To whom does the term 'Aryan' belong?

[Spring Onion]

Genetic studies are not floated by Indians. Ask Harvard if you want. What about horses? What does that prove? Proves nothing. This is a pointless argument where you end up cherry picking those points that one thinks helps their case.





Means nothing. Hinduism is not a fixed religion like some others. It evolved. However the key is that it discarded none of the Gods, just added more.

added what?? it had added nothing. Vedic Aryans were different. They were NOT Hindus. They did migrate to South and mingled with Dravidians and atlast they were dominated by Dravidian culture and religion and brahmanic cast system.

Those who say that Aryan and Dravidians were one is not true. The Indians bank on Regvida for the word Aryan but at the same time they reject what Rigveda says about Aryans and their culture and religion , by citing harvard and other researches

 

[Bang Galore]

Well according to our mithology our ancestors come to Iran plateu from a territory north of caspian sea about 3500 year ago . Today scientific society also support that aryans were people who lived in southern part of syberia and north of casoian see àbout 3500 to 5000 year ago and then become 5 group and migrated to central Europe Iran plateu and india and pakistan area . In recent years there are some new theory that originated mostly in south Asia . These theories claim that Arians originated in northern India then migrated to North of caspian sea and after that again migrated to india , Iran and Europe and ..

Honestly I don't know which is correct but both groups claim that they have evidece that support they claims. But something is sure Aryans were nomadic people that their success was due to their success in taming horses and in asia when they migrated to the southern parts they dominated the more culturally advance civilization of thhose areas in military scrimish but when it come to culture they merged with the original inhabitants of thise lands . In Europe there simply was ni culture more advance and they remain nomadic until when they conquered west rome and then they metged with roman culture

The Iranian mythology is not specific about where they originally came from (just that it was a cold place). The Avesta talks about various land including the Punjab. Western Iran remains unknown. Recorded history for Iran starts at 900 BCE, not before (does not mean there were no Iranians there before, just that there is no evidence for that). There is no archaeological evidence whatsoever to suggest "Aryans" came from Siberia or elsewhere. There is equally no evidence that they originated in India. Random dates don't work, the AIT requires a specific series of events happening at specific times. That has run into problems especially over a river called Sarasvati. All we have are conjectures, no evidence. a linguistic connection exists, nothing else does.

 

[fatman17]

To whom does the term 'Aryan' belong to? How can white nationalist claim? What right do they have?

aryans........

To whom does the term 'Aryan' belong to? How can white nationalist claim? What right do they have?

aryans........

 

[bronxbull]

added what?? it had added nothing. Vedic Aryans were different. They were NOT Hindus. They did migrate to South and mingled with Dravidians and atlast they were dominated by Dravidian culture and religion and brahmanic cast system.

Those who say that Aryan and Dravidians were one is not true. The Indians bank on Regvida for the word Aryan but at the same time they reject what Rigveda says about Aryans and their culture and religion , by citing harvard and other researches

You dont have brains to understand things or people like that,you tick to the level of Khyber Pakhtunkwa.

RigVeda was the original book and there has been so many things that came after and often questioning or criticizing that but the framework came from there.

Good luck protecting your gene pool and land and getting obscure in history eventually.

 

[Bang Galore]

added what?? it had added nothing. Vedic Aryans were different. They were NOT Hindus. They did migrate to South and mingled with Dravidians and atlast they were dominated by Dravidian culture and religion and brahmanic cast system.

Those who say that Aryan and Dravidians were one is not true. The Indians bank on Regvida for the word Aryan but at the same time they reject what Rigveda says about Aryans and their culture and religion , by citing harvard and other researches

Is that your theory? Where is the proof? Any proof? Please don't peddle discarded rubbish as being acceptable today. What part of the genetic studies don't you get? How do you fudge those? What does the Rg veda say differently? Offer proof of what you are saying instead of just repeating your assertions.

 

[Srinivas]

added what?? it had added nothing. Vedic Aryans were different. They were NOT Hindus. They did migrate to South and mingled with Dravidians and atlast they were dominated by Dravidian culture and religion and brahmanic cast system.

Those who say that Aryan and Dravidians were one is not true. The Indians bank on Regvida for the word Aryan but at the same time they reject what Rigveda says about Aryans and their culture and religion , by citing harvard and other researches

The Hinduism we see now a days is an evolution over centuries it is not confined to one Language group people.

 

[Hack-Hook]

The word Aryan means Noble in Ancient India society.

A guy who occupies the highest position in that society is called Aryan. The guy who work for him is called Dasya.

Nothing to do with race or genealogy.

Well in old persian language the word of Aryan also meant noble people but it was not used for social ranks . It was used to point all the people in short it was pointed to the race rather than person

 

[ExtraOdinary]

The new theories are floated by Indians mostly.

And the trait which you had mentioned (the bold part in your comment), is one of the evidences that they migrated to this part , since the locals or dravidians for that matter only used elephants not horses



Different in a sense that Rigvedic Aryans worshipped different gods different than hindu or dravidian gods, eat beaf and sacrifice cow.

I eat beef and every alternate year I go to Mata Vaishno Devi in Jammu, though I am not religious but I still enjoy the culture. Does'nt mean I am not a Hindu. Hinduism is not a rigid religion

 

[Srinivas]

Well in old persian language the word of Aryan also meant noble people but it was not used for social ranks . It was used to point all the people in short it was pointed to the race rather than person

In Vedas there was a prayer which says "Oh Lord convert non Aryans to Aryans".

Which infers Aryan as a quality, Rank which can be attained.

 

[Dubious]

Is that your theory? Where is the proof? Any proof? Please don't peddle discarded rubbish as being acceptable today. What part of the genetic studies don't you get? How do you fudge those? What does the Rg veda say differently? Offer proof of what you are saying instead of just repeating your assertions.

@Bang Galore can I pleases see this "genetic study" Been asking for it on other threads!

 

[ExtraOdinary]

@Bang Galore can I pleases see this "genetic study" Been asking for it on other threads!

Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - Times Of India

 

[Dubious]

Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - Times Of India

@ExtraOdinary May I have his WRITTEN PUBLICATION to understand better how a study involving 132 individuals ended up as 2 paragraphs! Plus I would be interested in seeing which molecular markers were used as well as the technique...

However, even from the "announcement" we can ONLY see that India is made up of 2 large pre-populations

t reveals that the present-day Indian population is a mix of ancient north and south bearing the genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations - the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI).

....How can anyone conclude ANYTHING?

Interestingly, this pathetic geneticist wrote this

But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India

so easily is surprising to me...Anyone in the field of genetics knows this guy OVER SIMPLIFIED his research hence, I would appreciate if I got a link to the ACTUAL PAPER!

 

[Bang Galore]

@Bang Galore can I pleases see this "genetic study" Been asking for it on other threads!

Gave you a link once. You even commented on it. Go back & look, must be there somewhere.

 

[Spring Onion]

The Hinduism we see now a days is an evolution over centuries it is not confined to one Language group people.

It is NOT about the language group. Its about the difference between Vedic Aryans and Dravidians.


and Vedic aryans were NOT hindus. Its another matter that some of their tribe/s came to South mingled with Dravidians and were dominated by Dravidian religion hinduism.

Otherwise vedic aryans were Beef eaters and they had different gods than dravidians and they also dint practice idolworshipping

 

[Dubious]

Never mind found his publication

India has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation. We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the 'Ancestral North Indians' (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the 'Ancestral South Indians' (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39–71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years owing to endogamy. We therefore predict that there will be an excess of recessive diseases in India, which should be possible to screen and map genetically.

Now, all this study shows is that Indian Population is made of 2 groups....ANI and ASI...the study says they are mixed yet later on says ASI is almost not found...ANI on the other hand is in upper cast...

We genotyped 132 Indian samples from 25 groups. To survey a wide range of ancestries, we sampled 15 states and six language families (including two language families from the Andaman Islands12). To compare traditionally 'upper' and 'lower' castes after controlling for geography, we focused on castes from two states: Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh

So, basically the focus was on 2 parts of India, not even the whole India..

I just browsed through the whole article

The most remarkable feature of the PCA is a gradient of proximity to western Eurasians (an analogous PCA in Europeans did not produce a gradient of proximity to India. We call this the 'Indian Cline', and propose that it reflects the fact that different Indian groups have inherited different proportions of ancestry from the 'Ancestral North Indians' (ANI) who are related to western Eurasians, and the 'Ancestral South Indians' (ASI). To model ANI–ASI mixture, we selected a subset of 18 groups that formed tight clusters along the Indian Cline, and included the Pathan and Sindhi from Pakistan because they were consistent with the Indian Cline in the PCA but showed greater proximity to western Eurasians (Supplementary Note 2), providing more information about ANI–ASI mixture.

Hence, this article just proves Pakistanis are not same as Indians...