Aryans vs Dravidians?

[INDIC]

There are visible difference in appearance.

You can see the same level of difference between Punjabis and Saraikis.

 

[curioususer]

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

You don't understand. It wasn't a mispronunciation, it was called Bharat after a king.

 

[Bang Galore]

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

What vedic scriptures points to a migration?The Avesta is not even aware of western Iran and is aware of the Punjab as one of the Iranian homelands. Suggests what? Of course the Iranians & Indians are related, the entire mythology is testimony to that. The vedic Aryans & the Iranians tell the same story, only from opposite sides. The question is not of the connection but of the seperation and the dates/place related to that movement.

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.

Everyone migrated, the question is when. There are studies that you have now been aware of that discusses ANI-ASI presence. The nature of that presence is what is in question. The studies suggest a much older presence for the ANI than any Aryan migration theory provides for and an even older presence for the ASI. Of course there have been migration but the key to a supposed Aryan migration is the dates. The Aryan migration theory(or more specifically the AIT) requires Aryan presence in the sub continent not much earlier than 1500 BCE. If the dates are changed to an older one(as you might be open to), the entire theory collapses because the orther groups cannot be dated to their homelands much before this period. By linguistic neccesity , the Indo-Iranians have to be the last to leave any original homeland. There have been plenty of migrations of groups post 1000 BCE and that will certainly account for some genetic difference, though the ASI-ANI stuy shows that to be not very significant. Archeaologists of any standing rubbish any idea of mass migration to the sub-continent between 4000 and 1000 BCE. Do not confuse migrations that happened before or after that with the AIT.

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.

Not as simple as you make it out to be. You, as do many Indians rubbish the many theories being out by "nationalists" on the ground that they have an agenda. That undoubtedly is true in most cases (and i personally believe that a idea of a conspiracy theory of western scholars is unwarranted) but it still takes nothing away from the fact that both archaeologists & RG vedic scholars have punched massive holes in the tradotional AIT, so much so as to have the theory been completely altered. Regardless of motives, it is best to understand that some questions & points being raised are legitimate. Merely calling them names does not solve any issue.

 

[Bang Galore]

This is a discussion related to historical facts without any "forceful urge," whatever that may be.

That is unfortunately not very evident. One must be open minded with arguments not of one's own persuasion to make the claim that you did.

Have you ever read Vedas, Rigveda mentions about number of Hindu Gods.

Why read the Vedas. You can say whatever you want. No Bharata in the Rg veda.....no gods....monotheistic..... anything goes.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

What vedic scriptures points to a migration?The Avesta is not even aware of western Iran and is aware of the Punjab as one of the Iranian homelands. Suggests what? Of course the Iranians & Indians are related, the entire mythology is testimony to that. The vedic Aryans & the Iranians tell the same story, only from opposite sides. The question is not of the connection but of the seperation and the dates/place related to that movement.

Didn't we have a discussion on Vedic scriptures & migrations before? Once again you have misunderstood my reference to the Vedic & Avestan scriptures. The Vedic scriptures & Avesta describe the same places initially before the people separated, this naturally implies a migration. That is interesting because apart from geographic names, even the names of deities are similar. If what some sources say regarding the city of Balkh is true, then that in itself is further proof of migration. Apart from that, I shared an article regarding the unearthing of Aryan cities that I will quote from below.

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

'These ancient Indian texts and hymns describe sacrifices of horses and burials and the way the meat is cut off and the way the horse is buried with its master.

'If you match this with the way the skeletons and the graves are being dug up in Russia, they are a millimetre-perfect match.'

That archaeological evidence provides us proof that a similar culture existed in Andronovo in the past, & could easily be interpreted as further proof of migration alongside the genetic evidence we have. As far as the dates are concerned, further genetic & archaeological studies shall hopefully provide us with more precise dates in the future.

Avestan geography

Avestan geography, is the geographical references in the Avesta, which are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau up to Indo-Iranian border. It was common among the Indo-Iranians to identify concepts or features of traditional cosmography—mountains, lakes, rivers, etc.—with their concrete historical and geographical situation as they migrated and settled in various places.

The historical location of Airyanem Vaejah is still uncertain, but most historians believe this location is Chorasmia or northeast iran around Aral sea and Oxus river , such as: Joseph Markwart, Walter Bruno Henning, Henrik Samuel Nyberg, Walther Hinz, Mary Boyce and etc. The fact that Airyana Vaēǰah is situated in a mountainous region explains its severe climate (Vd. 1.2.3) better than does its supposed location in Chorasmia Although the Pahlavi and Sassanid book introduced Airyanem Vaejah in around Azerbaijan and Some historians also believe the location of Airyanem Vaejah is Azerbaijan, in around Caucasus such as : James Darmesteter, Ernst Herzfeld, Ebrahim Pourdavoud, Johannes Hertel[6] According to Skjærvø, and Gnoli it was situated between the Helmand River and the Hindu Kush Mountains;

If we compare the first chapter of the Vidēvdād with the passages of geographical interest that we come across mainly in the great yashts, we can conclude that the geographical area of Avesta was dominated by the Hindu Kush range at the northeast, the western boundary being marked by the districts of Rey ,possibly gilan = Varəna and Alborz mountains. The Margiana, Hyrcania, Areia, and Drangiana in central, the eastern one by the Indo-Iranian frontier regions such as Gandhāra, Bunēr, the land of the “Seven Rivers.” Sogdiana and, possibly, Chorasmia (which, however, is at the extreme limits) mark the boundary to the north, Sīstān and Baluchistan to the south.

The link below also discusses the Indo-Iranian migration by referencing to the Avesta & Vedic scriptures.

Aryan Homeland & Neighbouring Lands in the Avesta

Everyone migrated, the question is when. There are studies that you have now been aware of that discusses ANI-ASI presence. The nature of that presence is what is in question. The studies suggest a much older presence for the ANI than any Aryan migration theory provides for and an even older presence for the ASI. Of course there have been migration but the key to a supposed Aryan migration is the dates. The Aryan migration theory(or more specifically the AIT) requires Aryan presence in the sub continent not much earlier than 1500 BCE. If the dates are changed to an older one(as you might be open to), the entire theory collapses because the orther groups cannot be dated to their homelands much before this period. By linguistic neccesity , the Indo-Iranians have to be the last to leave any original homeland. There have been plenty of migrations of groups post 1000 BCE and that will certainly account for some genetic difference, though the ASI-ANI stuy shows that to be not very significant. Archeaologists of any standing rubbish any idea of mass migration to the sub-continent between 4000 and 1000 BCE. Do not confuse migrations that happened before or after that with the AIT.

The dates from Max Mueller's discredited Aryan Invasion theory shouldn't be referred to. I have explained that the dates he came up with were meant to conform to his Biblical beliefs regarding the existence of the world or humanity or something. Which theory collapses? The Aryan Invasion theory? That has already been debunked. At this point there is no conflict between the genetic evidence & the accounts of migration by the Indo-Iranian people, neither is there any conflict with linguistic evidence. In fact, the origins of haplogroup R1a as per other studies is Central Asia or the region of the Black Sea, & the fact remains that R1a haplogroups in the Indus region are subclades of the original. Any problem that arises exists because of the Invasion Theory & there is no point in discussing something that has been discredited. The immigration occurred in stages, & archaeologists have no trouble with the recent genetic & archaeological evidence that has been found, including the unearthing of the cities I mentioned previously.

Not as simple as you make it out to be. You, as do many Indians rubbish the many theories being out by "nationalists" on the ground that they have an agenda. That undoubtedly is true in most cases (and i personally believe that a idea of a conspiracy theory of western scholars is unwarranted) but it still takes nothing away from the fact that both archaeologists & RG vedic scholars have punched massive holes in the tradotional AIT, so much so as to have the theory been completely altered. Regardless of motives, it is best to understand that some questions & points being raised are legitimate. Merely calling them names does not solve any issue.

The Western scholars have no conspiracy theory against the Indo-Aryans, & their views are definitely not a result of imperialism. I did not call anyone names, it's usually Indian sources that claim imperialists are interfering with the origins of Indo-Iranians. Theories aren't just discredited on the basis of having an agenda, in fact archaeological, linguistic, & genetic evidence needs to be considered. No reliable evidence points to Vedic Aryans being of Harappan origin. Scholars discrediting the Aryan Invasion theory doesn't mean anything seeing as I have already clarified that Max Mueller's theory is incorrect. There was no massive invasion or subjugation, there was simply an Indo-Iranian migration.

This book that was mentioned earlier in this thread is also worth reading.

The Origin of the Indo-Iranians

 

[genmirajborgza786]

You don't understand. It wasn't a mispronunciation, it was called Bharat after a king.

I understand bro & trust me I myself don't like this Aryan vs Dravidian stigma that haunts the scholar's & historian on both sides of the camps, to me Aryan is not necessarily the fair skinned, blue eyed tall guys vs the natives, rather an evolving process where different trans continental language groups intermingled to produce a culture I do not believe that Aryans were superior , because Aryans it self was a culture & not a particular race. there was just too many crossbreeding's involving multiple different races through out history & not just one or two groups, but multiples to be described as a single race ,however that doesn't mean that there were no Aryan , there were & also believe that there were & there is , but as a culture & not as a race

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

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.

I agree, difference of opinions should always be tolerated, that is after all what leads to a healthy debate. Researchers obviously need to learn more about the Indo-Iranian people, but the fact that our knowledge regarding those ancient people & their links to Andronovo is improving as time goes by is a good sign.

 

[dravidianhero]

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

many pakistanis have access to indian DTHs .every dth provides more than 70 south indian channels.take ur time and watch those channels.then tell me if u can really see big differences between the facial features of north and south indians.not all north inds look like tht sikh and not all south indians look like tht south indian.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

many pakistanis have access to indian DTHs .every dth provides more than 70 south indian channels.take ur time and watch those channels.then tell me if u can really see big differences between the facial features of north and south indians.not all north inds look like tht sikh and not all south indians look like tht south indian.

Not much difference between North Indian and South Indian since both look pretty much the same. The only difference is between punjabis and non punjabis, watch bollywood and tamil movies for confirmation.

 

[PARAS]

Not much difference between North Indian and South Indian since both look pretty much the same. The only difference is between punjabis and non punjabis, watch bollywood and tamil movies for confirmation.

Most bollywood actors are not punjabis and bollywood portrays the language and culture of states of hindi belt not punjab

 

[Bang Galore]

Didn't we have a discussion on Vedic scriptures & migrations before? Once again you have misunderstood my reference to the Vedic & Avestan scriptures. The Vedic scriptures & Avesta describe the same places initially before the people separated, this naturally implies a migration. That is interesting because apart from geographic names, even the names of deities are similar. If what some sources say regarding the city of Balkh is true, then that in itself is further proof of migration.

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.


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.

Apart from that, I shared an article regarding the unearthing of Aryan cities that I will quote from below.

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



That archaeological evidence provides us proof that a similar culture existed in Andronovo in the past, & could easily be interpreted as further proof of migration alongside the genetic evidence we have. As far as the dates are concerned, further genetic & archaeological studies shall hopefully provide us with more precise dates in the future.

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.

The dates from Max Mueller's discredited Aryan Invasion theory shouldn't be referred to. I have explained that the dates he came up with were meant to conform to his Biblical beliefs regarding the existence of the world or humanity or something. Which theory collapses? The Aryan Invasion theory? That has already been debunked. At this point there is no conflict between the genetic evidence & the accounts of migration by the Indo-Iranian people, neither is there any conflict with linguistic evidence. In fact, the origins of haplogroup R1a as per other studies is Central Asia or the region of the Black Sea, & the fact remains that R1a haplogroups in the Indus region are subclades of the original. Any problem that arises exists because of the Invasion Theory & there is no point in discussing something that has been discredited. The immigration occurred in stages, & archaeologists have no trouble with the recent genetic & archaeological evidence that has been found, including the unearthing of the cities I mentioned previously.

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 Western scholars have no conspiracy theory against the Indo-Aryans, & their views are definitely not a result of imperialism. I did not call anyone names, it's usually Indian sources that claim imperialists are interfering with the origins of Indo-Iranians. Theories aren't just discredited on the basis of having an agenda, in fact archaeological, linguistic, & genetic evidence needs to be considered. No reliable evidence points to Vedic Aryans being of Harappan origin. Scholars discrediting the Aryan Invasion theory doesn't mean anything seeing as I have already clarified that Max Mueller's theory is incorrect. There was no massive invasion or subjugation, there was simply an Indo-Iranian migration.

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.

(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)

 

[Nassr]

That is unfortunately not very evident. One must be open minded with arguments not of one's own persuasion to make the claim that you did.

Why read the Vedas. You can say whatever you want. No Bharata in the Rg veda.....no gods....monotheistic..... anything goes.

I am not open minded if my persuasion does not does not collude with your persuasion. If this is what you intend to state, it indeed is a rather surprising argument.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Most bollywood actors are not punjabis and bollywood portrays the language and culture of states of hindi belt not punjab

Name non Punjabi-pathan leading actors of bollywood if you can.

Culture: Bollywood has run out of Punjabis by Aakar Patel

"They rule Bollywood and always have. To see why this is unusual, imagine a Pakistan film industry set in Karachi but with no Pashtuns or Mohajirs or Sindhis. Instead the actors are all Tamilian and the directors all Bengalis. Imagine also that all Pakistan responds to their Tamil superstars as the nation's biggest heroes. That is how unusual the composition of Bollywood is."

Communities which makes just 2.5% of population dominates Indian biggest film industry.

 

[Bang Galore]

I am not open minded if my persuasion does not does not collude with your persuasion. If this is what you intend to state, it indeed is a rather surprising argument.

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.

 

[INDIC]

Why read the Vedas. You can say whatever you want. No Bharata in the Rg veda.....no gods....monotheistic..... anything goes.

I sensed somebody is trying to insult our religion by saying Vedas are not Hindu scriptures.