|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 11:47:31 GMT
TIGHT SLAP FOR INDIAN NATIONALIS, KEEP ON DENYING, but Once, these STEPPE people did come to your lands, and they were BRUTAL PEOPLE
The current distribution of the M17 haplotype is likely to represent traces of an ancient population migration originating in southern Russia/Ukraine, where M17 is found at high frequency (>50%). It is possible that the domestication of the horse in this region around 3,000 B.C. may have driven the migration (27). The distribution and age of M17 in Europe (17) and Central/Southern Asia is consistent with the inferred movements of these people, who left a clear pattern of archaeological remains known as the Kurgan culture, and are thought to have spoken an early Indo-European language (27, 28, 29). The decrease in frequency eastward across Siberia to the Altai-Sayan mountains (represented by the Tuvinian population) and Mongolia, and southward into India, overlaps exactly with the inferred migrations of the Indo-Iranians during the period 3,000 to 1,000 B.C. (27). It is worth noting that the Indo-European-speaking Sourashtrans, a population from Tamil Nadu in southern India, have a much higher frequency of M17 than their Dravidian-speaking neighbors, the Yadhavas and Kallars (39% vs. 13% and 4%, respectively), adding to the evidence that M17 is a diagnostic Indo-Iranian marker. The exceptionally high frequencies of this marker in the Kyrgyz, Tajik/Khojant, and Ishkashim populations are likely to be due to drift, as these populations are less diverse, and are characterized by relatively small numbers of individuals living in isolated mountain valleys.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 11:48:01 GMT
In a 2002 interview with the India site Rediff, the first author was more explicit:
Some people say Aryans are the original inhabitants of India. What is your view on this theory?
The Aryans came from outside India. We actually have genetic evidence for that. Very clear genetic evidence from a marker that arose on the southern steppes of Russia and the Ukraine around 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. And it subsequently spread to the east and south through Central Asia reaching India. It is on the higher frequency in the Indo-European speakers, the people who claim they are descendants of the Aryans, the Hindi speakers, the Bengalis, the other groups. Then it is at a lower frequency in the Dravidians. But there is clear evidence that there was a heavy migration from the steppes down towards India.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 11:48:59 GMT
Researchers were being pressurised to downplay this invasion theory, and lot of genetics research were fudged, to show minimal gene flow.
But some people claim that the Aryans were the original inhabitants of India. What do you have to say about this?
I don’t agree with them. The Aryans came later, after the Dravidians.
Over the past few years I’ve gotten to know the above first author Spencer Wells as a personal friend, and I think he would be OK with me relaying that to some extent he was under strong pressure to downplay these conclusions. Not only were, and are, these views not popular in India, but the idea of mass migration was in bad odor in much of the academy during this period. Additionally, there was later work which was less clear, and perhaps supported an Indian origin for R1a1a. Spencer himself told me that it was not impossible for R1a to have originated in India, but a branch eventually back-migrated to southern Asia.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 11:49:33 GMT
First, ancient DNA has made it clear that there has been major population turnover during the Holocene, but this was not the null hypothesis in the 2000s. Looking at extant distributions of lineages can give one a distorted view of the past. Frankly, the 2009 Indian paper was egregious in this way because they included Turkic groups in their Central Asian data set. Even in 2009 there was a whole lot of evidence that Central Asian Turkic groups were likely very different from Indo-European Turanian populations which would have been the putative ancestors of Indo-Aryans. Honestly the authors either consciously loaded the die to reduce the evidence for gene flow from Central Asia, or they were ignorant (the nature of the samples is much clearer in the supplements than the primary text for what it’s worth).
|
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Oct 27, 2018 23:19:50 GMT
Out of India theory is dead. How those Indian/Hindu nationalists explain the existence of steppe admixture among Indians? Or the strong relationship and similarity between Sanskrit and some other IE languages?
Indian culture is a mix of Aryan and pre-Aryan stuff. This applies to all modern IE-speaking ethnic groups. They are a mix of IEs and pre-IE natives.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 3:49:29 GMT
Out of India theory is dead. How those Indian/Hindu nationalists explain the existence of steppe admixture among Indians? Or the strong relationship and similarity between Sanskrit and some other IE languages? Indian culture is a mix of Aryan and pre-Aryan stuff. This applies to all modern IE-speaking ethnic groups. They are a mix of IEs and pre-IE natives.
Agreed. The remaining IE people were present, 100 years back, and today, they are also extinct.
Those people were also minority.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 4:02:53 GMT
//Indian culture is a mix of Aryan and pre-Aryan stuff. This applies to all modern IE-speaking ethnic groups. They are a mix of IEs and pre-IE natives.//
indian culture is 5-10% aryan, they have used some of the warrior lore of aryan warlords in their mythologies.
lot of native paganists gods have been shown as re incarnations of these aryan warlords, for sanskritization, in order to incorporate them.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 4:40:12 GMT
Some aryans broke the rigvedic norms of staying with their own tribes, and migrated towards gangetic belts, which was banned as per manu for these people, because aryans always looked down upon the culture and traditions of hind people. Then, these people used the indigeneous methods of caste system of hind people, and became lords for brief period, but, this was revolted by the native people here. After this, those aryans ended up becoming slaves of these native people, long time back, and the only vocation which they prescribed for themselves was custodian of this hind culture. This is why many brahmins of vedas ended up becoming temple priests, long time back.
But because, they broke the rigvedic norms of leaving their own tribes, they already became SHUDRA or OUTCASTED by their own people. And when aryans also came here, they already started to forgot their real homelands, and started to take ganges as their native home.
Besides, lot of them also intermarried with local people of hind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Oct 29, 2018 9:47:18 GMT
//Indian culture is a mix of Aryan and pre-Aryan stuff. This applies to all modern IE-speaking ethnic groups. They are a mix of IEs and pre-IE natives.// indian culture is 5-10% aryan, they have used some of the warrior lore of aryan warlords in their mythologies. lot of native paganists gods have been shown as re incarnations of these aryan warlords, for sanskritization, in order to incorporate them. Interesting what was India if the steppe nomads did not settle there. I think it would be more Dravidian influence. |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2018 13:41:22 GMT
//Indian culture is a mix of Aryan and pre-Aryan stuff. This applies to all modern IE-speaking ethnic groups. They are a mix of IEs and pre-IE natives.// indian culture is 5-10% aryan, they have used some of the warrior lore of aryan warlords in their mythologies. lot of native paganists gods have been shown as re incarnations of these aryan warlords, for sanskritization, in order to incorporate them. Interesting what was India if the steppe nomads did not settle there. I think it would be more Dravidian influence. No idea, but steppe people who came here are not related to today's India or hindus. They were either cleansed , some might have been ok outbred though intermarriages. But people who came as labelling themse lves as ryanswere differentt ,while Hindu texts talk about arya as cultural practicesi, which got developedheree |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2018 13:42:41 GMT
Also Aryans had a culture which is more in tune with war tribes and creating tribes based on phenotype, while today's hindus practice caste system which is based on occupation
|
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Oct 29, 2018 19:47:13 GMT
Also Aryans had a culture which is more in tune with war tribes and creating tribes based on phenotype, while today's hindus practice caste system which is based on occupation So is there an Aryan heritage or more Dravidian?  |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 0:07:49 GMT
Also Aryans had a culture which is more in tune with war tribes and creating tribes based on phenotype, while today's hindus practice caste system which is based on occupation So is there an Aryan heritage or more Dravidian? It's mixed which is known as Ancestral north Indian and south Indian
There is a paper on this
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 2:45:37 GMT
hindus of today, who say, they are from the ancestral aryans, don't follow any of the culture of these steppe pepole, especially the practice of caste system. There are no mention of castes in vedas, it actually was known as 'varnas'. Besides, the language which steppe people spoke is part of indo european, while the sanskrit, has taken loan words from dravidian families. Dravid also does not mean south indians, because, there's dravidian family in north regions also.  |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 10:56:16 GMT
//Or the strong relationship and similarity between Sanskrit and some other IE languages?// To be honest, the language which these steppe people spoke, cannot be called as Sanskrit. It is said that these people brought it language, when they lost kingdom in another region. It became sanskrit after the panini wrote down it's rule. This sanskrit is paninis grammar. No one knows what those steppe people used to speak, but there's a connection with hurro urartian languages, which is neither semitic nor indo europeans. And, this aryan is a self designation of the people, who were controlling mitanni kingdom of hittites. Mitanni means people with mixed origins The ruling classes of mitanni shows the names of indo aryan aristocracy, I mean, the elites of mitanni bears the same name, which got penned down in rig vedas In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni (between Suppiluliuma and Shattiwaza, c. 1380 BC), the deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya (Ashvins) are invoked. Kikkuli's horse training text (circa 1400 BC) includes technical terms such as aika (Vedic Sanskrit eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pañca, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, round). The numeral aika "one" is of particular importance because it places the superstrate in the vicinity of Indo-Aryan proper (Vedic Sanskrit eka, with regular contraction of /ai/ to [eː]) as opposed to Indo-Iranian or early Iranian (which has *aiva; compare Vedic eva "only") in general. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni-Aryan |
|
