Aryans vs Dravidians?

[LaBong]

Dude, have you ever read chats on Afghan forums about Pakistanis.

Yeah kale dalkhors and other expletives.

 

[Tikolo]

do iranians have any asi component in them

depends where in Iran, western / northern iranians have almost 0%, but eastern iranians usually show around 5%, afghans around 15-17%, it gets to 30-35% from pakistani punjab to 60-70% in south india

 

[INDIC]

depends where in Iran, western / northern iranians have almost 0%, but eastern iranians usually show around 5%, afghans around 15-17%, it gets to 30-35% from pakistani punjab to 60-70% in south india

Are you referring to Balochs of Iran.

 

[dravidianhero]

depends where in Iran, western / northern iranians have almost 0%, but eastern iranians usually show around 5%, afghans around 15-17%, it gets to 30-35% from pakistani punjab to 60-70% in south india

30 to 35% of asi in pak proves my point tht u ppl are as dravidian as we are(am proud to be dravidian)...i have time and again said that i dont see any diff in the facial features of pak punjabis and most south indians apart from the size of nose(underline the word most here.most south indians have smaller noses compared to north indians and for me the difference end there).
Many pakistanis here are of the belief tht all the south indians are black.if u exclude tamil nadu u will find most south indians dont look any diff from north indians in color(brown) or facial features

 

[curioususer]

Dravidian is linguistic division. We have repeated this many times.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Are you referring to Balochs of Iran.

Baloch have 10-15% on average ASI. ASI component is what differentiate South Asia from other regions.

 

[INDIC]

Baloch have 10-15% on average ASI.

No surprise, Brahui still speak an isolated Dravidian language.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

No surprise, Brahui still speak an isolated Dravidian language.

Genetic have nothing to do with languages. And having 20-30% doesnt make one Dravidian. Check out dravidian population they have 60-70% ASI.

There is no such a thing as 100% ASI, its just a component shared by mostly South Asian populations.

 

[INDIC]

Genetic have nothing to do with languages. And having 20-30% doesnt make one Dravidian. Check out dravidian population they have 60-70% ASI.

There is no such a thing as 100% ASI, its just a component shared by mostly South Asian populations.

The curiousity is about the existence of an isolated Dravidian language in Pakistan.Can you tell us about Brahuis.

 

[Nassr]

Sorry, but I did not use any racist sources. Just because the Nazis used the term Aryan in a racist sense doesn't change the fact that the word Aryan was used in the ethnic sense by Indo-Iranians initially before evolving in to a cultural identity. The book you are referring to according to your post was published in 1974, a lot has changed since then. My reference to the migrations that took place around 3000 to 8000 years ago comes from the article here, it did not come from any book or source with racist claims. The majority of Europeans were present in Europe since Paleolithic times. There were only a few migrations from Central Asia towards Europe & those migrants settled in Eastern Europe alone. Genetic studies including the one I posted regarding Croatians confirm this. Apart from that you may refer to the Kurgan hypothesis for further reading as well. Most of the points you have raised were already clarified by me in previous threads we had discussions in. Almost all genetic studies indicate that the majority of Pakistanis have the R1a haplogroup in their DNA in varying amounts. This has naturally pointed to a migration. I repeat, the Indo-Aryans & Harappans were separate people.

As far as archaeological evidence is concerned regarding chariots, I mentioned a source on a previous thread regarding the unearthing of Aryan cities in Central Asia & Russia.

The place where Europe began: Spiral cities built on remote Russian plains by swastika-painting Aryans





These are some of the first signs of archaeological evidence, & I am certain more evidence shall be uncovered in the future. History already teaches us that the Vedic Aryans considered themselves superior to the people of the Indus Valley. Genetic studies like the one below postulate a migration over 3000 years ago from Central Asia. Besides, your post also claims that Pakistanis are closer to Eurasians, & that in itself shows evidence of migration & admixture in the Indus. Those studies & sources below agree with the uncovering of Aryan cities that were built over 4000 years ago.

Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations

GENETIC DIVERSITY IN PAKISTANI POPULATIONS

The Indo-Europeans

Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were NOT Hindu !





I have already clarified that dates derived from Max Mueller's Aryan invasion theory are incorrect & have been debunked. The dates we should focus on are those that are derived from genetic & archaeological evidence. The Indo-Iranian migrations are simple facts supported by many historical accounts including sources from the region of Media civilization & Persia. This is just a bit of evidence to support my claims, & none of them are from racist sources. Do not falsely accuse people of racism or of using racist sources. The Europeans are not considered Aryans because the word "Aryan" originates from Sanskrit & Avestan. The Aryan race doesn't exist, but the term Aryan initially referred to a group of people (Indo-Iranian tribes) before being applied in the cultural sense.

@p(-)0ENiX

Please do read your own references before you post them. You referred to a news report which quoted a study, the same study which you referred to later as well. The news report had quoted 3000-8000 year aspect from the same study. I posted the exact paragraph from that study. That study quoted and provided a reference of a book in support. The name of that book is The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe written by Poliakov. Therefore I said that 3000-8000 year aspect was suspect.

I also state that the people of IVC were not Aryans (Indo or Iranian) and were locals. The reference that I gave earlier was retrospective and contextual with regard to what the particular hued Indians talk about so-called Vedic Aryans who wrote Rig Veda. In my opinion however there were no Vedic Aryans and they never existed.

I am not concerned about Russian linkages to any Vedic literature, though I have read a lot about it. The Russians incidentally also state that river Saraswati is the present Brahmaputra. Anyways that is a separate aspect.

There was no connection between the IVC era and Vedic era, which are two distinctly different entities. After the demise of IVC, the IVC people may have written the Rig Veda as it emanated from the IVC landmass.

 

[INDIC]

There was no connection between the IVC era and Vedic era, which are two distinctly different entities. After the demise of IVC, the IVC people may have written the Rig Veda as it emanated from the IVC landmass.

Both of them sounds opposite of each other. Can you explain.

 

[bronxbull]

^ 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

There was no Pakistan at that time,only India.

 

[bronxbull]

The Vedic people established cultural & political dominance over the locals of the Indus, there was no slavery. I haven't heard of any source that indicates that women were enslaved for labor or any other purpose. They may have been taken as wives or concubines, but that's not slavery. It's quite common for elites to marry women from among those they rule over, & the data I have read indicates that any child born to an upper caste father would belong to his or her father's caste.

There is no doubt the Aryans were eager to preserve their race. Preserving race isn't an issue, but the method they used to preserve it (the caste system) wasn't just. The caste system focuses on occupations, but there is no denying it had a slight racial reason for its existence. As I stated earlier, the Vedic people assigned themselves the positions of higher castes to consolidate their power.

There is no racial reason.the big problem is different,some wars are fought with religious motivation,some with power,land,resource motivation and the losers were thrown to the bottom of their society unless they fought their way up the ladder.

There was no racial preservation,people largely married cross cousins or related tribal people living in another town,I want my kids to look alike as all of us,just a normal thing.

 

[bronxbull]

I believe that present day Hinduism has almost nothing to do with the vedic religion, they completely sound different to me. Present day Hinduism is a mix of Dravdian pagan religions which existed before Vedic religion was brought to south asia.

I pity your small brain and general ignorance.

 

[bronxbull]

Who said Aryan women & children didn't migrate with the men? They obviously did migrate with them, otherwise their race would never have survived. I think you have misunderstood my post. I will explain what I meant in detail later when I get the time. The points you have raised are valid, but they require more details & clarification.

No,not necessarily.