aryan invasion of india

[identity]

hi people,
i would like to know your take on the notion/myth of the aryan invasion of india. it was almost taken as gospel truth since frederich von maxmuller propounded it in his works. in short it says- a white (aryan) race invaded india in ancient times(pre-vedic). these aryans defeated/subjuagted the aborigines/natives and gradually merged with them and the modern-day indians are their 'mixed' progeny. any historicity/veracity to this claim?
also are these the same aryans referred to by hitler in his theory of aryan supremacy? would that mean they were predecessors of modern-day germans?

[Magister Eckhart]

The likelihood of the "invasion" theory is strong, but the chances are it was more migratory than invasive, just like the Aryan migration into Europe. Evidence of the migration can be found genetically, culturally, and (ironically) racially, since throughout the Middle East, Northern India, and Europe there is a common linguistic and genetic strain, while Southern India is unique. As for this "white" nonsense - the Aryans pre-date the formation of the Caucasian race, so it's all rather misplaced. The indigenous natives of Europe were subject to the same treatment as the indigenous natives of India, so to think there was any difference between the two when the migration took place is simply ignorance of the archaeological and linguistic record.

The discovery of the Harappa and the Indus River Valley civilization, and of its abrupt end, suggests that something did end it that was completely human in nature. Therefore, most archaeological evidence supports the linguistic and genetic evidence that the Aryans originated elsewhere (I personally endorse the Kurgan hypothesis, but there are other suggested Urheimat locations) and came into the Indian and European subcontinents.

As for the Aryan myth that was built up by charlatan mystics like Blavatsky and others, it has basis in this ancient people but little more than that - everything is pure invention using the Vedas and a few other historical scraps from India, throwing in completely invented texts and building a mythology far more founded in Western misinterpretations of Eastern philosophy than in anything tangible.

The "Aryan Race" that was endorsed and promoted by the NSDAP was actually a Nordicist interpretation of the Aryan race mythology, which is even further removed from the original people.

Indo-European/Caucasian/Indo-Aryan/Aryan, whatever you want to call them, they are the genetic, linguistic, and cultural precursors of Northern India, Persia, and Europe, and technically, therefore, our collective ancestors. There are a few exceptions (Finns, Lapps, Hungarians), but otherwise Europe is fairly universally Aryan in origin.

As Madison Grant rightly pointed out, however,


The name "Aryan race" must also be frankly discarded as a term of racial significance. It is today purely linguistic, although there was at one time … an identity between the original Aryan mother tongue and the race that first spoke and developed it. In short there is not now, and there never was either a Caucasian or an Indo-European race, but there was once, thousands of years ago, an Aryan race now long since vanished into dim memories of the past.

At any rate, the Out of India theory that opposes the Aryan Invasion theory is sheer nonsense, depending on evidence as fictional as the Aryan race mythology (actually the two share a surprising amount of the same contrived evidence).

[identity]

wagnerian,
that was surely enlightening.thing is ,there are some left-wing groups in india who keep spewing venom abt the supposed invasion and ridiculously enough classify the present day priest-class in india as "tormentors and killers' of the 'indegenious' people.

now another query of mine. i read somewhere that among the european languages hungarian is of indo-altaic origin and actually seems related to chinese!! any truth in this?

[Magister Eckhart]

wagnerian,
that was surely enlightening.thing is ,there are some left-wing groups in india who keep spewing venom abt the supposed invasion and ridiculously enough classify the present day priest-class in india as "tormentors and killers' of the 'indegenious' people.

Well that is troublesome, and perfectly untrue. People get displaced all the time, and the Brahmins are no more Aryan than either of the other two upper castes -- the Shudra and untouchables are the only "indigeneous people" of India if you want to follow that logic, and I don't really know how many people that leaves, but to exclude half the nation of India based on something that happened in 1500 BC seems more than a little ludicrous to me, and I'm sure I'd not be alone.

Obviously, there was no actual "invasion", so any notion that the Aryans just swept in and indiscriminately raped, burned, and pillaged or even conquered in the style of the British with more orderly terrorizing of the population is pure conjecture, and not very good conjecture at that. Sure, there had to have been some warrior bands (there always are), but for the most part the historical record only shows a population displacement and a shift in cultural predominance.

As for the "indigineous people" argument, it's extremely difficult to determine how far the Harrappans got pushed south. We could be talking about Sri Lankans, in which case no politician in India has any case for suggesting all this "indigenous people" nonsense.


now another query of mine. i read somewhere that among the european languages hungarian is of indo-altaic origin and actually seems related to chinese!! any truth in this?

Hungarian is a Finno-Ugrian language. There are suggestions that the Magyars migrated from northern China, but there's simply too little evidence to support any firm theory on it. I've also heard suggestions that they originate from a proto-Turkic people, but I've never heard the Chinese theory.

So the simple answer is "I don't know, but I don't think so". I would welcome someone more knowledgeable than me to hop in and fill in the gap there.

[Guapo]

Aryan invasions occured and then celti and Aherne were born. Libre is sort of Aryan.

[identity]

thanks wagnerian and guapo.
another one abt india wagnerian- any credence to the claim that kashmiris are not indegenous to india/kashmir? that they are of semitic/jewish descent?

[Saruman]

- the Aryans pre-date the formation of the Caucasian race,

That's rather nonsensical, presumably by Caucasian race you mean Europids, well they already existed long before the "Aryans". For example some skulls of Nordoid (not same as contemporary Nordids!) types that were found in Northern Russia are already ~10000 years old, much older than Aryans... And not to mention the age of Cromagnons and Aurignacoids..

[Magister Eckhart]

That's rather nonsensical, presumably by Caucasian race you mean Europids, well they already existed long before the "Aryans". For example some skulls of Nordoid (not same as contemporary Nordids!) types that were found in Northern Russia are already ~10000 years old, much older than Aryans... And not to mention the age of Cromagnons and Aurignacoids..

No, actually, I don't mean Europids, because they aren't the only or even the defining segment of the Caucasian race. Europeans don't constitute a racial category in their own right at all, as I've argued on several occasions on this board. There were proto-Caucasoids at this point but the Caucasian race as we know it didn't truly come into formation until after the Aryan invasions, especially in Europe, where the three primary sub-racial divisions of Europe were unknown before the distribution of Aryan influence. Primordial forms probably existed but we cannot call these forms Caucasoid proper, they must be considered proto-Caucasians.


another one abt india wagnerian- any credence to the claim that kashmiris are not indegenous to india/kashmir? that they are of semitic/jewish descent?

On this point I unfortunately have to say my knowledge is insufficient. I know there are Greek communities in Northern India but I know too little about Jewish distribution in the East to comment on the possible Semitic origin of Kashmiris. To my knowledge the epics speak of a republican government of Kashmir before the establishment of Buddhism in the area, and I find it hard to believe that any Jewish community could practice any form of republicanism, as the cultural inclinations of the ancient Hebrews always tended toward strong leadership of Judges or Kings. However, this is all pure speculation on my part since I really cannot say for certain anything about ancient Kashmir.

[lei.talk]

this does seem to be a controversial topic:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Wikipedia_logo_3d_gold.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_invasion_theory)

[Aemma]

hi people,
i would like to know your take on the notion/myth of the aryan invasion of india. it was almost taken as gospel truth since frederich von maxmuller propounded it in his works. in short it says- a white (aryan) race invaded india in ancient times(pre-vedic). these aryans defeated/subjuagted the aborigines/natives and gradually merged with them and the modern-day indians are their 'mixed' progeny. any historicity/veracity to this claim?
also are these the same aryans referred to by hitler in his theory of aryan supremacy? would that mean they were predecessors of modern-day germans?

Hmm, how about *your own take* on your own question for a change of pace? :) It's all well and good to get impressions from people here, but since you are hindu indian yourself, might your own take not elucidate some things for us here? I doubt anybody but one who originates from said people could speak more authoritatively on the subject. :) I'm interested in your own views for a change.

Thanks! :)

[Saruman]

No, actually, I don't mean Europids, because they aren't the only or even the defining segment of the Caucasian race. Europeans don't constitute a racial category in their own right at all, as I've argued on several occasions on this board. There were proto-Caucasoids at this point but the Caucasian race as we know it didn't truly come into formation until after the Aryan invasions, especially in Europe,

Well term "Europid" was used by Von Eickstedt to describe all "Caucasoids" both European and non-European, and Agrippa took that, so I meant all of them, but even so early Europids existed even 40 000 years ago, all Europids are descendants of Cro-Magnons and Aurignacoids (Capellids). Europids(or Caucasoids) can be European (like Nordid, Baltid etc.) or non-European (Iranid, Indid etc.).


where the three primary sub-racial divisions of Europe were unknown before the distribution of Aryan influence.

And those are "Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean"? From Grants work? He was rather quite wrong and too simplistic there. His work is also very dated, older than Gunther and Von Eickstedt, so such division cannot be taken seriously, firstly because it doesn't distinguish between Dinarid and Alpinid, because they are, though both brachycephalic, in most regards pretty opposite types. Some other problems, like not distinguishing between other types, though well crudely speaking yes North Europeans can be grouped in Nordid, Dalofaelid, Southerners(around Mediterranean sea) in Atlanto-Mediterranids, Gracilmediterranids etc. Nordid and Dalofaelid share similarities as do Atlanto and Gracil Mediterranids, they can be put under some wider umbrella but they should be differentiated from each other.
To put it simple: Grant was "too simple".:D

[Bloodeagle]

Regarding the Aryan = Caucasian super Nord aspect of this controversy, I have found this to be interesting.
Here is a quote taken from,

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ait.jpg (http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/)

4.9.7. The race of the Vedic Aryans
As for the Vedas, the only ones whom they describe as “golden-haired” are the resplendent lightning gods Indra and Rudra and the sun-god Savitar; not the Aryans or Brahmins. At the same time, several passages explicitly mention black hair when referring to Brahmins.95 (http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch49.htm#95) These texts are considerably earlier than the enigmatic passage in Patanjali describing Brahmins as golden- or tawny-haired (piNgala and kapisha).96 (http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch49.htm#96) Already one of Patanjali’s early commentators dismissed this line as absurd. To the passage from the grammarian Panini which describes Brahmins as “brown-haired”, A.A. Macdonnell notes (apparently against contemporary claims to the contrary): “All we can say is that the above-mentioned expressions do not give evidence of blonde characteristics of the ancient Brahmans.”97 (http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch49.htm#97) Considering that Patanjali was elaborating upon the work of Panini, could it have anything to do with Panini’s location in the far northwest, where lighter hair must have been fairly common?
On the other hand, demons or Rakshasas, so often equated with the “dark-skinned aboriginals”, have on occasion been described as red- or tawny-haired (also piNgala or kapisha, the same as Patanjali’s Brahmins).98 (http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch49.htm#98) Deviating from the usual Indian line that all these demon creatures are but supernatural entities, let us for once assume that they do represent hostile tribals racially distinct from the Vedic Aryans. In that case, reference can only be to certain northwestern tribals, among whom fair and red hair are found till today, indicating that they at least partly descended from a fair-haired population. If the Vedic Aryans were dark-haired and migrated from inside India to the northwest, these odd coloured hairs may have struck them as distinctive.
In modern Anglo-Hindu publications, such as the Amar Chitra KathA religious comics, Rakshasas are always depicted as dark-skinned, a faithful application of the AIT. Yet, there are instances in Vedic literature where “blackness” is imputed to people whom we know to have had the same (if not a lighter) skin colour than the Vedic Aryans: the Dasas and Dasyus, as Asko Parpola has shown, were the Iranian cousins and neighbours of the Vedic Aryans. Physical (as opposed to metaphorical) blackness or more generally skin colour was never a criterion by which the Vedic Aryans classified their neighbours and enemies; that precisely is why we have no direct testimony on the Vedic Aryans’ own skin or hair colour except through a few ambiguous, indirect and passing references.

[Magister Eckhart]

Well term "Europid" was used by Von Eickstedt to describe all "Caucasoids" both European and non-European, and Agrippa took that, so I meant all of them, but even so early Europids existed even 40 000 years ago, all Europids are descendants of Cro-Magnons and Aurignacoids (Capellids). Europids(or Caucasoids) can be European (like Nordid, Baltid etc.) or non-European (Iranid, Indid etc.).

Ah, then I misinterpreted your use of the word. I would maintain, however, that before the Aryan invasions one can only speak of a "proto-Caucasian" race, since the dominant features of the Caucasoids did not become prevalent until after the influence of the Aryans.


And those are "Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean"? From Grants work? He was rather quite wrong and too simplistic there. His work is also very dated, older than Gunther and Von Eickstedt, so such division cannot be taken seriously, firstly because it doesn't distinguish between Dinarid and Alpinid, because they are, though both brachycephalic, in most regards pretty opposite types. Some other problems, like not distinguishing between other types, though well crudely speaking yes North Europeans can be grouped in Nordid, Dalofaelid, Southerners(around Mediterranean sea) in Atlanto-Mediterranids, Gracilmediterranids etc. Nordid and Dalofaelid share similarities as do Atlanto and Gracil Mediterranids, they can be put under some wider umbrella but they should be differentiated from each other.
To put it simple: Grant was "too simple".:D

Actually I don't disagree here; his understanding is too simple, and that's why I tend to disagree with him on most things, but he does have the proper understanding of the "Aryan race" mythology. I'm really an adherent to Coon, to be honest. But that doesn't mean that you can't divide Europe up into three basic groups: North, South, and Borders.

All the sub-races discussed in Coon as well as his rivals can still be fit into these categories, which is where I think Grant got his notions from. Grant was definitely too simple because he didn't look into more subtle differences and patterns, likely because of his Nordicist bent, but the fact is that he didn't just invent the "Nordic-Alpine-Mediterranean" structure out of nowhere, there is a basis for it.

[identity]

aemma,
going on looks alone i daresay the kashmiris might be descendants of an outsider white race. the punjabis and pakistanis to some extent too.

[Magister Eckhart]

aemma,
going on looks alone i daresay the kashmiris might be descendants of an outsider white race. the punjabis and pakistanis to some extent too.

Don't forget that the original Aryan "invaders" of India were all white, and there are pure strains of Greek genetics still present throughout the north of India. British reports of white-skinned, blonde Indians- native Indians - were known throughout the Raj, as I am sure you know, and influenced Kipling to write several pieces of short fiction, not the least of which was The Man who Would be King, in which British colonials encounter native white-skinned peoples in South Asia.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Yes there were Europeans that entered India.

There is genetic DNA evidence to support this because the upper castes have more traces of European ancestry.

Here is a paper by Harvard geneticists discussing the evidence....


Some researchers from India, Europe and the U.S. (have shown) that genetic similarities to Europeans (are) more common in members of the higher ranks. Their findings, published in Genome Research, claimed the idea that members of higher castes are more closely related to Europeans than are the lower castes.

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/11/6/994.full
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-connect-indian
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Indo-European.shtml

My own personal theory is that an ancient middle eastern group originating form (or influenced from) the indo-Iranian language family came to India and set up a caste system and gave birth to the Sanskrit language (which they were able to do because of the advantages of horse, the wheel and lactose tolerance). Was this first group European? We don't know yet. We know that the Indo-European language family originated probably in Southern Russia but we don't know how they interacted, intermarried, or didn't intermarry with the populations during their expansion. Then later, immigrants from Europe came into India via the Silk Road (from the same or a similar immigration as the Tocharains) and because they were lighter skinned they were naturally seen as "high caste" and were treated accordingly by the native Indians during the bronze and/or iron age. This seems the most consistent with genetic, anthropological, and linguistic evidence.

(Read the books "The 10,000 year explosion" for information on the genetic advantage of Indo-European speakers in Lactose Tolerance. Read the book "The Horse, The Wheel and Language" for information about IE expansions. Read on the internet about the European silk road traders such as the Tocharians who lived just north of India.)

There is no definitive answer yet.

[identity]

thanks oreka and wagnerian.i recently read that two pre-islamic turkish invaders called Husk and Kanishk settled in present-day pakistan along with their armies,converted to buddhism and married local women.which group did the ancient turks belong to?

[Magister Eckhart]

thanks oreka and wagnerian.i recently read that two pre-islamic turkish invaders called Husk and Kanishk settled in present-day pakistan along with their armies,converted to buddhism and married local women.which group did the ancient turks belong to?

Someone else may correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been under the impression that Turkic peoples are predominantly Caucasoid with Mongoloid admixture.

[Oreka Bailoak]

two pre-islamic turkish invaders called Husk and Kanishk settled in present-day pakistan along with their armies,converted to buddhism and married local women.
That's fascinating. I cannot find the names of those two invaders. But I assume that this guy has something to do with the invasion because of the similar Buddhist connections (maybe a different spelling).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka

here is the interesting part about his expansion...

though it is not certain what language the Kushans originally spoke; possibly some form of Tocharian. The "Aryan" language of the inscription was Middle Iranian language,[1] possibly the one spoken in "Arya" or "Ariana" (the region around modern Herat) and was, therefore, quite possibly unrelated to the original language of the Kushans (or the Yuezhi), but adopted by them to facilitate communication with local people.

^In other words they're not sure which group he belonged to- but they hypothize it may be Tocharian (which were European silk road traders) who switched languages to middle Iranian to rule over the population. In short, uncertainty, as to who is doing the invasion, is the overwhelming feature of studying invasions into India/Pakistan during this time period.

Also I'm not sure why the group would be considered "Turk". Maybe I am looking at the wrong expansion. (the names you gave me resulted in zero results on the encyclopedia I use.)


which group did the ancient turks belong to?
The term Turk does NOT belong to any specific genetic group of people due to massive expansions and intermarriage and conversion into the language. Instead it belongs to the diverse groups of people who speak turkic languages. Have a look at this map.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Map-TurkicLanguages.png

The speakers in Siberia belong to the general physical category Mongoloid, while the speakers in Turkey belong to the general physical category Caucasian. There is huge genetic variability within the Turkic language family so there is not a specific type of Turkic person.

That being said, in ancient times there was an original Turkic group that arose out of a specific location and expanded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Turkic

But also keep in mind that that proto-Turkic language was a subset of the greater Altaic language family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages

[Motörhead Remember Me]

the aryan invasion of india?

Did not happen. It's a myth.

[Curtis24]

"Europid" is the same thing as Caucasoid. Its actually a bad term since it does make people think of a subclassification of European Caucasoids.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Map-TurkicLanguages.png

The speakers in Siberia belong to the general physical category Mongoloid, while the speakers in Turkey belong to the general physical category Caucasian. There is huge genetic variability within the Turkic language family so there is not a specific type of Turkic person.

That being said, in ancient times there was an original Turkic group that arose out of a specific location and expanded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Turkic

But also keep in mind that that proto-Turkic language was a subset of the greater Altaic language family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages

The eastern Siberian speakers of Turkic languages are quite recent newcomers to the area, and they got there from the "Turkic homeland" between modern day western China and Uzbekistan.