Bones kill myth of happy Harappa - Study shows gender discrimination

“...the Aryans came from Central Asia.”

Yeah, that’s what I was taught at university, too. Genetics and microbiology has changed all that in the interim, especially in the subcontinent of India.

Glad you brought up the Sumerians, as they are an interesting group. Fifteen thousand years ago the entire Persian Gulf was dry land and that dry land extended for dozens of kilometers out towards the Indian Ocean, past the present Straight of Hormuz, past today’s nation of Oman, and out into the Gulf of Oman.

The continental shelf along the Indian Ocean was broad enough and furthermore, ice free, allowing travel along its great length. Since the future Australian aborigines travels by boat to Australia 40,000 years ago, no doubt travel by boat existed across the Indian Ocean, which explains why drowned pyramids can be found off the Maldives Islands, the southern tip of India, ziggurats in ancient Sumeria, and of course pryramids in present-day Egypt.

So much water was locked up in ice that much of the world’s sea level was three hundred to four hundred feet lower than todays’ sea level. Many of the areas most comfortable to humans back then would have been found around the Indian Ocean and particularly where today’s ‘drowned’ Indonesian archipelago, back then dry land, exists today. Becasue it took so long for the much of that sea level to gradually rise - between 15,000 to 8,000 years ago - entire populations had time to migrate.

The Aryans, if they ever really existed as a singular population, are ‘johnny-come-lately’ in terms of migratory groups.

The remains of stone cities can be found off the coastlines of India. Pyramids have been sighted underwater around the Maldives Islands. Our western-oriented archaeological experts have a hard time getting their minds around just how ancient the human civilizations around the Indian Ocean just might be, because they’ve been closely examining past human populations who were surviving on the edge of wildernesses up north.

We’re just beginning to recognize that large ancient populations lived in the Brazilian river basin and that the “Rain Forest” isn’t as timeles, enduring and primevil as greenies would wish it to be.

Here’s something for you to ponder: there is a breed of horse known today as the Akhal-teke. It is the single oldest horse breed in the world and is the source for most refined horse breeds in existence today. This breed or type of horse is found in the tombs of the ancient Scythians and all across the steppes into western Mongolia. It is a highly refined appearing horse (two of the three founding stallions of the Thoroughbred Horse used for racing were Akhal-tekes) and was used as a war horse not just of the Turkomen tribes in Central Asia, but the ancient Greeks and Egyptians depicted this horse on friezes pulling war chariots thousands of years ago. The remains of this ancient horse never appear anywhere in Pakistan nor India; in Persia, yes. Never in India or the Indus River basin.

So, how did the Aryans move out of Central Asia and across India if it wasn’t on horseback?

I am perfectly willing to consider Indian cultures to be much older than commonly thought. And I'm aware of the changes in thinking about people living in the Amazon.

But that doesn't come close to invalidating the stunning linguistic and DNA evidence showing a close link between European, Persian and Aryan groups.

The Aryans, if they ever really existed as a singular population, are ‘johnny-come-lately’ in terms of migratory groups.

Agreed. Probably sometime in 2nd millenium BC, which is long after other societies had been in India.

Sanskrit and the Vedic religion were almost duplicated in the kingdom of Mitanni in the Fertile Crescent at about this time. Surely the most logical explanation is a people or group of peoples somewhere north of Persia splitting, one part going SW and the other SW.

Do you have an explanation why this theory is offensive to Indians?

You should read more history. Even the Mitanni worshiped Vedic, not Persian or Sumerian Gods--the names of the Mitanni are clearly Indian Sanskrit. Ancient India included large parts of today's Iran/Persia as well as Afghanistan. It is in these places that Alexander was stopped after defeating the Persians. If you push back the dates before the known Persians you will clearly see that groups of Indians from Today's Iran/Persia migrated to the middle east and Egypt. Much later, people from these areas went onto establishing coastal cities and empires around the Mediterranean sea--the Greeks, Phoenicians, Carthaginians etc etc. Because these people had already been influenced by Vedic religions and language in the middle east, their languages and religions/gods are mirrored on them. You will observe that Northern European languages are not Indo-european. When the English and Germans found the link, the major problem became that European civilizations were established by immigrants. Protestant and Catholic issues also influenced their decision as they did not want to lend more historic authority to the Italians. They went the Tomato route of instead saying that the civilizations of all known ancient metropolises were established by the 'Aryans' a term that in Sanskrit means anyone Noble, a gentleman, a good person. Where did the Aryans come from? they simply picked a middle place between the Europe and India. The problem is that only Indians used the word Arya to describe themselves. Ancient Persians used it, but again ancient Persia was part of India--even their ancient religion Zoroastrianism, is derived from Vedic scriptures and names, hence the use of the term. All of these reasons are sufficient for Indians to be upset at the notion of 'Aryans' coming to India--the real reason is more complex. Indian religions are not like Abrahamic faiths--that is, they don't have prophets sent by God--just Teachers/Gurus/Buddhas/Tīrthaṅkaras. These teachers/gurus/Buddhas/Tīrthaṅkaras are exalted because they speak the truth. The literal truth. It is the truth because in Ancient India it had to be debated in the same fashion as modern scientific proofs in the west are used today. (This is a major reason why many modern physicists read the Vedas because of the descriptions on the nature of the universe) Because there is nothing in the texts, stories or traditions of ever having originated anywhere outside of ancient India--just the opposite infact of clearly stating that Indians are from India--the result is that basically, Europeans are saying their teachers/gurus/Buddhas/Tīrthaṅkaras are lying. It shatters the foundation on which Indian thoughts on human nature and God progresses. The English used it for this very function as they wished to convert Indians into Christians and were having difficulties in the debates on why conversion was beneficial. The same thing had happened to the Muslims in India, a big reason Sufism is so like Dharmic not Abrahamic faiths. So you see, if today people accuse Jesus of lying, Christian people would be upset. Similarly Indians are upset at the idea of their Teachers lying. Throw in the current DNA mapping of modern Indians which show negligent outside genetic material and the show becomes popcorn worthy.

You should read more history. Even the Mitanni worshiped Vedic, not Persian or Sumerian Gods--the names of the Mitanni are clearly Indian Sanskrit.

Quite accurate. However, the common point of view is that the Mitanni and Aryans are descended from a common group off the steppes, one group going SW into the Middle East, and the other SE into India.

If you push back the dates before the known Persians you will clearly see that groups of Indians from Today's Iran/Persia migrated to the middle east and Egypt.

I have seen this claim made, but I have never seen anything but speculation to support it.

You will observe that Northern European languages are not Indo-european.

Actually, they are. All European languages are Indo-European, with the minor exceptions of those in the Basque and Uralic families.

Thanks for your attempt to explain why Indians are offended by the commonly accepted (outside India) theories of the populating of India.

I assume you do realize there is a general skin color gradient in India from lightest in the NW to darkest in the SE. The most logical explanation of this is that a different group entered from this direction and its genetic contribution became less with distance from point of entry.

The linguistic evidence parallels this. In particular, there is a linguistic principle whereby the diversity of a given language or language group is greatest near its point of origin. This has been applies to track the movement of many language groups back to their origin, including the Bantu and Austronesian groups. Even for the English language, the UK has many more accents and dialects than the much larger Engligh-speaking population of North America. Using this principle for the Indo-European languages, you wind up with a point of origin somewhere around the Urals.

My understanding is that the genetic evidence is not nearly as one-sided as you claim.

No offense, but to an unprejudiced outside observer, the violent resistance by some in India to the generally accepted scientific evidence looks like compensation for an inferiority complex. The claims I've read look like an attempt to find ammunition for a pre-determined position rather than a search for truth.

Science doesn't take the ancient myths of any people, by themselves, as valid evidence of the origin of peoples, so Indians shouldn't be so upset about it.

I can see that to an outside observer, people tend to see a ‘color’ gradient from north to south India. What many don’t know or are unable to regularly see on TV or movies is that North East India is made up of Mongoloid/oriental populations. The Skin variations in North west India/Pakistan has much more to do with the Offspring of South Indians and these groups than anything to do with ancestral populations of south Europeans. It is quite probable that further offspring between Semitic populations during the prominent silk road periods in the Punjab areas of India/Pakistan has given them a more Mediterranean appearance.

As to the languages of North Europe, the surviving languages Basque and Uralic—yet these hint at greater extinct languages that existed prior to a language change in the region. There are no extinct languages in India—they are all related. Sanskrit derived languages are spoken as far as Bali Indonesia so I don’t find it improbable that while languages can spread—significant genetic changes are not the only method of spreading them.

I suppose to Indians The claims they’ve read look like an attempt to find ammunition for a pre-determined position rather than a search for truth.

Believe me Mr Logan, If there was direct scientific proof that Indians are derived from ancestral populations, also related to Europeans, many Indians would be open to the idea and like to know and find out what their ancestors were about, how they lived, what they believed and found important.

Its just that there is no proof outside of a link in language/religion—you seem confident that there is, could you cite some papers?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.