Aryan Indians

Originally posted by TeldeInduz         Afghanan/TeleInduz/etc,   You guys still do not get it. Read again:     In India there are no aryans as the word aryan is understood by you. Majority of India is inhabited by indigineous people. Upper castes of India: Rajputs(Kshatriyas), Brahmins, Vaishyas, Sudras are ALL indigenous to India and did not arrive from Iran or Afghanistan or wherever. -Digs TeleInduz/Afghanan,   You are completely wrong. Following excerpt from:http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v78n2/42812/brief/42812.abstract.html?erFrom=3293554893462845937Guest Although considerable cultural impact on social hierarchy and language in South Asia is attributable to the arrival of nomadic Central Asian pastoralists, genetic data (mitochondrial and Y chromosomal) have yielded dramatically conflicting inferences on the genetic origins of tribes and castes of South Asia. We sought to resolve this conflict, using high-resolution data on 69 informative Y-chromosome binary markers and 10 microsatellite markers from a large set of geographically, socially, and linguistically representative ethnic groups of South Asia. We found that the influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. The ages of accumulated microsatellite variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000�15,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups indicate demographic complexity that is inconsistent with a recent single history. Associated microsatellite analyses of the high-frequency R1a1 haplogroup chromosomes indicate independent recent histories of the Indus Valley and the peninsular Indian region. Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus and with significant genetic input resulting from demic diffusion associated with agriculture. Our results underscore the importance of marker ascertainment for distinguishing phylogenetic terminal branches from basal nodes when attributing ancestral composition and temporality to either indigenous or exogenous sources. Our reappraisal indicates that pre-Holocene and Holocene-era�not Indo-European�expansions have shaped the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape. This means that a Holocene era (before the Aryan invasion hypothesis) migration occurred. It also says that Dravidian speakers did not originate in Indus Valley (Pak). But that paper does show two more important things which youve missed.   Haplogroup J2a-M410 is confined to upper caste Dravidian and Indo European speakers, with little occurrence in the middle and lower castes.   The J2 clade is nearly absent among Indian tribals, except among Austro-Asiatic tribals, the predominant J2b2 hg occurs only in the Lodha.   Then there's Sahoo's work which suggests J2 is highest in upper castes, lower in middle castes, lower in lower castes, and absent from tribes.   Of the others, only J-2 indicates an unambigous recent external contribution, from West Asia rather than Central Asia.   R1a1 might well not be a good marker for Indo Europeans there, but J2 is it would seem. J2 is the best evidence for an Aryan migration that established Hinduism in the subcontinent.    Secondly Steve Oppenheimer, Genetecist from England has written a book "The Real Eve Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa: Stephen Oppenheimer Publisher: Carroll & Graf; (September 9, 2004) ISBN: 0786713348". In this book he has proved that DNA study shows that the non-african world was colonised by different waves of emigrants from India.   LOL!! The non African world wasnt "colonized" by Indians.     What Oppenheimer has done is based on R1a1 frequencies and is not definitely true for sure.. It's possible that out of Africa was followed by the establishment of the Dravidians in the subcontinent, and the movement through the Middle East to Europe and then to some unknown Aryan centres.   He has analysed both maternal DNA ( mitochondrial ) and Paternal DNA, the Y chromosome. There is a genetic link indeed between Europe and north west India However, the DNA shows the roots to lie in kashmir and Punjab (Ancient Saraswati civilization which is mentioned most in Vedas and was destroyed due to an earthquake which caused saraswati to dry up).   The author specifically debunks the Aryan Invasion Theory   The Aryan invasion theory of lots of Central Asians moving South to the subcontinent about 3,500 years ago is most likely not true. I dont believe that one either. However, the movement of another group of Aryans from West Asia somewhere near the Middle East is pretty sure.   Oppenheimer says: Every single non-african human is traceable to India which was the only inhabitable place outside africa till about 50k years ago. Page 83 Mitochondrial DNA study The main African Eve circa 150k years ago is denoted as L L had several daughters of which a branch of L3 , rooted in Ethiopia During the ice age circa 85k years ago, the red sea was shallow and the gulf was above water A small band of L3 migrated to coastal Yemen and on the beach road and the first inhabitable non-coastal area was India L3 then splits into N and M lines N was born near baluchistan and M deeper in India Europeans and middle eastern people have no M lines India has the deepest variety of M lines dated to 75k years M is found in Central Asia, Australia, New Guinea Page 87 Europeans came from South asia circa 50k years ago Page 136 N had a daughter lineage R, born in India 65 K years ago (R is genetically rooted in India ) R had several daughters U in India, splitting up into several U lines U5 is the ancestor of kurds, armenians and basques and dates to 50k years U6 migrated to North African coast R had another daughter HV, dated 40K years ago and HV migrated to Europe N had a daughter I , dated 33K years who migrated to Europe R had a daughter J/T who migrated out of India 20K years ago In short the entire maternal DNA of Europe is rooted in India which in turn is rooted in Africa SO STOP SPREADING AND BELIEVING LIES THAT UPPER CASTE IN INDIA HAS ANY DNA FROM CENTRAL ASIANS OR EUROPEANS. -Digs   It's a minor point , but Oppenheimer's "theory" actually suggests that Pakistan and not India was the "cradle of Europe" as you've put it   'First, that the Europeans' genetic homeland was originally in South Asia in the Pakistan/Gulf region over 50,000 years ago; and second, that the Europeans' ancestors followed at least two widely separated routes to arrive, ultimately, in the same cold but rich garden. The earliest of these routes was the Fertile Crescent. The second early route from South Asia to Europe may have been up the Indus into Kashmir and on to Central Asia, where perhaps more than 40,000 years ago hunters first started bringing down game as large as mammoths.'   http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/08kak.htm   Second this theory does not mean there's no Aryan migration to India - there was undoubtedly. One possibility is that some people from the subcontinent went and populated Europe, became white, and then following the Ice Age, went South to the Middle East, and then travelled East to the subcontinent to establish Buddhism, Hinduism. But this was an Aryan migration, and there is little doubting it occurred (see J2 above).   There's the Cordeaux version which says that central Asian Aryan migration occurred.   "The origins of the nearly one billion people inhabiting the Indian subcontinent and following the customs of the Hindu caste system are controversial: are they largely derived from Indian local populations (i.e. tribal groups) or from recent immigrants to India? Archaeological and linguistic evidence support the latter hypothesis, whereas recent genetic data seem to favor the former hypothesis. Here, we analyze the most extensive dataset of Indian caste and tribal Y chromosomes to date. We find that caste and tribal groups differ significantly in their haplogroup frequency distributions; caste groups are homogeneous for Y chromosome variation and more closely related to each other and to central Asian groups than to Indian tribal or any other Eurasian groups. We conclude that paternal lineages of Indian caste groups are primarily descended from Indo-European speakers who migrated from central Asia approximately 3,500 years ago. Conversely, paternal lineages of tribal groups are predominantly derived from the original Indian gene pool. We also provide evidence for bidirectional male gene flow between caste and tribal groups. In comparison, caste and tribal groups are homogeneous with respect to mitochondrial DNA variation, which may reflect the sociocultural characteristics of the Indian caste society."

Telde,
  So now Aryan Migration occured in Pre Holocene? Awesome!  Dude you cannot twist theories to suit your point of view. (Hint for you: Figure out what place on Earth was most habitable during last Ice age. Then figure out would people migrate out of this landscape to others after the Ice age receeded or would they migrate into this landscape after ice melts and makes more fertile/habitable areas crop up in Europe, west Asia and Central Asia.).

   Oppenheimer is a trained gentecist whose findings were telecast on Science channel in the US.  No scientist objects to his theory. And yet you cannot stop LOL. Perhaps you are smarter then him or this stuff is beyond you.

  Lastly Pakistan is 60 odd years old. Prior to that it was all India. No matter how much you want to obfuscate this with south asia or whatever new acronym you  like. There was no Pakistan when Indus valley civilization was thriving.

-Digs

Teldeinduz "Pakistan has been part of India for the last 200 years out of 5000 years"

Edited by Vedam - 16-Jul-2006 at 13:02

Yes we did not call ourselves Indians.

Originally posted by TeldeInduz Originally posted by Vedam Teldeinduz "Pakistan has been part of India for the last 200 years out of 5000 years" Even whe not ruled by Mauryas, Guptas, and Mughals, this area was to these "western empires" as you put it, always known as India, Hindustan. What us Indians called the River Sindhu, the Iranians called Hindu, and the Greeks Indus. So everyone on the right side of the river were hindu/Indian, and the land Hindustan and India. Indus and Hindu come from the same Sanskrit word, SINDHU, where the name Sind also comes When Alexander reached the Indus he reached INDIA, not Pakistan , and he called the Inhabitants Indians not Pakistanis. I thought you would have known that.      Not officially. They were called Mauryan Empires, Pallava etc etc. The people did not call themselves Indian. Indian was a name imposed by foreigners onto the people of the region of Pakistan I guess (and India was also imposed onto the people of India).   The Indus might be the origin of the word Hindu, but so is all of Punjab in that case(which also belongs to the Indus). It's just a name that doesnt mean anything. The important bit is the history of the places.

You have no clue what you are saying.  Pallavs/mauryas etc all called themselves Bhartiya which is a synonym for India. Please brush up your knowledge before you make silly statements.

-Digs

A number between 200-500 years is correct, if the question is "how long has Pakistan been part of a kingdom with it's capital in modern day India?"

But I believe that those with capital's in Pakistan should be included too. If the question is "How long has part of Pakistan and part of India been together?" the answer is much much higher. I'm trying to work out a rough figure, but at the moment it's safe to say that it is much higher than 500 years, let alone 200 years.

To give an example of what i mean here are pictures of the Kushan empire (which was by all means not an Indian empire) and the Ghaznevid empire, which was an Afgan empire incorparating parts of India and Pakistan:





As you can see either part has land in present day India showing a shared history.




Edited by Anujkhamar - 16-Jul-2006 at 16:41

Originally posted by Digvijay You have no clue what you are saying.  Pallavs/mauryas etc all called themselves Bhartiya which is a synonym for India. Please brush up your knowledge before you make silly statements. -Digs

Edited by TeldeInduz - 16-Jul-2006 at 21:24

Originally posted by TeldeInduz Mauryans did definitely. But this only lasted for 100 years, and included a lot of Afghanistan. They were also Buddhists. It's been calculated that out of the last 5000 years of subcontinent history, Pakistan was a part of India for a total of 711 years (512 of these were Muslim rule, the remainder Buddhist and Christian).

A link for the 711 years? and that number is about how long Pakistan was under control from a capital in India? Why does it matter if they were Bhuddist or Christian?

I can beat your 711 years by using my assumptions above (where a "pakistani" kingdom in "indian" land also works). For example, the Indus Valley Civilisation also included Gujarat, which we all know is in modern day India. Sure there were no major cities like Mohenjo-Daro, but it doesn't matter. The settlement's in Gujarat lasted for alot more than 1000 years, while being part of the same civiliastion as the rest of the Indus Valley.


Edited by Anujkhamar - 16-Jul-2006 at 22:38

Teldeinduz, what exactly is your argument?

That what is now Pakistan is only briefly ruled by Indian Empres? So what ! The area still comes under the land of India.

Edited by Vedam - 17-Jul-2006 at 04:50

It seems you really want to distant certain things from being Indian. Why?

I've seen that link before. As you said it covers kindoms with capitals in India, but why can't Pakistani Empires be included in the total? After all isnt the question how long has a part of India and a part of Pakistan been in the same kingdom?

1) If you look at any maps of the Indus Valley you will see settlements in Gujarat.

4) Only relevant if the question was "When was Pakistan run by a kingdom based in modern day India". Once again, we're not trying to prove Indian superiority, merely trying to show a shared history through shared kingdoms.

5) Who cares if the Mauryan period was mostly Bhuddist?

6) The greaco-Indian kindoms occupied Gujarat all the way upto near where Mumbai is now. This is far from a minor overlap.

8) It doesn't matter if it's a Pakistani empire, northern India was part of it as you said.

12) Well this could go either way. As you said there are different views on this.

13) Gujarat fell to Muhammad of Ghor. Actually it just struck me that alot of Gujarati history is within a Pakistani Kingdom.

14) It wouldn't matter if it was Jews who invaded these 512 years, it doesn't change the fact that there were huge overlaps, especially in the Mughal period where alot of North and Central India was taken.

The rest all bring up the same point really, whether it was under a foriegn power or not the history was shared.

Originally posted by Teldeindus The above table reveals that  during  the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs

No, the table shows Pakistan was RULED by India for around 711 years. It does nothing to show that it was not a part of it. To show that it is not a part of it you need to scrap all kingdoms with lands in India.