Aryans vs Dravidians?

[Shabaz Sharif]

1 . Aryan is a name given by western historians ....that doesn't mean that there was no civilization at all Indian subcontinent and people from outside Indian must have settled here . The people were already there. However , the intermingling with west Asians is quite possible .

2. Africa is not the only place where human beings were evolved . The evolution started simultaneously at different places . The local environment conditions made somebody fair and somebody black , somebody tall and somebody small .

3. There is very little resemblance in the languages spoken by west Asians and that by Indian subcontinents . Sanskrit is more aligned towards Tamil than its to arabic . However , it might have happened that newer languages like Hindi, Punjabi , Urdu evolved because of combination of arabic with Devanagari .

1. There isn't even possibility of that.

2. Every modern human moved out of eastern africa to all over the world.

3. Arabs are not central asians. Punjabi is ancient language but have huge amount of influence from arabic/persian just like hindi7urdu which are newer languages.

 

[INDIC]

Indo-Iranian tribes migrated from Andronovo to Afghanistan, Iran, & the Indus Valley. Many people try to falsify history for their own agenda. The discussion being carried out by us is for the purpose of providing truthful information regarding our history & land based on the genetic, historic, cultural, linguistic, & archaeological evidence available to us. Many Indo-Iranian people that migrated in to modern day India were eventually wiped out because of intermarriage. That however does not hold true for the north western regions of the Sub-Continent, neither does it hold true for modern day Iran & Afghanistan.

Iranian Branch of Indo-Iranians intermarried with Elamite people. Indo-Iranian people no more exist in most of Central Asia, the land was replaced by Turkic people.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Iranian Branch of Indo-Iranians intermarried with Elamite people. Indo-Iranian people no more exist in most of Central Asia, the land was replaced by Turkic people.

I never claimed that modern day Central Asians are Indo-Iranians. It's obvious that the demographics of ancient & modern Central Asia are different & when a reference is made to Indo-Iranian migrations, it naturally refers to ancient times. Everyone knows that the majority of the people residing in Central Asia today are of Turkic origin, but there are pretty large Russian communities in modern Central Asian countries as well. That is because of the influence of the USSR. The Indo-Iranians in Iran were influenced by Elamites & they did mix with them, but that does not imply that every ethnic group in Iran is mixed.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

yup the Mongols were among the yellow race

in south Asia the closest people that comes to them ethnically are the Tibeto-Burman race eg: the Assamese ,Ghurkhas, Chakmas some Kashmiris also ( from gilgit-baltistan, laddak & leh rgions) & to some extent the Bengalis

The closet to them are the Hazara people ... the descendants of the mongol soldiers...

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

The closet to them are the Hazara people ... the descendants of the mongol soldiers...

100% correct.

 

[Nassr]

Let me repeat a portion of one of my previous posts as a response below.



Apart from that, the genetic study I referred to proves the claims of historic civilizations, & the evidence provided by the Vedic & Avestan scriptures. Linguistic, genetic, historic, & cultural, & now even archaeological evidence is pointing to an Indo-Iranian migration. I don't even know why their migration was ever doubt seeing as plenty of civilizations in Iran including the Medians & Persians were aware of their Aryan identity. The quote below is evidence of that.

Inscription of Darius the Great at Naqsh-e-Rostam



Besides, the genetic study was completely neutral & showed absolutely no signs of bias or racism, & has been proven legitimate taking in to consideration that other studies point to similar results. Researchers often refer to a wide variety of sources including neutral & biased ones for the sake of acquiring as much information as possible from all kinds of sources. This does not indicate any bias, & the genetic study was undoubtedly legitimate. A variety of other genetic studies also provide credence to the Indo-Iranian migrations.





The only reason this propaganda is popular in India is because the idea that the Indo-Iranians were immigrants discourages unity between the different ethnic groups in India. In modern times some idiots go to great lengths to encourage unity by denying the existence of race. The fact remains that denying a difference doesn't eliminate it. The only way true unity could ever be achieved is by accepting, acknowledging, & respecting the differences among mankind. Blaming imperialists is pointless because the concept of Indo-Iranian migration has been proven by a variety of sources.





Most of the text you have quoted actually points towards 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.



Those paragraphs are from the book called "The Origin of the Indo-Iranians" right? A preview of that book is available online, & it confirms the migration of Indo-Iranian tribes for the most part.

By quoting directly from the book, what I wanted to highlight was that there are many well known archeologists and historians who hold different views about Indo-Iranian migrations, to or from Andronovo, and that there are many theories that are being propounded in this regard. The divergent views can only emanate when there still remain aspects which are contentious and can be challenged. This in fact is the beauty of all this discussion, every time one reads something different, one learns something different.

Cheers.

 

[Nassr]

The closet to them are the Hazara people ... the descendants of the mongol soldiers...

These are excerpts from a paper titled, The Inquiry into the History of the Hazara Mongols of Afghanistan, written by Elizabeth E. Bacon in 1951.

About Hazara of Afghanistan:

The most circumstantial tradition is that recorded by N Elias in 1898 as:

the view of the origin of his people which was held by a chief of the Hazara of Turbat-i-Jam, who died in 1894 . . . [that] the present Hazara belonged to one of the chief sections, or largest tribes, of the Moghuls. They rebelled against Chingiz Khan, who ordered them to be removed from Moghulistan to the Kohistan of Kabul. This order was being carried out, but Chingiz died just as the Hazara had crossed the Oxus. One of Chingiz's sons [descendant may be meant] moved art of them to the Kohistan of Kabul; but some effected their escape and settled in Badghis. When one turns to historical records, there seems little basis for the often reported statement that the Hazaras are descendants of military colonists planted in Afghanistan by Chinggis Khan at the beginning of the thirteenth century. This statement may be traced back to the so-called Tarikh-i Wassaf, written by 'Abdullah b. Fadlullah of Shiraz at the beginning of the fourteenth century.

According to d'Ohsson it was in the summer of 1223 that Ogotai for the first time appointed civil governors, dorogas, to the conquered cities, but no mention is made of garrisons assigned to support these civil governors. Shortly thereafter Ogotai rejoined his father on the upper Indus. After an unsuccessful attempt to return to Mongolia by way of Tibet, the Mongol armies returned to Peshawar and proceeded north across the Hindu Kush. Except for a pause at Balkh to slaughter such inhabitants as had returned to the destroyed city, no further campaigns are recorded in Afghanistan for Chinggis Khan and his armies before they crossed the Oxus.29 Early in 1224, while Chinggis Khan was wintering in Samarkand, three Mongol regiments invaded northern Iran from Transoxiana and destroyed a number of cities which had survived or recovered from the earlier depredations of the Mongol generals Chebe and Subutai,30 but following this brief incursion, Chinggis Khan and his armies returned to Mongolia, where the great leader died in 1227 AD.

There is no indication that any Mongol troops were left south of the Oxus River.

About the Pakistani Hazara People:

At the end of the nineteenth century many Hazaras, consequent on an unsuccessful revolt against the Afghan Government, migrated to Quetta in Baluchistan and Meshed in Iran. Hazara colonies remain in these two areas today. Many, however, returned to Afghanistan and settled in Afghan Turkestan, north of the Hindu Kush, where they were granted land.

 

[eastwatch]

1 . Aryan is a name given by western historians ....that doesn't mean that there was no civilization at all Indian subcontinent and people from outside Indian must have settled here . The people were already there. However , the intermingling with west Asians is quite possible .

Bold part: Your assumption is not true and is not supported by history. Aryavarta was another name of the entire Hindustan in old times many thousands of years before British started to wear clothes.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I think South Indians are Drividians

Most of the Northern Indians are some what different in appearance so one can say they are not Drividians

There are visible difference in appearance

These appear close to the Aboriginals of Australia

However , I don't know what was the history of the migration of people from EuroAsia to India and how the Drividians got reduced to their state as its now , but certainly they did not adapt to technology or change

But one thing is clear that the original inhabitants of India were pushed aside by incoming invaders.

The food presentation and eating traditions are also very different

 

[Tikolo]

I think South Indians are Drividians , untouchable class in India

Most of the Northern Indians are some what different in appearance so one can say they are not Drividians

There are visible difference in appearance

yes, but most of the time the differences between north and south indians is not that big like the pics you posted, I have seen very very darkskinned punjabis and sikhs also who can easily fit in Tamil Nadu, while I have seen some south indians who are as light skinned as pakistanis

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

But with that stated beauti lies in all colors and shapes

Recommended study :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_peoples

 

[eastwatch]

yes, but most of the time the differences between north and south indians is not that big like the pics you posted, I have seen very very darkskinned punjabis and sikhs also who can easily fit in Tamil Nadu, while I have seen some south indians who are as light skinned as pakistanis

I think, you are putting unreal emphasize on the colour of skin to differentiate between ethnicity. A man or his descendants can become dark-skinned if they keep on working under the open sun for many generations.

However, other physical features such as the shape of head, sharpness of nose, length of limbs, density of body hair, color of eyes etc. etc. will not change as fast as the skin color changes unless there are mixed marriages.

Skin color changes faster in hot and humid weather than it changes in hot and dry weather. Skin burns more because of humidity. So, you have to see all other physical features of two different groups of people to understand their ethnicity.

You will note at a close look that the very very dark-skinned Punjabis (probably from Multan) that you have mentioned have similar physical features as other Punjabis. However, Punjabis are also not pure blooded Aryan. It has an admixture of other nearby races. It is similarly true for all the people of old Hindustan.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

I think South Indians are Drividians

Most of the Northern Indians are some what different in appearance so one can say they are not Drividians

This is way over exaggerated. I mean, go to any main cities in North India or Pakistan people do not look like that Sikh guy for the most part.

However , I don't know what was the history of the migration of people from EuroAsia to India and how the Drividians got reduced to their state as its now , but certainly they did not adapt to technology or change

UMMMMM... South India is a head of North, East India, etc in terms of social changes...

 

[genmirajborgza786]

The closet to them are the Hazara people ... the descendants of the mongol soldiers...

yeh hazara's are also quiet close


basically the people closest to the Cyrillic mongloid in asia are the people from the Tibetan barman also known as the Sino-Tibetan race, both geographically & genetically

here is a map of Mongolia itself

& this is the Tibetan barman or Sino-Tibetan region

http://ethne-intl-inc.com/sitebuild...aphical_Map_with_countries_and_TB-756x516.jpg

http://starling.rinet.ru/maps/maps/Sino-Tibetan.gif

note that these people of south east asia are fundamentally different from both the Aryans (Indo-European) or the Dravidians

here are the Cyrillic mongloid Mongolian people from Mongolia it self

Mongolian army

& here is Sino-Tibetan people

here a is the famous British Ghurkha soldier

http://www.specijalac.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/the_gurkhas.jpg

here are few chakmas of people of Bangladesh

Thailand
fomous om bak actror tony jaa

Myanmar

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8YzPUv-2Lys/T2Gv0m1r0VI/AAAAAAAACE0/2Z9r0OV28wc/s400/358.jpg

the word ong ang ung ing are integeral part of these people's language .names etc

Mongolia or mongol
bayanhongor , mongolia
ovorhangay , mongolia
ulaangom , mongolia
shenyang, china
zhejiang , china
shandong , china
guangdong, china
hong kong , china
shangrila , east Asian folk fore city
Pyongyang, north korea capital

sagaing , Myanmar

lampang, Thailand

bangkok , Thailand

chittagong , Bangladesh

bongo, bangla ,bangladesh

shillong, west Bengal india

kalimpong, Sikkim north east india
tangail, Bangladesh
chua danga, Bangladesh
Tshangla language of Bhutan
manang,Nepal
mustang, Nepal
buglung, Nepal
dang, Nepal
bajhang , Nepal

 

[genmirajborgza786]

Bold part: Your assumption is not true and is not supported by history. Aryavarta was another name of the entire Hindustan in old times many thousands of years before British started to wear clothes.

my respect to to you bro, yes in fact was "Aryavarta" "Aryavart", "Aryavarsh" what people called as Bharata or Bharatvarsha & then much later Bharat were all pronunciation which evolved much later, the original name was "Aryavarta" = bharata,
Aryavarth =Bharat or Aryavarsh = Bharatvarsh

after all both the four main language of south Asia Hindi, Urdu,Punjabi & Bengali (a crossbreed of both indo European & the Sino-Tibetan language, because of its geographic proximity with the Sino-Tibetan region) of south Asia are
Indo-European= Indo-Iranian= Indo-Aryan language