Pakistani women gives a great reply to India and Pakistani media

[indusporus]

Poor pakistanis and their identity crisis. This is what happens when you only have an identity of 65 years and reject the 10000 years of ancestory.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

It doesn't matter that it is close to the Pakistani border, it is still the choice of Indians whether they want to share in it. Just like most Indians would imagine Delhi, just like many others have a connection to some place of worship thousands of kms away. Cultural inheritance is a funny thing, people don't have to ask permission. Many here identify with someone from a different land because of his religion over people from this land. That is simply how it is. Sarasvati is one of the most sacred river for many in India. To suggest that they do not share the cultural inheritance is plain silly. In any case, no one is asking for permission.

First of all as i said before take anything coming out of India with huge amount of salt. Ghaggar-Hakra river is believed to be Sarasvati river.

Here is correct map of river. As you can see its not bordering Pakistan but inside Pakistan not that it matters anyway because of latest research on this.

Also recent definitive study by Giosan et al in PNAS (Fluvial landscapes of the Harappan Civilization; 2012; June 26; 109 (26): e1688-94) which clearly demonstrated that the the much touted Ghaggar-Hakra was a monsoon-fed river, not the Vedic Sarasvati fed by the melting snows of high mountains. So it seem its back to drawing board for likes of Hindutvas to rewrite history.

The Ghaggar-Hakra was an important area of Harappan settlement. However, the Rig Veda clearly describes the Sarasvati as being fed by melting snow of high mountains and not monsoon fed river like Ghaggar-Hakra is.

 

[Nassr]

You are welcome. I agree that our discussion has been interesting so far, & most of the answers to the points you have raised are present in posts #135 & #184.

I have provided all sorts of evidence for an Indo-Aryan migration, not Max Mueller's Aryan Invasion. That evidence originates from genetic, cultural, linguistic, & historical sources. Pay attention to the genetic studies in the posts that I mentioned, they clearly refer to Indo-European mixture among the Brahmis & Kshatriyas. What's even more interesting is that the majority of these lineages are male. The archaeological discoveries in Central Asia point to similarities between Vedic culture specifically.

It will soon become obvious that Indo-Aryans were a group of Indo-European tribes, & they are the ancestors of the vast majority of people in the north western & to some extent northern regions of the Sub-Continent.

By the way some theories suggest that onagers were used to drive chariots as in the case of Sumeria until being replaced by regular horses which are obviously faster & stronger. No one ever spoke of cows being used to drive chariots.

Something similar to a chariot, probably a cart can be seen in the picture here. Those artifacts are from the Indus Valley Civilization.

Anyway, I am getting tired of typing out so much information.



Most Muslims have naturally studied Islam, & our well aware of their religion's history & laws.



Well bro, Flavius Josephus is generally considered to be a good historian or scholar, but that diagram is wrong. No linguistic, genetic, cultural, or archaeological evidence points to the existence of indigenous Semitic people on the Indus. Even after the arrival of Islam, very few modern day Pakistanis have Semitic ancestry, & most of them are too mixed with the locals for that ancestry to even matter.

Flavius Joseph classified the Median or in general the original Indo-Iranian/Aryan people as the descendants of Madai; the son of Japheth, & the grandson of Noah. Islamic tradition is also aware of the existence of Noah's 3 sons known in the order of their birth as Shem, Ham, & Japheth.

There is the possibility that some people in modern day India, such as the Australoid ethnic groups descend from black Africans, but I am not too sure about that. Some other members might be able to answer that portion of your question.

Indo-European genetic admix that may have happened over a long period of time does not in anyway automatically confirm that because the people have Indo-European genes they have to be of Aryan race and that this may have happened due to Aryan Invasion Theory or Aryan Migration Theory. The Out of India theorists state the opposite and are equally aggressive in their approach.

All I am stating is that the genetic admix of majority of people in Pakistan is different from the genetic admix of people of India and that these are two different people. The Aryan Invasion Theory and the Aryan Migration Theory in the time frame that many relate to, is inappropriate.

The people of IVC, the Meluhhans did not disappear in thin air with the fading out of Indus Valley Civilization. The people remained whereas the civilization faded out. Many of these people migrated to Mesopotamia and thence on to Palestine – this is confirmed as a Kingdom of Meluhhans was historically recorded to have been present on Egyptian borders between 700-600 BC.

The parts of IVC which are in Iran, Afghanistan and India are there due to the modern borders drawn much later in history. However as the center point of emanation and the largest area of IVC spread lay in Pakistan, it is the heart of this civilization and not India.

India’s recent rejuvenated propagation of identifying river Sarasvati with the dried bed of river Ghagar and Hakra because a small nadi or a nullah called Sarsuti, which was a tributary of Ghagar is nothing more than manipulation of history to prove that IVC was an Indian civilization. Saraswati has been mentioned in Rig Veda as a great river that emanated from the glaciers of Himalayas and flowed to the sea. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt through recent studies that rivers Sarsuti or Ghagra never emanated from glaciers and were seasonal rivers which could not have flowed to sea. In Mahabharata and some other later scriptures it has been mentioned that it died in the desert. There is a Triveni Sangam at Allahabad in India where the famous Kumbh Mela is celebrated. Since thousands of years Indians visit the Triveni Sangam which Indian Hindus believe to be the the confluence of Ganges, Jamuna and mythical Sarasvati. Just because some English explorers related a probable connection with Ghagar Hakra rivers in 1800s and early 1900s and a misplaced recognition of the satellite imagery in 1970 (which also has been proven incorrect recognition), Sarsuti Ghagar Hakra have not been identified as Sarasvati river. Though hundreds of Indian web sites now pronounce Ghagar Hakra as Sarasvati river – this is highly suspect and is incorrect.

Therefore, there is only one civilization that existed in Pakistan with a spread in Iran, Afghanistan and India and the Indian pronouncement that IVC is Indus-Sarasvati Civilization is a wrong assumption. This is merely another Indian attempt to sneak in their claim of IVC through a Rig Vedic mythical river Sarasvati, which according to their own religious history flows underground towards Allahabad in India in exactly opposite direction of Ghagar Hakra and joins Ganges and Yamuna at Triven Sangam. If as the Indian Hindutva Brigade says that Sarasvati is Ghagar Hakra, then Kumbh Mela should not be celebrated as they have been doing since long.

 

[Bang Galore]

Also recent definitive study by Giosan et al in PNAS (Fluvial landscapes of the Harappan Civilization; 2012; June 26; 109 (26): e1688-94) which clearly demonstrated that the the much touted Ghaggar-Hakra was a monsoon-fed river, not the Vedic Sarasvati fed by the melting snows of high mountains. So it seem its back to drawing board for likes of Hindutvas to rewrite history.

The Ghaggar-Hakra was an important area of Harappan settlement. However, the Rig Veda clearly describes the Sarasvati as being fed by melting snow of high mountains and not monsoon fed river like Ghaggar-Hakra is.

I would take that with a very high dose of salt. The Rg veda is extremely clear where the river lay. It gives the exact location. No other river is possible. Whether monsoon fed or melting snow fed the Sarasvati was a mighty river, satellite imagery makes it clear that Ghaggar-Hakra was a very large river at one point. Maybe you should read about the geographic location of the Sarasvati in the Rg veda before sending anyone else to the "drawing board".

 

[Bang Galore]

India’s recent rejuvenated propagation of identifying river Sarasvati with the dried bed of river Ghagar and Hakra because a small nadi or a nullah called Sarsuti, which was a tributary of Ghagar is nothing more than manipulation of history to prove that IVC was an Indian civilization. Saraswati has been mentioned in Rig Veda as a great river that emanated from the glaciers of Himalayas and flowed to the sea. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt through recent studies that rivers Sarsuti or Ghagra never emanated from glaciers and were seasonal rivers which could not have flowed to sea. In Mahabharata and some other later scriptures it has been mentioned that it died in the desert. There is a Triveni Sangam at Allahabad in India where the famous Kumbh Mela is celebrated. Since thousands of years Indians visit the Triveni Sangam which Indian Hindus believe to be the the confluence of Ganges, Jamuna and mythical Sarasvati. Just because some English explorers related a probable connection with Ghagar Hakra rivers in 1800s and early 1900s and a misplaced recognition of the satellite imagery in 1970 (which also has been proven incorrect recognition), Sarsuti Ghagar Hakra have not been identified as Sarasvati river. Though hundreds of Indian web sites now pronounce Ghagar Hakra as Sarasvati river – this is highly suspect and is incorrect.

Simply not true. The Rg veda clearly identifies the location of the sarasvati. No scholar has ever doubted where that lay(especially when geographical markers were given), the only issue was that the small flow of the Ghaggar-Hakra made many doubt that identification with the mighty river. That has long been put to rest. The Mahabharata talking about the drying of the river Sarasvati & the actual history that is now known of the Ghaggar is way too similar to just be coincidental. You then jump to the Sangam which would make what of the river drying up story? The Sangam was required to have a mythical Sarsvati because the Sarasvati is the most important river of the Rg veda, more important than the Ganges as well as being a goddess in her own right. The Sangam story was created to somehow explain this "mythical" river.

Not just Indian web sites, most scholars of the Rg veda agree that it is so. The geographical indications are spot on. Maybe you have another river in the very same geography (i.e. between Yamuna in the east and the Sutlej in the west)?

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

I would take that with a very high dose of salt. The Rg veda is extremely clear where the river lay. It gives the exact location. No other river is possible. Whether monsoon fed or melting snow fed the Sarasvati was a mighty river, satellite imagery makes it clear that Ghaggar-Hakra was a very large river at one point. Maybe you should read about the geographic location of the Sarasvati in the Rg veda before sending anyone else to the "drawing board".

As expected now even respected international institutions have anti-India agenda.

“Numerous speculations have advanced the idea that the Ghaggar-Hakra fluvial system, at times identified with the lost mythical river of Sarasvati (e.g., 4, 5, 7, 19), was a large glacierfed Himalayan river. Potential sources for this river include the Yamuna River, the Sutlej River, or both rivers. However, the lack of large-scale incision on the interfluve demonstrates that large, glacier-fed rivers did not flow across the Ghaggar-Hakra region during the Holocene. Existing chronologies (27, 28) and our own age on the bank of Sutlej (SI Text) identified deposits of Late Pleistocene age, indicating that the interfluve formed instead during the last glacial period. Provenance detection (32) suggests that the Yamuna may have contributed sediment to this region during the last glacial period, but switched to the Ganges basin before Harappan times."

“Contrary to earlier assumptions that a large glacier-fed Himalayan river, identified by some with the mythical Sarasvati, watered the Harappan heartland on the interfluve between the Indus and Ganges basins, we show that only monsoonal-fed rivers were active there during the Holocene.

Fluvial Landscapes of the Harappan Civilization, Giosan et al, PNAS Early Edition, May 2012

You take scientific facts with pinch of salt for religious reasons but they still stay facts. In other words, while the Yamuna could have fed the Ghaggar-Hakra in the pleistocene period (pre-10000 BC), it could not have fed the Ghaggar-Hakra in the holocene period that followed (10,000 BC and later).

 

[Nassr]

Not correct. The Rg veda speaks of "Aryans" in references only to the Puru tribe and more specifically a sub-tribe of the Purus - the Bharatas. The Rg veda itself is primarily a book on the Puru-Bharatas & other tribes are incidentally mentioned.

That was the point being made earlier. In the Rg veda, the primary river, spoken of as being in full flow, was the Sarasvati. That river dried up, depending on which source you believe, dried up by the end of the 3rd millenium BCE/start of the 2nd millenium BCE or earlier. That makes dating the Rg veda after that to be extremely questionable.

Negative. The mention relates to the noble ones only and not the whole tribe.

Drying up of Sarasvati during the 3rd Millennium is also suspect and can not be proven. These are mere conjectures based on Mahabharata and a couple of more scriptures where the drying up in desert is mentioned and not dated. And this is also based on a presumption that Sarsuti and Ghagar Hakra and Nara represent Sarasvati river. Based on so many unproven assumptions and presumptions, pronouncing that Rig Veda evolved in 3500 BC or before that is also highly presumptuous. Therefore, at present the 1200 BC figure is generally accepted by many historians - though I personally reserve my judgment.

 

[livingdead]

Why are you guys discussing IVC on this thread. Its interesting though, @Nassr , why dont you open a new thread, you have interesting input.

 

[Bang Galore]

As expected now even respected international institutions have anti-India agenda.

“Numerous speculations have advanced the idea that the Ghaggar-Hakra fluvial system, at times identified with the lost mythical river of Sarasvati (e.g., 4, 5, 7, 19), was a large glacierfed Himalayan river. Potential sources for this river include the Yamuna River, the Sutlej River, or both rivers. However, the lack of large-scale incision on the interfluve demonstrates that large, glacier-fed rivers did not flow across the Ghaggar-Hakra region during the Holocene. Existing chronologies (27, 28) and our own age on the bank of Sutlej (SI Text) identified deposits of Late Pleistocene age, indicating that the interfluve formed instead during the last glacial period. Provenance detection (32) suggests that the Yamuna may have contributed sediment to this region during the last glacial period, but switched to the Ganges basin before Harappan times."

“Contrary to earlier assumptions that a large glacier-fed Himalayan river, identified by some with the mythical Sarasvati, watered the Harappan heartland on the interfluve between the Indus and Ganges basins, we show that only monsoonal-fed rivers were active there during the Holocene.

Fluvial Landscapes of the Harappan Civilization, Giosan et al, PNAS Early Edition, May 2012

You take scientific facts with pinch of salt for religious reasons but they still stay facts. In other words, while the Yamuna could have fed the Ghaggar-Hakra in the pleistocene period (pre-10000 BC), it could not have fed the Ghaggar-Hakra in the holocene period that followed (10,000 BC and later).

Does not matter. What is clear is that the river was a larger river than is now. The Rg veda does not ever claim it was fed ny glaciers, it points very clearly of the direction where the Ghaggar flows. There is no other river system that fits the description of "Yamuna in the east & Sutlej in the west". My pinch of salt comment was with reference to your comment "on going back to the drawing board"

 

[Nassr]

I would take that with a very high dose of salt. The Rg veda is extremely clear where the river lay. It gives the exact location. No other river is possible. Whether monsoon fed or melting snow fed the Sarasvati was a mighty river, satellite imagery makes it clear that Ghaggar-Hakra was a very large river at one point. Maybe you should read about the geographic location of the Sarasvati in the Rg veda before sending anyone else to the "drawing board".

Rig Veda mentions Sarasvati between Jamuna and Sutlej. It does not mention the exact location and the direction of its flow. Therefore the age old belief that it flowed west to east and joined Yamuna and Ganga at Triveni Sangam may hold the truth.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Does not matter. What is clear is that the river was a larger river than is now. The Rg veda does not ever claim it was fed ny glaciers, it points very clearly of the direction where the Ghaggar flows. There is no other river system that fits the description of "Yamuna in the east & Sutlej in the west". My pinch of salt comment was with reference to your comment "on going back to the drawing board"

Can you please provide source for that? Because no matter where i read it clearly mentioned that Sarasvati was fed by Himalayas. If RV say that Ghaggar-Hakra was fed by Himalayas and now its proven that it not. I always tell muslims to not use science to prove Islam and my advice to you will be the same. Dont bring religious scriptures when discussing scientific facts.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Why are you guys discussing IVC on this thread. Its interesting though, @Nassr , why dont you open a new thread, you have interesting input.

I should open thread of mythical Sarasvati river mentioned in Rig Veda.

 

[Bang Galore]

Negative. The mention relates to the noble ones only and not the whole tribe.

Nope, it is mentioned only in connection with the Purus & for no one else.

Drying up of Sarasvati during the 3rd Millennium is also suspect and can not be proven. These are mere conjectures based on Mahabharata and a couple of more scriptures where the drying up in desert is mentioned and not dated. And this is also based on a presumption that Sarsuti and Ghagar Hakra and Nara represent Sarasvati river. Based on so many unproven assumptions and presumptions, pronouncing that Rig Veda evolved in 3500 BC or before that is also highly presumptuous. Therefore, at present the 1200 BC figure is generally accepted by many historians - though I personally reserve my judgment.

I'm not going by the scriptures on this one. Sticking purely with what archaeologists are now saying. I make no assumptions on when the Rg veda was composed, most historians couldn't possibly date it to 1200 BCE simply because there is no evidence to do that. That would be the work of the linguists of the AIT type who again have no evidence for the dates. I Just pointed out that the Sarasvati makes the case difficult. A river in full flow in the Rg veda later drying up & in the very same location, proof of another more mighty river drying up makes it more difficult to swallow as a coincidence. As I said no other river fits the directions given for the Sarasvati, the rest as we can agree is pure conjecture. I offer no dates for the Rg veda, only whatis available for the Sarasvati.

 

[Nassr]

Does not matter. What is clear is that the river was a larger river than is now. The Rg veda does not ever claim it was fed ny glaciers, it points very clearly of the direction where the Ghaggar flows. There is no other river system that fits the description of "Yamuna in the east & Sutlej in the west". My pinch of salt comment was with reference to your comment "on going back to the drawing board"

The concept of Ghagar as a large river was proven wrong by Aurel Stein (who has been popularly quoted to have identified Sarasvati with Ghagar), though this is not cited by any Indian writer. Stein clearly stated that there is no evidence that the river flow was as large as its bed was. And he proves this through the difference of the type of sand where the water flowed and the sand which was along the bed of the Ghagar which gave an impression that as the river bed was 2-4 miles wide, the water in full flow would also be 4 miles wide - it was not.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

I'm unaware of any other civilisation other than the Indian/Iranian calling themselves Aryan. In any case such a link to central asia does not by itself mean that it was the point of origin.

Are you even trying to understand what I typed? I never claimed the Hellenic Civilization called itself Aryan, I said that they too claimed & we were aware of the Aryan links to Central Asia. As I said earlier, there is no known reason to believe that their claims are lies. The Medians & Persians were also aware of this connection. Links to Central Asia have been established by multiple sources that I have provided you with previously.

The problem of the Sarasvati is important. You have pointed out a date of 1900 BCE, that date & another pointing to 3900 BCE are commonly used(links available on this forum). Ether way, since the Rg veda speaks of the Sarasvati in full flow & even at the time of the Mahabharata, the Sarasvati is mentioned though as largely being diminished, any date for the Rg veda is then pushed back to about mid 3rd millenia BCE(assuming the date of drying out as 1900 BCE). A migration would then have to have happened even earlier. That runs into problems for the dating of every other known Indo-European people.The earliest mentions of the Iranians historically is in the 9th century BCE(Assyrian sources). The rest of Indo-European family have dates that simply does not stand a 3rd-4th millenia BCE expansion into their homelands. Important because the existing linguistic proposal for any version of the AIT acknowledges that the Indo-Iranians are the last to leave their supposed original homeland in South Russia. That simply cannot work which is why every proponent of the AIT(whatever version) tries their best not to get the Rg vedic Aryans in place before 1500 BCE.

So "AIT" means "Aryan Invasion Theory"? I told you to stop discussing Max Mueller's Aryan Invasion theory or its dates. His claims are false & the dates that he invented were meant to conform to his religious beliefs in the Bible. We aren't here to discuss Indo-European migration to Europe, but to the Indus instead. I repeat, that if the dates you are using make reference to Max Mueller's theory then this discussion can go no further. When you use the term Indo-European, clarify if you are referring to their migration to Europe or the Iranian plateau or to the Indus. There were Indo-European migrations to Europe long ago, but many Indo-European people are said to have always been there, as in the case of Uralic speakers.

I mentioned another theory in my last post that there was Indo-European migration towards the Indus before the arrival of Indo-Europeans. It's unfortunate we aren't a 100% certain about the Harappan language.

Look at this alternative map of the proposed Indo-European migrations. The map tries to conform to the idea that the Harappans were Indo-Europeans as well even if there weren't any Indo-Aryans at this point.

Very much related. If you look at Rg vedic aryans & the Iranians & read their compositions, it is very clear that they are speaking of the same thing but from opposite sides. It does bear remembering though that while the Avesta is aware of parts of the sub continent, the Rg veda is unaware of Iran or any other lands outside the sub continent. Also interesting that the language of the Avesta bears striking similarity to later parts of the Rg veda, not the beginning as would be required if a separation of people happened before the Rg veda was composed.

The study of linguistics is extremely complicated, & I take it by referring to Avesta, you are referring to the books & not the language Avestan. The language Avestan is the sister language of Sanskrit & the Indo-Iranian people must have separated for these branches to split from proto-Indo-European. Genetic evidence I posted earlier confirms a migration. The text of the Avestan itself is shrouded in a couple of mysteries, even in regards to its compilation. Median sources however are aware of the Central Asian link & also claim kinship with the Indo-Aryans of the Indus.

History of the Ancient Aryans: Outlined in Zoroastrian scriptures.

Iran is the ancient name of Persia, and it is derived from the root "Arya" or Aryan, the Indo-European branch of peoples who settled in that land. The Aryans of ancient Iran were Mazdayasni Zarathushtris, ie. Worshippers of Ahura Mazda (the name of God in Avestan) as revealed by the ancient prophet Zarathushtra, thousands of years before Christ.

However, all the ancient Zoroastrian scriptures speak of an earlier homeland from where our people came, the lost "Airyane Vaejahi" or seedland of the Aryans. From this homeland, the Indo- Europeans or Aryans moved to upper India, Iran, Russia and the nations of Europe such as Greece, Italy, Germany, France, Scandinavia, England, Scotland and Ireland.

Sanskrit, Latin, Avestan are all sister languages, and the present day upper Indian, Persian and European languages are related eg. Baradar in persian = Brata in sanskrit = Brother in english. "Persia" is actually a late European term for the land of "Farsi" language ie. Iran. The Arabic phase in Iran only began 1300 years ago, and we had to escape to India to preserve our Zoroastrian religion.

The "Vendidad" is one of the ancient scriptures of the Zoroastrians, actually called the "Vi-daevo-dat" or the law to fight against evil. In the first "Fargad" or chapter, the Golden Age of the ancient Aryans is outlined with their greatest king, "Yima Kshaeta" (Yam Raj in the Indian Vedas) who banished old age and death. Then, the ice age broke on the ancient home and the Aryans were forced to migrate southwards, to the southeast and the southwest.

Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a great Brahmin (Indian Aryan) scholar of India in the last century studied the Vedas and the Vendidad to find an ancient homeland of the Aryans. The Vedas are scriptures written by the Indo-Europeans or Aryans after they migrated to India. From the descriptions of the weather patterns mentioned in the Vedas, Tilak concluded that the ancient home must be in the Artic regions ie. above present Russia.

The Aryans migrated from the ancient home to Iran and from there to India and Greece and Europe. Tilak also said that the most ancient historical scripture was the Iranian Vendidad, which actually describes the ancient homeland of the Aryans, the Aryan King Yima Kshaeta who ruled over it (Yama Raja, lord of the underworld in latter day Indian Hinduism) and the onrush of winter, sent by ahriman (the devil) which caused the great migration. This is the famous first "Fargad" of the Vendidad which fascinated a lot of European scholars in the last century.

The Greek historians at the time of Cyrus placed the first prophet at around 8000 years bc, that seems a more possible time to the former. However, the ancient Aryans were much sooner than that. Note that as per the Vendidad, Yima Kshaeta (King Yima) is the ancient king of the Aryans in the ancient homeland Airyanam Vaejahi (the seedland of the Aryans), and his memory is retained by even the Indian Vedas as Yama Raja (Yama King) because the Indian Aryans still remembered their ancient king after their split up in the migration, but they made him "Lord of the netherworld" later on.

Unlike the Indians, the Iranian Aryans still retained a perfect memory of days gone by -the perfect time in the ancient homeland, when Yiam banished disease, death and hunger from the homeland. This was indeed the true "Golden age" of humankind.

An important point to note is that in spite of Indo-European migrations, there were other Indo-European tribes already present in Europe & according to some people in the Indus too. Notice the claim that the Indo-Aryans could have forgotten their migration. Genetic evidence indicates Indo-Aryan lineages are predominantly male, & after mingling with the indigenous females, their descendants may not have thought about their previous homeland.

Note too that the civilizations of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa in old India were actually Aryan, and they were starting to decay around 4000 bc. which means they had been in existance for thosands of years before (scholars admit this). They would have been built by the Indo-Aryans much after their initial separation from the Aryans of Iran.

This point from the source mentioned earlier assumes the idea that there were Indo-European migrations towards the Indus before the rise of the Indo-Aryans.

The Theory of Cultural Syntheses in Ancient India

The timeline of this civilization is generally classified into the Early Harappan Phase (3000 BC to 2600 BC),Mature Harappan Phase (2600 BC to 2200 BC) and the late Harappan phase (2200 BC to 1900 BC). We also know that Sumerians called this civilization Meluha or Mehluha and that the people of the Indus valley had extensive trade links with Sumeria. It is interesting to note that the Sanskrit word mleccha for foreigner, barbarian or non-Aryan sounds very similar. This would immediately suggest that Aryans and the Harappans were two distinct groups of people.

The theory that Harappans spoke a proto-Dravidian language is increasingly falling out of favor in academic circles.

Early Vedic culture which is variously interpreted as being either forest-based or nomadic, may offer little hope for Archeological evidence. The literature of this era can however throw light on the conditions that were prevalent during the time. It can also provide valuable clues about the relationship that Vedic Aryans had with other cultures and civilizations. From available evidences that we have, it is perhaps likely that the Vedic Aryans co-existed with the Harappans for several centuries with a before the process of synthesis began and the final subjugation took place. It is likely that while early parts of the Rig Veda may date back to 3000 BC, and some parts arguably to a period between 3000 BC and 1500 BC, significant parts may have been composed around 1500 BC and the whole of the Rig Veda not written down until much later.

Considering the importance that the Rig Veda accords the river Saraswathi as the epicenter of Vedic culture and considering how the river is used in relation to other geographical features in India in the Vedas, we are tempted to believe that this would connote a river within India. On the other hand, the river Saraswathi is also used to refer to the original homeland of the Aryans. This could perhaps refer to Afghanistan and Iran where rivers with similar sounding names like the Harahwaiti exist thus confirming the theory that there was more than one river Saraswathi and that the Aryans indeed migrated to India at some point in time.

If the existence of this river is indeed true, the earliest part of the Rig Veda could date as far back as 3000 BC.

There is also some evidence now which leads us to believe that later Harappan culture indeed had some Vedic elements as observed in places such as Kalibangan and Dholavira, This means that some cultural synthesis had taken place between Aryans and Harappans in the late Harappan period.

The decline of the Harappan civilization, therefore could not have been attributed just to the Aryans: it was a result of various factors that came into play after 2000BC. It is however possible that a military conquest by a later Aryan King dealt this tottering civilization a death blow: after this, the pace of decline must have been even more precipitous.

The quotes & sources above should provide you with valuable insight that conforms to genetic studies of Indo-European DNA being present in upper caste populations.

Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia

Many studies exist that show very little genetic difference even among castes. Also valid to show mixture with other people if ANI is similar. Does not explain dating conundrum though.This of course is an ongoing exercise & the full picture may be clear only in due course.

South Indians are not part of the Australoid group as a whole, some individual tribes are but that number is insignificant when taken as a whole. Nobody now argues that South Indians are a different race & is largely accepted that S.Indians are Caucasoid.Nothing has surfaced to contradict this.

The source that you provided me also provides evidence of Indo-Aryan or Eurasian DNA among Pakistani populations & confirms the earlier studies that I posted.

A quote from the source that you provided is present below.

Importantly, the Pakistani (Indus Valley) populations differ substantially from most of the Indian populations and show comparably low genetic differentiation (within the FST range of 0.008–0.020) from European, Near Eastern, Caucasian, and Indian populations (Figure 1 and Figures S1 and S11). In agreement with previous Y-chromosome studies,41 and 42 the Brahmin and Kshatriya from Uttar Pradesh stand out by being closer to Pakistani (FST = 0.006 on average) and West Eurasian populations (FST = 0.030) than to other Indian populations (average FSTs 0.017 and 0.046, respectively) from the same geographic area (Figures S1 and S11).

In any case, many South Indians are Australoids mixed with Caucasoids. Simply comparing north & south populations shows a difference in phenotype, & genetic studies confirm Eurasian & Central Asian mixture in the upper castes.

Not implying fraud, just that a connection is not very clear. By what standards to they call that "Aryan"? It is circular reasoning, believe in the AIT & then call everything found as proof of that. Dating runs into the same problem as before, they can't have "Aryans" in India before the 2nd millenia.

You are right but the evidence against any invasion/migration is largely secular & has the support of archaeologists. Regardless of motive, proof does not exist except in the linguistic plane. There have likely been numerous migrations, at different times, but there is simply nothing available to prove a migration at the supposed time of the Rg veda. I have seen many dismiss arguments against the AIT because of the supposed leanings of the person rejecting it but very few are willing to discuss the substance behind it. I'm not suggesting that the AIT is completely discountable, only that there is almost no evidence backing it. A linguistic connection exists but that is all there is.

The people who discovered those cities are probably more qualified in their respective fields than either of us. At this point, you haven't provided any sources proving their claims false beyond any reasonable doubt. Once again, stop referring to the Aryan Invasion theory of Max Mueller. That theory is not the one we are discussing here. You are showing considerable amount of bias by not accepting the proof provided to you by the genetic studies which clearly prove that upper castes contain Eurasian & Central Asian DNA. I understand that many Indians are desperate to claim the Vedic civilization as being purely indigenous out of hatred for the idea that the Aryans could have Indo-European links. However, regardless of how much people may hate, studies already prove that Indo-Aryan migrations were predominantly male. Had they been local in origin, why are female lineages missing? It points to a male migration & intermarriage with indigenous women that may also explain cultural similarities between the Harappans & the Vedic people.

There are no "Aryan" cities anywhere, only those that people find convenient labeling as such.

Provide evidence that those historians & archaeologists are wrong from credible sources that disprove their claims beyond any reasonable doubt. Those sources must be recent because those cities in Central Asia were unearthed in 2010.

As I have pointed before, myths do show some connection but direction of transference isn't proven. Contrary to your assertion, it is hugely important that the Rg veda speaks of no other land nor of any migration. This is the oldest composition of any Indo European speaking people & they remembered plenty & considered it important to pass it on for millenia. It would be very difficult to believe that they decided to remember suddenly only after coming to the sub continent & that they they forgot every other memory. Also important that no "Dravidian" memory exists of any such invasion either. Too fantastic, don't you think? In any case, the dating conundrum remains & until that is explained, all we have on the AIT front is a mere clutching of straws.

Refer to the data I have provided you with in earlier portions of this thread, & the studies & data provided in earlier posts as well. There was no massive Aryan invasion, I have already mentioned that earlier. Inter-ethnic marriage with Harappan people would also have led to cultural assimilation & to some extent loss of pure Indo-Aryan culture. The descendants of those marriages would naturally feel greater affinity with the land they were born on.

There isn't. Hence the debate. The Rg veda speaks of settled tribes, not interchangeable ones.

It is enough evidence, you have been provided with genetic evidence which couldn't possibly lie. You have been given cultural & linguistic evidence as well. You seem to be denying the authenticity of pretty much every reliable study or source that goes against your views.

That's a good point except that he was not discussing ANI-ASI. After all genetics "doesn't lie". Cultural, historical, archaeological evidence simply does not exist. The fact that ANI gene is found in all the population of India, including South India(varying degrees) questions that theory substantially.

Plenty of evidence does exist, & modern day India is extremely mixed so that itself leads to complications while studying genes. That is also why some studies aim to select the purest available members of particular ethnic groups for these studies.

In any case, I will post those studies again because you seem to ignore them. Refer to post #184 for sources.

The results also indicate a major genetic contribution from Eurasia to North Indian upper castes, apart from the common genetic unity of Indian populations. The study also demonstrates a greater genetic inflow among North Indian caste populations than is observed among South Indian caste and tribal populations.

Bamshad's team found that Y chromosomes from the Brahmin and Kshatriya closely resembled European Y chromosomes rather than Asian Y chromosomes. The Y chromosomes from the lower castes bore more similarities to the Asian Y chromosome. The mitochondrial DNA showed the same pattern.

The authors believe their results support the notion that Europeans who migrated into India between 3,000 and 8,000 years ago may have merged with or imposed their social structure on the native northern Indians and placed themselves into the highest castes.

Analysis of the paternally transmitted Y chromosome among Indians in general indicated that the Y chromosome had a more European flavor. Maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA among Indians is more Asian than European. This suggests that the Europeans who entered India were predominantly male.

However, 20%–30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes. In contrast, for paternally inherited Y-chromosome variation each caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians. Moreover, the affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans. These findings are consistent with greater West Eurasian male admixture with castes of higher rank.

Shared Indo-European languages (i.e., Hindi and most European languages) suggested to linguists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that contemporary Hindu Indians are descendants of primarily West Eurasians who migrated from Europe, the Near East, Anatolia, and the Caucasus 3000–8000 years ago (Poliakov 1974; Renfrew 1989a,b). These nomadic migrants may have consolidated their power by admixing with native Dravidic-speaking (e.g., Telugu) proto-Asian populations who controlled regional access to land, labor, and resources (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), and subsequently established the Hindu caste hierarchy to legitimize and maintain this power (Poliakov 1974; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). It is plausible that these West Eurasian immigrants also appointed themselves to predominantly castes of higher rank. However, archaeological evidence of the diffusion of material culture from Western Eurasia into India has been limited (Shaffer 1982). Therefore, information on the genetic relationships of Indians to Europeans and Asians could contribute substantially to understanding the origins of Indian populations.

This should be more than enough evidence of Indo-European migration to the Sub-Continent. Notice something in all these studies, the majority of the Aryan lineages are predominantly male instead of female. The variation between male & female lineages is quite high, & that would lead to an interesting conclusion. If the Aryans were native to the Indus, where are their women? Why are the overwhelming majority of the lineages male? The most logical conclusion must be their initial arrival would have been predominantly male & they would have little choice other than to marry the local females of the Indus. Other sources I posted above also seem to indicate a period in which the Indo-Aryans lived with the Harappan people who may themselves have been another branch of earlier Indo-European tribes.