans vs Dravidians?

[p(-)0ENiX]

Interestingly, the genetic studies show that majority of Pakistanis are genetically closer to the people of Middle East, Southern Europe, Georgia and Central Asia. Whereas, there have been migrations from east to west into the areas populated by the Melluhas, these migrations did not play a major part in the genetic admix of the original people of the IVC.

Whatever I have read does not indicate that there is any evidence that the migrating Aryans, if at all, had any worthwhile connection with the people of IVC and I can prove it with archeological evidence. Probably, because by the time they arrived and certainly not in any large number as it were, the IVC had faded out. If we consider the timelines of the BMAC or the Oxus Civilization as some call it and compare these with IVC, majority of the archeologists and historians confirm that though there is a probability that BMAC people did migrate to Iran, there is no evidence that they migrated to the IVC. And if they did, at a later stage from Iran to Meluhha landmass, this would most certainly be after the fading out of the IVC.

The Rig Veda, despite mention by some Indians, did not assign Arya to any race or caste or tribe. It was just mentioned for those who were the noble ones and nothing more. I personally do not think that there were any Vedic Aryans as some of the Indians have started proclaiming of-late.

Genetic studies indicate an Indo-Aryan & Indo-Iranian migration. Other civilizations as in the Medians for instance were aware of their connection with the Vedic people. If by the Middle East, you mean Semites, then rest assured only a few Pakistanis may have Semitic mixture. This does not just apply to Pakistan, but to Afghanistan & Iran as well. The migration of the Indo-Iranian people occurred in stages, the Indo-Aryans in particular also had to marry indigenous women because genetic studies indicates that the majority of the migrants were men, but women were naturally present as well. Right now, we can't be certain if the Indo-Aryans had any ethnic relations with the IVC because we haven't deciphered their language. The Harappans were also Caucasian as far as I know, but we do not know if they were Indo-European people because of the failure to decrypt their script & analyze their language. I am not aware of any studies performed on the corpses of Harappan people. The Vedic Aryans lived with the Harappans in the later stages of the Harappan civilization, that is why there is civilizational continuity after the Harappans disappeared. The Vedic Aryans steadily gained strength, political, & cultural dominance.

Actually these are also matters of belief, therefore for those who have not read the Rig Veda and Mahabharat or Puranas etc themselves, the response may always be coloured in belief and it certainly is not their fault.

There is a massive effort underway in India since some time now, to prove that the Rig Veda and certain other scriptures are much older than the IVC. The reason, IVC represents an urban civilization and the Rig Veda outlines a rural environment and therefore, the Rig Veda has to be older than the IVC and should pre-date it to prove that the IVC was in fact a continuation of the Vedic civilization logically progressing from rural environment to urban environment. And many renowned Indian historians and archeologists have said this openly. Naming of Ghagar-Hakra as Saraswati is also a part of this revisionism. Initially, in their effort to prove the Aryan Invasion Theory wrong, the Indians de-bunked that there ever were any Aryan invasion. Then came the counter to Aryan Migration Theory and now Out of India Theory is being propagated. In doing so, they have written so much self contradictory archeological and historical narrations that it is now difficult for them to un-justify what they justified in the first place, when all this was initiated.

The problem is that, as many of such theories are proven wrong, new one emerge. Lets see as to where does this charade ends, if at all.

Let them do whatever they want, no one can change the truth. People may present a falsified form of history for furthering their own agenda, but they are eventually going to get caught. In any case, there is really no point in discussing this anymore. These discussions have been held multiple times recently on this forum with little result.

 

[Tikolo]

^ the large bulk of ANI started entering pakistan around 4200 years ago and it continued till 1900 years ago. so yes, it seems during that time period, there were lots of individual migrations towards the indus from central asia, Caucasian, Iran, Middle east etc....

The harrapan people are a mystery, if we are to assume that west asian farmers started the indus valley civilization, then yes obviously they would have been caucasian, that eventually mixed with indigenous ASI who were living on the Indus at the time, however if harrapan civilization is older then the ANI migrations, then they were probably more ASI then ANI and perhaps closer to Dravidian people. At this it is anybody's guess

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Hey snowwhite show me where I wrote that. You also need to prove your claim.

You claimed indic people were living there, what do you mean by "Indic"? The amount of ASI genes one have?

 

[INDIC]

You claimed indic people were living there, what do you mean by "Indic"? The amount of ASI genes one have?

Both Greeks sources by Herodotus and ancient Indian sources identify people of Gandhara as Indian people. The ancient people of Gandhara spoke some Sanskrit derived languages.

Weren't you sometimes back claiming that Punjabis of your country have about 1/5 of ancestral ASI ancestry.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Both Greeks sources by Herodotus and ancient Indian sources identify people of Gandhara as Indian people. The ancient people of Gandhara spoke some Sanskrit derived languages.

Weren't you sometimes back claiming that Punjabis of your country have about 1/5 of ancestral ASI ancestry.

They identified them as "Indoi" by Greeks because of Indus river which unfortunately for you is in Pakistan. "India" name come with British. And ancient-people of Gandhara didn't come from jungles of India, you guys were to busy in your caste system at that time.

No real Historian (by real i mean non-hindu) Gandhara people decendents are current day Pakistanis.

 

[INDIC]

No real Historian (by real i mean non-hindu) Gandhara people decendents are current day Pakistanis.

Current day Pakistan but Gandhara was the part of Bharatvarsha in ancient time. Gandhara people spoke Indo-Aryan language derives from Sanskrit. They were the one on whom name Hindukush came & Pakistanis seems very proud of the slaughtering of the people of Gandhara.

 

[pk_baloch]

They identified them as "Indoi" by Greeks because of Indus river which unfortunately for you is in Pakistan. "India" name come with British. And ancient-people of Gandhara didn't come from jungles of India, you guys were to busy in your caste system at that time.

No real Historian (by real i mean non-hindu) Gandhara people decendents are current day Pakistanis.

indic username always twists the real history of pakistan ..u r wasting ur time on him ..

though he knows what r u talking and wat he is answering

 

[INDIC]

"India" name come with British.

British took name India from Roman, Romans took name India from Greeks. Before British arrived Romans, Arabs and Chinese had trade relations at various ports of India like Muziris(Kerala), Tamralipti(West Bengal) and Arikamedu(Tamil Nadu).

 

[Nexus]

both look chinese to me

check out Dragon in 2nd pic.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Current day Pakistan but Gandhara was the part of Bharatvarsha in ancient time. Gandhara people spoke Indo-Aryan language derives from Sanskrit. They were the one on whom name Hindukush came & Pakistanis seems very proud of the slaughtering of the people of Gandhara.

Again more BS, Gandhara was not part of Bharat. It was independent and away from Hindu influence of Dravidians.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

^ the large bulk of ANI started entering pakistan around 4200 years ago and it continued till 1900 years ago. so yes, it seems during that time period, there were lots of individual migrations towards the indus from central asia, Caucasian, Iran, Middle east etc....

The harrapan people are a mystery, if we are to assume that west asian farmers started the indus valley civilization, then yes obviously they would have been caucasian, that eventually mixed with indigenous ASI who were living on the Indus at the time, however if harrapan civilization is older then the ANI migrations, then they were probably more ASI then ANI and perhaps closer to Dravidian people. At this it is anybody's guess

Please mention me or quote me when you reply to me. I would have missed your post if I hadn't visited this thread again. The migrations took place around 3000 to 8000 years ago according to some studies so we can't pinpoint a precise date because the migration wouldn't have occurred all of a sudden. Caucasian does not simply mean Indo-European, it includes Semitic people as well, & based on the skull shape, the Harappans were Caucasians. Of course, we can't confirm if they were another bunch of Indo-Europeans unless we decrypt their language or study their DNA. One thing is certain, that the Vedic Aryans considered them distinct from themselves. The Indo-Iranian migrations took place during the later era of the Harappan civilization, but of course the migration did take place in stages according to some sources. That is why it's very difficult to pinpoint a precise date. Some of the migrants married local Harappan women as well, that is indicated by genetic research.

 

[Nassr]

Genetic studies indicate an Indo-Aryan & Indo-Iranian migration. Other civilizations as in the Medians for instance were aware of their connection with the Vedic people. If by the Middle East, you mean Semites, then rest assured only a few Pakistanis may have Semitic mixture. This does not just apply to Pakistan, but to Afghanistan & Iran as well. The migration of the Indo-Iranian people occurred in stages, the Indo-Aryans in particular also had to marry indigenous women because genetic studies indicates that the majority of the migrants were men, but women were naturally present as well. Right now, we can't be certain if the Indo-Aryans had any ethnic relations with the IVC because we haven't deciphered their language. The Harappans were also Caucasian as far as I know, but we do not know if they were Indo-European people because of the failure to decrypt their script & analyze their language. I am not aware of any studies performed on the corpses of Harappan people. The Vedic Aryans lived with the Harappans in the later stages of the Harappan civilization, that is why there is civilizational continuity after the Harappans disappeared. The Vedic Aryans steadily gained strength, political, & cultural dominance.



Let them do whatever they want, no one can change the truth. People may present a falsified form of history for furthering their own agenda, but they are eventually going to get caught. In any case, there is really no point in discussing this anymore. These discussions have been held multiple times recently on this forum with little result.

The genetic studies that I have seen indicate that though there is admix between Iranian and Pakistani people, it is much more pronounced in case of Central Asia and Pakistan as compared to Iran and Pakistan. The admix similarity between the Turks and Central Asian is also similar, which may indicate that Pakistanis are genetically more closer to Central Asians and Turks than the Iranians. The relationship between languages does not have to necessarily relate to the genetic admix and linguists say that the languages do not necessarily travel through migrations. This means that in a certain timeframe, there were more people who migrated from Turkey to Central Asia to Pakistan than from Iran to Pakistan. The Semite mix as you indicate may not be as pronounced as is the Iranian mix which is also not as pronounced. There however, is a mention of a Meluhha Kingdom on the borders of Egypt around 630 BC, which means that the Meluhhans from IVC migrated in large numbers from the IVC to Mesopotamia in the initial instance and later to Palestine.

From the perspective of given timeframe i.e. the IVC period (3300 BC-1900 BC), there is no known connection between the so-called Vedic Aryans and the IVC. Majority of the historians highlight that the Aryan migrations took place around or after 1500 BC, which means that the people of IVC could not have been the Aryans as they existed much earlier and much before these migrations began. In my opinion and I have read about it as well, the Vedic Aryans were the people of IVC who wrote the Rig Veda after the IVC faded out completely. And as these people were not Aryans in the first place, mention of Arya in the Rig Veda is used for these people as the noble ones and not as a race or a tribe. This also qualifies as the Rig Veda which in its earliest manifest essentially projects monotheism, which the people of the IVC were i.e. monotheists. Now, monotheism does not mean that they were Semite or Muslims or followers of Abrahamic religions. The Indians immediately start reacting to this as being Muslim.

Deciphering of the language may indicate its family amongst the languages which may not be enough to identify these people as Aryans unless they state it in the seals that infact they were Aryans or Meluhhans or future Pakistanis that they actually were.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Again more BS, Gandhara was not part of Bharat. It was independent and away from Hindu influence of Dravidians.

What do you mean by Hindu influence? Why is it alway Hindu?

Even with the heavy cultural intrusion from the Greeks, Persians, Central Asians, there is an Indian base to the culture. You cant deny that.

Gandhara

East-Central India

Gandhara

East-Central India

Gandhara

East-Central India

Gandhara

East-Central India

 

[Tikolo]

The genetic studies that I have seen indicate that though there is admix between Iranian and Pakistani people, it is much more pronounced in case of Central Asia and Pakistan as compared to Iran and Pakistan. The admix similarity between the Turks and Central Asian is also similar, which may indicate that Pakistanis are genetically more closer to Central Asians and Turks than the Iranians. The relationship between languages does not have to necessarily relate to the genetic admix and linguists say that the languages do not necessarily travel through migrations. This means that in a certain timeframe, there were more people who migrated from Turkey to Central Asia to Pakistan than from Iran to Pakistan. The Semite mix as you indicate may not be as pronounced as is the Iranian mix which is also not as pronounced. There however, is a mention of a Meluhha Kingdom on the borders of Egypt around 630 BC, which means that the Meluhhans from IVC migrated in large numbers from the IVC to Mesopotamia in the initial instance and later to Palestine.

From the perspective of given timeframe i.e. the IVC period (3300 BC-1900 BC), there is no known connection between the so-called Vedic Aryans and the IVC. Majority of the historians highlight that the Aryan migrations took place around or after 1500 BC, which means that the people of IVC could not have been the Aryans as they existed much earlier and much before these migrations began. In my opinion and I have read about it as well, the Vedic Aryans were the people of IVC who wrote the Rig Veda after the IVC faded out completely. And as these people were not Aryans in the first place, mention of Arya in the Rig Veda is used for these people as the noble ones and not as a race or a tribe. This also qualifies as the Rig Veda which in its earliest manifest essentially projects monotheism, which the people of the IVC were i.e. monotheists. Now, monotheism does not mean that they were Semite or Muslims or followers of Abrahamic religions. The Indians immediately start reacting to this as being Muslim.

Deciphering of the language may indicate its family amongst the languages which may not be enough to identify these people as Aryans unless they state it in the seals that infact they were Aryans or Meluhhans or future Pakistanis that they actually were.

which studies are you talking about? links? anyways pakistanis are defiantly closer to Iranians then they are to turks or present day central asians, unless you are talking about central asians before they mixed with east asian/mongols, we can't be certian at this point what was central asian dna like before mixing with east asian dna

Genetically, the closes people to Pakistanis are obviously North Indians, followed by Afghans and Iranians, then east indians (bengalis), south indians etc..... this is how pakistani genetic cline is

 

[Nassr]

What do you mean by Hindu influence? Why is it alway Hindu?

Even with the heavy cultural intrusion from the Greeks, Persians, Central Asians, there is an Indian base to the culture. You cant deny that.

^^^^^^ There was no India that existed at that time. How can anybody qualify it to be Indic in the absence of an India as an entity.