It’s been a long time since this topic has been discussed.
Was there an Aryan invasion of the subcontinent or were the Aryans natives here? Were they blonde? What does acceptance of AIT mean for Pakistan?
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
AIT was disproved a while ago....scholars rejected it in favor of the Aryan Migration Theory.
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
aryans were tall n broad ppl. they invaded subcontinent.
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
Why should it mean anything at all for Pakistan? 2-nation theory states that what makes Pakistan different is the religion of its people, not their ethnicity.
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
It seems like this theory just tries to "make people feel good" that come from the tall blonde and some kinda of white race. Just forget about the Aryans and look at your self in the mirror. Thats what God made you . Be happy with it.
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
That's exactly what is does fayax.
I also think this topic has been beaten to death..you might just want to do a search.
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
What difference does it make anyway? If we go far back enough we’re all from Adam and Eve.
Racial pride and purity are gay anyway, no race in the world is pure and nobody from the Indian Subcontinent and surrounding areas is pure Aryan or looks it…
I read somewhere that the original Aryans were dark haired, and yes they did invade the Indian Subcontinent before that it was all Dravidians like present-day South Indians… AIT is still very strong, they came from the NW and mixed in with the native Dravidians…
No matter what we say or what part of our racial makeup is some of us are still as black as the ace of spades so be proud of it... Goray actually have a really good laugh at a lot of Iranians (Persians) and Indians (Brahmin Hindus) who claim to be "Aryan" behind their backs... It's funny they're brown as a Pakora but "oh we're white, we're Aryan and everyone else is the color of dirt"...
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
My initial post had nothing to do with skin colour. All I was saying is whether the AIT means all our cultural achievements were the result of goray effort? Surely the Aryans couldn't have been blonde, unless they came from Northern Europe?
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
Maybe Adam and Eve were blonde and blue. Still, who cares.
And if you really want to know then the answer is yes. All technology is either from the caucasion ( and I mean white ) or the mongoloid race. We in the middle just got some oil in the ground and even that we couldnt pump out without gora help. ( Speaking of the arabs)
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
the ayrans had a really rich culture n made real good hand tools which were sometimes used as weapons for killing birds etc. or hunting.
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
hmm, i tend to think my ancestors were from the Caucasus...... or maybe Greece.... some say Palestine even! I really dont know....
As for skin colour, My family is like Pathan people.. in that they have fair complexions and hair. Even blonde. Although, my mum tells me that Blondes and those with light coloured eyes were not seen as being good looking in Kashmir. Rather, light skin and dark features.. lol
in the end, we are all one race, the Human race. Although, i do like reading about the origins and histories of various people.
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
i'm a dark person with ordinary features , yet i do not believe in the facial beauty,
wat lies at the heart maybe of some importance to me.
wat is done by the person may raise his/her status in my eyes.
the thing that really attracted me were some virtues seen as acts.
i have loved aryans n may still love them. people believe i'm a jerk.
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
The politics of genetic history in India : Gene Expression
Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study
Posted on: September 24, 2009 10:36 PM, by Razib Khan
A reader pointed me to an article, Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study Some of the authors of the paper I reviewed today (actually, I wrote the post yesterday and put it in schedule) had some interesting things to say:
The great Indian divide along north-south lines now stands blurred. A pathbreaking study by Harvard and indigenous researchers on ancestral Indian populations says there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed ‘‘fact’’ that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth.
‘‘This paper rewrites history… there is no north-south divide,’’ Lalji Singh, former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) and a co-author of the study, said at a press conference here on Thursday.
Senior CCMB scientist Kumarasamy Thangarajan said there was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India.
The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally ‘‘upper’’ and ‘‘lower’’ castes and tribal groups. ‘‘The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society,’’ the study said. Thangarajan noted that it was impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different.
…
‘‘The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,’’ said Thangarajan. He added, ‘‘At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. 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.’’
…
The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world. However,** researchers said there was no scientific proof of whether Indians went to Europe first or the other way round. **
To understand some of these assertions you have to know that in India there are Creationist-like movements driven by nationalist and Hindu fundamentalist ideologies.
There’s been a lot of debate for decades in India about the Aryan Invasion Theory, which posits that Aryans, generally described as light-skinned northerners, overran the Indus Valley Civilization and subjugated the local peoples. Some Indian groups actually adhered to this, but overall the trend has been sharply against it because white nationalists were big proponents of it, and used it to suggest that the peoples of India are mongrelized degenerates who received the gift of civilization from racially superior Europeans. Today many Indians espouse an Out of India theory. I don’t really agree with either position. The Out of India theory is almost certainly just plain wrong. The Aryan Invasion Theory is a caricatured fact (in contrast to a stylized fact). But first let me quote something from the paper itself:
Two features of the inferred history are of special interest. First, the ANI and CEU form a clade, and further analysis shows that the Adygei, a Caucasian group, are an outgroup…Many Indian and European groups speak Indo-European languages, whereas the Adygei speak a Northwest Caucasian language.** It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke ‘Proto-Indo-European’, which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI-ASI mixture.**
This is from the paper that these authors are listed on, but probably written by David Reich. They seem to be going in opposite directions here. I actually think that this section would best be left to the supplements, and other sections of this paper emphasize the likely complexity of the ANI-ASI mixture process. But in the quotes in the media above the other authors seem to be leading you to totally different conclusions from this, instead of leaning toward ANI being Proto-Indo-European, they deny that it is. Instead of demurring on a specific date, they clearly believe that ANI-ASI admixture predates the arrival of Aryans and Dravidians. The second suggests that the authors don’t believe in Out of India, look again at this passage: “Kumarasamy Thangarajan said there was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India.”
The plausibility that the ancestral ANI-Europeans are native to India seems low to me. Dienekes lays out the reasons:
-Suppose postulated ancient Indian PIE speakers had a similar genetic makeup as modern Indians (i.e., a mix of ANI and ASI). Then, the absence of the ASI component outside South Asia cannot be explained.
-If ancient Indian PIE speakers had a purely ANI makeup, then the absence of the ASI component outside South Asia -as in (1)- can be explained. However, this would entail that sharply differentiated populations (ANI and ASI) co-existed in India without mixing for thousands of years; ANI-like PIEs spread from India with their languages; ANI and ASI admixed afterwards. To say that this scenario is not parsimonious would be charitable.
-The only way in which PIE languages may have originated in India would be if they spread without the spread of people. However, before the advent of writing and modern means of transportation and communication, the only way to spread languages was by migration of people.
The authors are correct that this study does not prove the Aryan Invasion Theory (though frankly I believe the first author goes a bit further than I would be willing to go in that very direction!). One would also be correct to suggest that there are ways to salvage the Out of India Theory for the origin of the Indo-European languages, but as Dienekes notes above, they are not genetically parsimonious. Possibility does not equal probability. Additionally, the full range of philological and archaeological data simply do not support the Out of India Theory. In my arguments with South Asian proponents of Out of India Theory I get a sense of arguing with Creationists; they are excellent at bringing up ambiguities and problems in the standard model, but they are blithely unconcerned with the total implausibility of the alternative model that they offer. There is zero chance of them being convinced, they simply need “good enough” arguments to keep you unbalanced.
Now, let me state something clearly: on average an individual from an Indo-Aryan or Dravidian speaking group in South Asia is going to be more closely related genetically in terms of total genome content to anyone in the Indian subcontinent from Indo-Aryan or Dravidian speaking groups than they are to some from outside the Indian subcontinent. Punjabis may bridle at being associated with what they perceive as racially inferior Tamils and Bengalis, but the reality is that they’re closer to these groups than they are to Persians or other West Asian groups (though Punjabis are much closer to Persians than Tamils and Bengalis are, and the Iranian speaking groups of Pakistan are a more ambiguous case). That does not negate significant clines, as well as suggestions of exogenous input (the last point is one “Scythian” descended Northwest Indians can take succor from). Mixed-race Brazilians may form a distinct cluster separate from Portuguese, West Africans and Amerindians, but they are clearly a racial compound of these three groups. The analogy with South Asians is problematic insofar as I think that an overly simple model of admixture may mislead us down the line, but it shows that just because South Asians are a coherent genetic cluster does not mean that they are uniform, or that they all exhibit equal relatedness to other groups.
Finally, I took figure 3 from the paper, and recoded the Indo-European and Dravidian clusters so you can see the effect of language & caste.
why desis r so obsessed with aryan crap?
why desis r so obsessed with aryan crap?
I dont think they are obsessed. There is so much myth of Middle Eastern, Central Asians coming to India and Aryan-Dravidian.
I think because North Indian languages are part of Indo-European group and South Indian are Dravidian.
why desis r so obsessed with aryan crap?
Agree..
why desis r so obsessed with aryan crap?
What the hells a "desi"? It's called South-Asian.
Except for Brahmins, most South Asians don't even know what an Aryan is, it's more about Jatt, Rajput or Chadhary, which is equally retarded.
Iranians and Afghans are more likely to boast about their Aryanness even though they look more Jewish or Turkic.
The majority of Iranians are actually a Persianised Turkic (Azeri) people.
Whether it's Iranians, Afghans, Pakis or NW-Indians, none of us are Aryan anymore not matter how fair skinned or blue eyed, we're only partially descended from Aryans, we have too many other races mixed into us including Semitic, Dravidian, Mongloid etc.
South/Central Asia is basically a mix.
It doesn't matter what our ancestors were. We're Punjabis, Persians, Pashtuns etc. and that's all we'll be known as.
Try saying you're Aryan to a Nazi and they'll laugh in your face.
Re: Aryan Invasion Theory
aryana is region in afghanistan while iran means land of aryans. these people have retained more aryan features than desis bt never boast abt it. usualy desis r indulged in these type of complexes.