• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Debunking the Aryan Invasion Theory: Genetics guides the Indian research

Status
Not open for further replies.

vgane

Well-known member
This is a welcome development! The AIT somewhere around 3000BC was the brain child of the missionaries in collusion with the British to belittle the Indian population...Most of the migration of local tribes took place 90000 years ago from Africa...The Vedic people were indigenous Sanskrit speakers of 8000 BC not some colonizers from Europe

Delhi University researchers suggest existence of a Vedic population whose texts date back to 8,000 BC - Page2 - The Economic Times
 
S

sudeshwer

Guest
This is a welcome development! The AIT somewhere around 3000BC was the brain child of the missionaries in collusion with the British to belittle the Indian population...Most of the migration of local tribes took place 90000 years ago from Africa...The Vedic people were indigenous Sanskrit speakers of 8000 BC not some colonizers from Europe

Delhi University researchers suggest existence of a Vedic population whose texts date back to 8,000 BC - Page2 - The Economic Times
I wish y post the entire article of EC. I am very keen - srinivasan
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
So that means the Vedic race "Aryans" were the original inhabitants of India and the Non Vedic (Non Aryan) races were the ones who came in later!

So that means "Non Aryans" were the Invaders?LOL

Ha Ha Ha..its a reversal of the theory.
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member

Delhi University researchers suggest existence of a Vedic population whose texts date back to 8,000 BC

The library-cum-office room used by Prof Ramesh C Bhardwaj is testimony of one man's love for a language. The room has a number of well-used steel almirahs that store hundreds of wornout texts on Sanskrit, grammar, literature and other such.

The tall, soft-spoken professor with his greying hair neatly parted at the middle fits in with the ambience of the room. Bhardwaj heads the Sanskrit department at the Delhi University and has spent decades trying to unravel, amongst other things, the linguistics of the Panchatantra.

The love of the language must have been the prime reason for the academic deciding to tread the unknown territory of history as well. The Sanskrit professor is heading a team of researchers that has taken it upon itself to correct distortions about the most controversial debate in the framework of ancient India: the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT).

The AMT suggests that around 3,500 years ago fair-skinned people called Aryans migrated from central Asia into north India and invaded the darkskinned people known as Dravidians and pushed them down the territory that is modern India.

The theory has been opposed for years especially by right-wing groups who say that the idea of an invasion by the Aryans was invented by European scholars such as Max Mueller. Similarly, the professor also says that the Dravidian identity was also conjured up as a counter to the Aryan construct.

That the Aryan-Dravidian conflict is a myth has been validated by recent genetic studies as well.

But then the Sanskrit expert makes some troublesome claims by asserting that the set of people referred to as Aryans by the European scholars were "indigenous" Sanskrit speakers whose texts date back to 8,000 BC. The professor makes these claims though he does not have any archaeological evidence or other such to back him in terms of historicity.

The professor also is not hassled by the idea that over 10,000 years ago, borders would have been shaped and reshaped many a time, making the point about "indigenous" people in terms of the modern nation-state rather problematic.

Bhardwaj's narrative is another instance of identifying ancient India with a Sanskritic narrative and that too without evidence.

The idea becomes a bit fuzzy considering that in recent times genetic studies have established and proved beyond doubt that there are tribal communities in India that are 65,000 years old.

So even though he has not taken into account the evidence provided by genetic scientists about the antiquity of tribal communities in India, the Sanskrit professor and his team plan to compare available material on the Aryan theory in school textbooks with Sanskrit texts. The team will also make recommendations to the education ministry on correcting the distortions.

"We are only trying to correct the wrong history fabricated by the European scholars. The people referred to as Aryans are indigenous people and in fact India has contributed to European culture," he said.

Although Bhardwaj insists that he is not driven by any right-wing ideology, the line adopted by him is popular with most Hindutva groups who blatantly back the existence of an Aryan identity and also say that the Aryans are "indigenous" people.

Such debates about Aryans and Dravidians have been doing the rounds incessantly for over the last decade and was a regular feature during the NDA regime which was in power till 2004.

Research Shows Otherwise

However, for all his dedication towards Sanskrit and even the daredevilry shown by Bhardwaj in deciding to play the role of a historian, recent findings in genetics have provided new insights about the subject and now there is better understanding of what antiquity is all about.

The Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad undertook a genetic research project in 2009, which proved that there are tribal settlements in India that are much more ancient than the Sanskrit-speakers as suggested by Bhardwaj. In order to find out about the ancestry of modern Indians, the lab had taken DNA samples from hundreds of volunteers from across 13 states.

The genetic research project established that the most ancient settlement of humans in India was about 65,000 years ago. They were people from Africa who had left the continent on account of water shortage. These people who had settled down in Andamans and parts of south India are the present-day tribals such as the Jarawas.

So why is the professor putting up unverifiable claims about a Vedic community that's about 10,000 years old whereas there is clear scientific evidence of tribal communities that are more than six times older?

When researchers in India continue to keep the focus on the Aryan-Dravidian problem, they also contribute to the existing negligence and the lack of understanding about the most ancient people of India.

Asked why he did not focus on ancient India in terms of tribal communities that were proven to be much older than the said Vedic Age, Bhardwaj said he had not studied genetics and therefore did not understand the said research project by the Hyderabad Laboratory.

The Aryan narrative, over the years, also led to an India-centric narrative whereas genetic experts had already established that the story of mankind essentially began with the distress migration off-Africa around 90,000 years ago. Their first stopover was the Andamans and parts of south India.

A New Prism

Geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer in his book The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa says that all mankind originally came from that continent.

Oppenheimer's research and arguments — backed by genetics — essentially provides an entirely new prism for modern nations to look at their own evolution. Essentially, genetic research suggests that the history of the Indian nation state or any other nation is deeply connected with the first migration ..

The search for the roots would essentially then have to begin with the earliest inhabitants, who naturally are of African origin and are tribals.

But the repeated debates over the Aryan-Dravidian theory have only helped maintain a nationalistic narrative and appear rather cut off from the story of mankind. "Now that genetics has established the migration off-Africa, it would be important to understand that those sometimes referred to as primitive and savage are the earliest inhabitants . of this geographical territory. Therefore, there has to be some shift in focus when it comes to understanding ancient India and attention should be paid to what the Jarawas and the Sentinelese [tribals] are about," says Subhadeepta Ray, a sociologist who has specialised in connecting genetics with understanding Indian society.

Ray is an assistant professor with the department of sociology, Tezpur University. He has authored a paper 'Cast(e)ing the Genome: A Sociological Study of Caste in Research Practices of Human Genetics'.

According to Ray, the Aryan-Dravidian theory becomes a much lesser idea because modern genetics has provided an entirely new narrative through which history needs to be viewed.

"You cannot ignore genetics anymore. But the problem is that historians have not started really getting involved with genetics and though I do see some genetic scientists study history, they too have not become involved with contemporary sociological problems [which would provide better historical insights]," says Ray, adding that this has meant that the narrative of ancient India ignored its most ancient people.

"When we start studying the tribal societies closer, we may also need to revisit the word 'civilisation' because they have a rich heritage and culture that has remained under-exposed for centuries," he said.

Romila Thapar — one of the foremost historians on ancient India — agreed that contemporary historians and researchers interested in the subject needed to take into account every kind of available evidence before forming their narrative.

"Anybody who wants to examine history has to take into account the available texts, linguistics, archaeology, environmental research and genetics.

As a historian, you can conduct your own research but you have to factor in evidence provided by all these fields of academics before you arrive at any conclusion. You definitely cannot ignore genetics anymore," said Thapar.




Read more at:
Delhi University researchers suggest existence of a Vedic population whose texts date back to 8,000 BC - Page2 - The Economic Times

I do not think this is definitive theory. It might suit the present atmosphere in India, and the researcher would get government grant.
 
Last edited:

Jaykay767

Well-known member
No offence to anyone, any community or religion! Please do not endlessly waste your time on these theories.

In short:

Hindi = Urdu = Mother tongue of the Persians/Mughals. So all the the North Indians are mixed with the Persians/Mughals, hence they have fair skin. All North Indian languages, customs, food, traditions like Mehendi etc..are all rooted in Mughalai. Common sense la … no need for any fancy research.

Some 10,000 of Alexander soldiers who stayed back in Coorg, Karnataka intermixed with the South Indians, hence some of the south Indians are fair skinned. (Anyone who wants to know how the Alexander soldiers landed in South, please see my earlier posts).

So in reality, the real Aryans are the so called Dark skinned South Indians… LOL!!

All these AIT theories are a result of the Whites not wanting to acknowledge all their religion & culture comes from us & right wing Hindus in North not wanting to acknowledge that they share their origins with the Muslims. !! So they have confused everyone with these fantastic theories which are not rooted in reality.

In all this, unfortunately the great legacy of the Muslims are marginalized, & has divided our society completely!!
 
Last edited:

Jaykay767

Well-known member
As I said earlier, Sanskrit is a Dravidian origin & a sister language of Tamil. Today’s Sanskrit & Tamil both originate from an archaic form of Tamil. !!

Needless to say, 1000s of North Indians keep asking the same question on the internet – Doesn’t Sanskrit sound Dravidian?

In the language fight, Dravidian Parties keep pushing back Hindi & asking Tamil to the National language. By adopting Sanskrit across the country, their wishes may come true without their knowledge!!

LOL !!
 
Last edited:
S

sudeshwer

Guest
I am facing some challenge in copy pasting..There are 2 pages ...If you click the link, you can go to page 1 also
yes MrVgane I also could open only first page. let me try directly with ET is they can email me that piece in full - srinivasan
 
S

sudeshwer

Guest
Mr Prasad and Mr Jaykay have opened up much better. well, if Tamil and Sanskrit have some similarity is good; dont think anyone will object. but one thing is sure North Indians will not accept Sanskit is dravidian language; it is their head-ache. I am of the opinion that sanskrit is to be studied by everyone atleast in India because it has some richness, cant be explained in words - srinivasan
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
As I said earlier, Sanskrit is a Dravidian origin & a sister language of Tamil. Today’s Sanskrit & Tamil both originate from an archaic form of Tamil. !!

Needless to say, 1000s of North Indians keep asking the same question on the internet – Doesn’t Sanskrit sound Dravidian?

In the language fight, Dravidian Parties keep pushing back Hindi & asking Tamil to the National language. By adopting Sanskrit across the country, their wishes may come true without their knowledge!!

LOL !!

dear Jaykay,

A language is not grouped as the same origin just becos it sound similar.That way even the Malay language has many Sanskrit words but that does not make it the same group as Sanskrit.

Do you really think the etymology,syntax and grammar of Sanskrit is the same as South Indian languages?
 

Jaykay767

Well-known member
dearJaykay,

A language is not grouped as the same origin just becos it sound similar.That way even the Malay language has many Sanskrit words but that does not make it the same group as Sanskrit.

Do you really think the etymology,syntax and grammar of Sanskrit is the same as South Indian languages?

Hi Renuka,

In short – yes. Let me explain

1. Dravidian languages & Sanskrit share over 40%to 50% of words like how Tamil & Kannada share common words.
2. Just because Panini wrote the grammar book, does not mean all the words came from Sanskrit. Many of these words could easily have from Dravidian languages.
3. Many Sanskrit Grammar rules are similar to Dravidian
4. Sanskrit structure & pronunciation is Dravidian – agreed by all researchers.- Refer attached URL.
5. Lets take the example of Malayalis talking English. Clearly their pronunciation will be totally Malayalam, but the structure will remain the same. So “How are you doing” will continue to remain so with heavy accent, but will NOTchange to “Are you doing How”.
6. So the argument that Sanskrit is a foreign language but its structure & pronunciation has changed to Dravidian is incorrect. No where a language has morphed to the extent where the structure/grammar changes. for eg, even the words say - Pushpam used in Sanskrit, I mean really which foreign language has this word & has been borrowed - clearly it is Tamil ? like this, I can keep pointing out hundreds of words.
7. If Sanskrit originated in the North India, there must be a dialect OR some inscription where Sanskrit structure will be the so called Indo-European. There is none.
8. Hence Sanskrit can only be Dravidian & all Dravidian languages have interborrowed words from Greek, Latin, Aramaic etc.. !!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages#Dravidian_substratum_influence_on_Sanskrit

Dravidiansubstratum influence on Sanskrit[edit]

Main article: Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit
Dravidian languages showextensive lexical (vocabulary) borrowing, but only a few traits of structural(either phonologicalor grammatical) borrowing from Indo-Aryan, whereas Indo-Aryan shows morestructural than lexical borrowings from the Dravidian languages.[SUP][31][/SUP]Many of these features are already present in the oldest known Indo-Aryan language, the language of the Rigveda (c.1500 BCE), which also includes over a dozen words borrowed from Dravidian.[SUP][32][/SUP]
VedicSanskrit has retroflex consonants (ṭ/ḍ,ṇ)with about 88 words in the Rigveda having unconditioned retroflexes.[SUP][33][34][/SUP]Some sample words are Iṭanta,Kaṇva,śakaṭī,kevaṭa,puṇyaand maṇḍūka.Since other Indo-European languages, including other Indo-Iranian languages, lack retroflexconsonants, their presence in Indo-Aryan is often cited as evidence ofsubstrate influence from close contact of the Vedic speakers with speakers of aforeign language family rich in retroflex consonants.[SUP][33][34][/SUP]The Dravidian family is a serious candidate since it is rich in retroflexphonemes reconstructible back to the Proto-Dravidian stage.[SUP][35][36][37][/SUP]
In addition, a number ofgrammatical features of Vedic Sanskrit not found in its sister Avestanlanguage appear to have been borrowed from Dravidian languages. Theseinclude the gerund,which has the same function as in Dravidian, and the quotativemarker iti.[SUP][38][/SUP]
Some linguists explain thisasymmetrical borrowing by arguing that Middle Indo-Aryan languages were builton a Dravidian substratum.[SUP][39][40][/SUP]These scholars argue that the most plausible explanation for the presence ofDravidian structural features in Indic is languageshift, that is, native Dravidian speakers learning and adopting Indiclanguages.[SUP][41][/SUP]Although each of the innovativetraits in Indic could be accounted for by internal explanations, earlyDravidian influence is the only explanation that can account for all of theinnovations at once; moreover, it accounts for the several of the innovativetraits in Indic better than any internal explanation that has been proposed
Cheers,
 
Last edited:

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
[

Dear Jaykay,

I know previously you had said that Krishna is Jesus etc.

So who is Panini?

Can you do some research?
 
S

sudeshwer

Guest
really Jesus is the incarnation of Krishna!!! well, let us put this to any christian and see how he reacts! I am sure he will just laugh it off but if anybody says Mohammad is the incarnation of Krishna, beware, he will be killed/murdered - srinivasan
 

Jaykay767

Well-known member
Sudeshwer – My view is Krishna himself is Jesus. I am notsaying one is the incarnation of the other !

PS: You can refer to my older posts for more details !
 

JR

Hare Krishna
really Jesus is the incarnation of Krishna!!! well, let us put this to any christian and see how he reacts! I am sure he will just laugh it off but if anybody says Mohammad is the incarnation of Krishna, beware, he will be killed/murdered - srinivasan

I vaguely remember reading the biography of Swami Vivekananda in which it was stated that the Swami said Jesus as an avatara never really happened. :-(
 

biswa

New member
If we can take out the in-built racism, would people still object to the Aryan invasion theory? Most people do not object to the Greek invasion theory, the Hun invasion theory, the Ghaznavid invasion theory or the Mughal invasion theory. So the objection to Aryans (ancient Indo-Iranians?)
 

sarang

Well-known member
Obviously the theory that fits with more facts, findings, literary and archeological evidences will stand. AIT was proposed in the 19th century with nil evidence. Its proponents still have time and resources (academic, financial) to find evidence to prop the theory. Blaming hindutva and samskrit literature will only dig their graves.
 
S

sudeshwer

Guest
as far as I read, Aryans rather Indo-Iranians came to India, not as invaders although in various History books it is called Aryan invation. I dont know why I also believe Aryans are not invaders not because I am an Iyer/Brahmin but at the back of my mind I feel so. Present-day Iranians are not the original inhabitants of that land; they are the invading muslims. original Iranians were persians rather Parsies; possibly, that is the reason Parsies were settled in India; in fact, earlier Hindu Kings welcomed them - srinivasan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoynumerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks