What's new

Aryans vs Dravidians?

I know Haryana was part of old Punjab - I referred it because of the present understanding.

The only difference that I have with you is Gandhara being Indic. When India didn't exist at that time it can not be related to India which is a much later advent. And the IVC area which is west of the watershed that divides the Indus and Gangetic plains was only part of a politically unified Indo-Gangetic Plain only three times in the known history of over 9000 years during the times of Mauryas, Muslims and British rule. We the people of IVC do not call anything within this area as Indic.


It's clear which civ in belonged to. You dont have to like it. It's not part of the Iranic, Sinic, etc. civs. I'm only referring it to present understandings.
 
The mixture between Iranian & Pakistani people refers to Indo-Iranian people. We are not referring to Persian mixture in the Pakistani populace because that would naturally be less. The Pashtuns, Balochis, northern Punjabis, & Kashmiris are all descendants of the Indo-Iranian migrations. Those migrations took place from Central Asia or Andronovo, it's important to remember that ancient Central Asia was different from the modern ethnic groups residing there. Pakistanis are not close to Turks at all, no genetic study ever indicated that. In fact all studies indicate relations to Indo-Iranian people & to an extent Eastern European people. Some Turkic groups were residing in Central Asia during the time the Indo-Iranian Sintashta culture was prevalent in Central Asia, but there is no known admixture between them.

Any Semitic or Turkic mixture present in the modern day Pakistani population took place within the Islamic era. That mixture is so little & in so few people that we might as well not consider it or even discuss it. The Sumerian term Meluhha was applied to the Harappans, but that does not imply that the Harappans migrated there. In fact, the Harappans are only known to have business relations as in trade with the Babylonians & Mesopotamians. Languages do not always travel through migration, they also travel through cultural or political dominance. However, in the case of the Sub-Continent, Afghanistan, & Iran, Indo-Iranian migrations took place towards Iran, Afghanistan, & the Indus Valley. Once the Indo-Iranian people settled in the north western regions of the Sub-Continent, their cultural dominance spread their languages all over the region. This is why Indo-Aryan languages are spoken all over the Sub-Continent even though most people do not descend from them. Genetic studies confirm this, & the reason the caste system was developed was to preserve their power & race. The Indo-Iranian people remained predominantly in the north western regions of the Sub-Continent.



Those dates (particularly the 1500 BC migration) are not accurate because they are generally derived from Max Mueller's Aryan Invasion Theory which has been discredited. Max Mueller derived those dates in a manner that got them to conform with his religious beliefs in the Bible & its dates of the world's creation or something. That is why those dates are inaccurate.

The Indo-Iranians or Aryans migrated towards the Indus, they did not invade or enslave it. Their migration is said to have occurred around 3000 to 8000 years ago. The source that you asked for is present below.

Genetic evidence suggests European migrants may have influenced
the origins of India's caste system


This study focuses on India, but the dates for Indo-European migrations predominantly towards the north western regions of the Sub-Continent are still valid.

Please note that Sanskrit was at one point in time an unwritten language. In fact, I have read that the Aryans developed their script after interacting with the Harappans & other local people of the Sub-Continent.



That's not correct, genetic & historical evidence does not indicate that at all. The Vedic Aryans considered themselves distinct from the Harappans, even though they did marry their women sometimes. They migrated towards the Indus Valley in the later stages of that civilization & probably resided in Afghanistan before that. The Sanskrit language is different from the Harappan language. It isn't reasonable to believe that those people randomly forgot their language or history after the IVC's collapse. The term Aryan evolved in a manner similar to the word Roman. In the later era of the Roman empire, the Byzantines called themselves Romans even if they were Greek. That doesn't change the fact that the Romans are the people of Italy. Similarly, the term Aryan evolved in to meaning anyone that follows the Vedic culture or speaks their languages. It initially referred to a race, similar to Avestan's word "Arian". There is little proof that the people of the IVC were monotheists, & we won't know much till we decipher their language. The Vedic Aryans were not monotheists though.



Deciphering their language will help us to classify it as Indo-European, Dravidian, or even the possibility of it being Semitic, even though that is extremely unlikely. In the past, the original speakers of a language shared heritage with the original speakers of their language's sister languages. We already know that the Harappans hadn't been colonized previously so there language is bound to be their own. No other civilization has a script similar to theirs.

Anyway, this was a nice topic for discussion, but I am bored of it now. Let me know if you want me to provide you with more links of genetic studies or some other relevant sources.

I think that there are many aspects that you highlight are akin to what I am stating, the difference being in methodology of given explanation.

The popular narration of linkages here is between the people of different countries as they exist now and not the terminologies used by certain experts.

I relate to a combination of archeological, historical and genetic facts as these have been pronounced. Your emphasis, as I understand is more towards genetics.

There is archeological evidence that the people of BACTRIA migrated to Persia. There is no archeological evidence that those who moved from BACTRIA to Persia, further moved to IVC areas.

However, there is archeological and historical references which state that the people from Central Asia did move to IVC areas. And these people have been identified as Indo-Aryans and not Indo-Iranians. And the studies that I have gone through, does not mention linkages of Indo-Iranians with the people of IVC or much later as people of Pakistan. And it was for this reason that I had requested for references.

According to my studies, Vedic Aryans which is a recent advent, essentially from Hindutva hued Indians has never been identified beyond a reasonable doubt as people of IVC, and has been highly speculatory to say the least. Calling IVC a Vedic civilization was marred by earlier speculations and is now being challenged. I do not agree that there were any linkages between the Vedic people with the IVC at any stage before this civilization faded out. And this I can discuss with you to any length. Thanks.
 
Firstly, the people of IVC include the people of Punjab, part of Rajasthan and part of Gujarat and definitely not Uttar Pradesh. Secondly, genetics does not necessarily relate to closeness of distances as in old days the linkages amongst the people were not as pronounced due to the distances as it were. Unless of-course there was a trade or other related exchanges amongst the populace of different places. The traditional ground trade route through Afghanistan between the IVC and Iran, Mesopotamia and Central Asia existed during the times of IVC and therefore the linkages. However, very little if at all any trade or other linkages existed between the people of Indus valley and Ganges valley and its adjoining plains. Therefore, despite the relative closeness of distances, there were hardly any linkages and hardly any genetic admix till much much later in the history.

I am talking about current admixture between the people, I never said Indus was connected to ganga, it never was. There was nothing on ganga river in those days
 
It's clear which civ in belonged to. You dont have to like it. It's not part of the Iranic, Sinic, etc. civs. I'm only referring it to present understandings.

It is not a matter of likes or dislikes. It is part of geological, archeological and historical evidence based on which the conclusions are arrived at. The IVC is part of Pakistani heritage as the core of this civilization and its people live here. Earlier they were known as Meluhhas and now the same people call it Pakistan.

I am talking about current admixture between the people, I never said Indus was connected to ganga, it never was. There was nothing on ganga river in those days

Therefore, the limited genetic admix between the Indians and Pakistanis has been a rather recent phenomenon and does not relate to the times of the IVC.
 
I think that there are many aspects that you highlight are akin to what I am stating, the difference being in methodology of given explanation.

The popular narration of linkages here is between the people of different countries as they exist now and not the terminologies used by certain experts.

I relate to a combination of archeological, historical and genetic facts as these have been pronounced. Your emphasis, as I understand is more towards genetics.

There is archeological evidence that the people of BACTRIA migrated to Persia. There is no archeological evidence that those who moved from BACTRIA to Persia, further moved to IVC areas.

Some of our views were similar, but our views regarding the identity of the Indo-Aryans were different, & I think my previous explanations should clear any misconceptions. I give importance to archaeological, historical, cultural, & linguistic evidence as well, but genetic evidence is extremely important because it's the one thing that cannot lie. No one moved from Persia to the Indus, any movement that may have taken place, resulted during the period the Persians ruled over the Indus. The Indo-Iranian migrations to both Iran & the Indus are confirmed as of now. I think we both agree that the Indo-Iranians initially resided in Afghanistan when the migrations from Central Asia began.

However, there is archeological and historical references which state that the people from Central Asia did move to IVC areas. And these people have been identified as Indo-Aryans and not Indo-Iranians. And the studies that I have gone through, does not mention linkages of Indo-Iranians with the people of IVC or much later as people of Pakistan. And it was for this reason that I had requested for references.

The Indo-Aryans are a branch of Indo-Iranians. In fact the Indo-Iranians as a whole are present in modern day Pakistan. The Pashtuns & Balochis are an Iranic people. The Kashmiris & northern Punjabis are purely Indo-Aryan. You previously claimed that the Aryans were the same people as the IVC, that is not true at all & that is why I provided you with a source proving that Indo-European tribes migrated to the Indus. As such the Harappans are different from the Indo-Iranians.

According to my studies, Vedic Aryans which is a recent advent, essentially from Hindutva hued Indians has never been identified beyond a reasonable doubt as people of IVC, and has been highly speculatory to say the least. Calling IVC a Vedic civilization was marred by earlier speculations and is now being challenged. I do not agree that there were any linkages between the Vedic people with the IVC at any stage before this civilization faded out. And this I can discuss with you to any length. Thanks.

I never claimed that the IVC was linked with the Vedic people, but it remains a fact that the Indo-Aryans lived with the Harappans for a short duration of time till their collapse before the advent of the Vedic civilization. We won't know who they (Harappans) were precisely till their script is deciphered. The Indo-Aryans differentiated themselves from Harappans, but they married some of their women, & adopted certain aspects of their culture. That is why there are some similarities between them.
 
Genetic studies indicate an Indo-Aryan & Indo-Iranian migration. Other civilizations as in the Medians for instance were aware of their connection with the Vedic people. If by the Middle East, you mean Semites, then rest assured only a few Pakistanis may have Semitic mixture. This does not just apply to Pakistan, but to Afghanistan & Iran as well.

The migration of the Indo-Iranian people occurred in stages, the Indo-Aryans in particular also had to marry indigenous women because genetic studies indicates that the majority of the migrants were men, but women were naturally present as well. Right now, we can't be certain if the Indo-Aryans had any ethnic relations with the IVC because we haven't deciphered their language.

Bold part:Your assumption here that the majority of Aryan men left their women and children behind in the west Asia and immigrated to India is something cannot be accepted as a truth. There is no proof to support your view. Certainly, both sexes of Aryans came and settled in Indian north/NW.

Because they wielded supremacy over the local Indians, therefore, the Aryan men took this privilege to take multiple partners/wives from the locals. However, the off-springs born out of these unequal unions by the local mothers were, by Aryan custom, not given the status of Aryan.

They were given Sudra status or any other status the mothers belonged to. This is the reason why Aryan Y-chromsome, inherited from the fathers, is so prevalent among the lower caste Hindus in India. Aryan polygamy, by taking many non-Aryan local women into bed, has created a prevalence of Aryan Y-chromosoms among all groups of Hindus.

Too many of intermarriages in old times alarmed the Aryan leaders and they imposed a strict Caste system in the society to bar people from marrying into other castes.
 
Bold part:Your assumption here that the Aryan men left their women and children behind in the west Asia and immigrated to India is something cannot be accepted as a truth. There is no proof to support your view. Certainly, both sexes of Aryans came and settled in Indian north/NW.

Because they wielded supremacy over the local Indians, therefore, the Aryan men took this privilege to take multiple partners/wives from the locals. However, the off-springs born out of these unequal unions by the local mothers were, by Aryan custom, not given the status of Aryan.

They were given Sudra status or any other status the mothers belonged to. This is the reason why Aryan Y-chromsome, inherited from the fathers, is so prevalent among the lower caste Hindus in India. Aryan polygamy, by taking many non-Aryan local women into bed, has created a prevalence of Aryan Y-chromosoms among all groups of Hindus.

Too many of intermarriages in old times alarmed the Aryan leaders and they imposed a strict Caste system in the society to bar people from marrying into other castes.

Who said Aryan women & children didn't migrate with the men? They obviously did migrate with them, otherwise their race would never have survived. I think you have misunderstood my post. I will explain what I meant in detail later when I get the time. The points you have raised are valid, but they require more details & clarification.
 
Who said Aryan women & children didn't migrate with the men? They obviously did migrate with them, otherwise their race would never have survived. I think you have misunderstood my post. I will explain what I meant in detail later when I get the time. The points you have raised are valid, but they require more details & clarification.

Sorry, it was an unintentional typing mistake. Now, I have corrected your citation. Please re-check my previous post.
 
Again more BS, Gandhara was not part of Bharat. It was independent and away from Hindu influence of Dravidians.

Are you claiming Gandhara never had Hindu influence. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
It is not a matter of likes or dislikes. It is part of geological, archeological and historical evidence based on which the conclusions are arrived at. The IVC is part of Pakistani heritage as the core of this civilization and its people live here. Earlier they were known as Meluhhas and now the same people call it Pakistan.
.


Pakistanis are descendants of (Dravidian) Meluhhans, Snowwhite Pakistanis are not Dravidians. Can you clear this confusion. :woot:
 
It doesnt have to be part of Iran to be distinct from Dravidian civilization.

You have gone trolling, prove that Gandhara didn't have Indian culture and wasn't the part of Bharatvarsha. :sleep:
 
When King of Lanka Ravana was on death bed his wife Mandodari told him "Hey Arya-Putra, Son of Ayodhya-King, Ram wants to meet you."


She addessed Ravana as Arya ...


Arya means noble.. Unlike some Arabic or African tribal religion, Indian religion don't appreciate inbreeding. Inter-cultural marriage was common in India. Color of skin doens't define race. India is place of mixed race where Queen of Afghanistan was married to King of Hastinapur.

Where princes of Greece married to king of Patliputra and so on..


There was no war as TS suggetsed.

Good post .......adding to your post ......that queen of Afghanistan was Gandhari ......this is because her father ,the King , was ruling Afghanistan from "gandhar " ( which is today's "kandhar")......her brother's name was Shakuni .....the maternal uncle to Kauravas ....
 
Who said Aryan women & children didn't migrate with the men? They obviously did migrate with them, otherwise their race would never have survived. I think you have misunderstood my post. I will explain what I meant in detail later when I get the time. The points you have raised are valid, but they require more details & clarification.

I dont think that Aryans actually came from foreign land to India .They were quite native to indian subcontinent .The Harappa and Mohanjodaro civilization were already there since the beginning . The Europeons didnot come from outside Europe . Likewise , the Aryans were present in west asia well as India . They didnot come from anywhere else .
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom