I'm curious as to what some of the members here think about the 'aryan invasion' idea. Specifically, this is the theory that northernindia/pakistan had an original/aboriginal population that was either wiped out or completely displaced or, at the very least, conqured by, an invading outside group called the "aryans".
Some associated ideas are that the aryans brought in sanskrit, and that the natives, usually called dravidians, spoke something else. Or that Harappa and Mohenjo-daro are dravidian citites that were conquered/destroyed by invading aryans. And also that the aryans are the ones who came up with the 'Vedic/Hinud' religion and philosophical system.
My take on it at the moment is that those cities probably weren't destroyed by an invading army. I tend to think that there wasn't even an especially large population movement from central asia into northern india/pakistan, but there definitely has been intermixing and probably different episodes of migration along those lines. I do think that sanskrit isn't 'native' to india tho and that it did replace a 'dravidian' or other language in the region. As far as the religion issue, well, it looks like its agreed by some that there were some new ideas brought in from outside of 'india' and superimposed on some older 'hindu or hindu-like' religious system.

I definetely don't think that the 'aryans' represent one thrust of a global horseridding -proto-indoeuropean- expansion, and I certainly don't think that any sort of changeover in the north was centralily organized.

Whats anyone else think about this subject?

being born a Hindu, I have contemplated about the Aryans and Dravidians on numerous occassions and exactly who they were.

Now 29 years, I am no where closer to finding the answer than where I started, but this is what was told to me by one of my gurus.

The Aryans, were the light skinned Indians (probably mixed with caucasian, mongols and even chinese) They inhabited the areas of Luv and Kush regions of India and Pakistan. The Dravidians were the darker skinned Indians (think south India, Bengali, Sri Lankans)

According to my guru, the Dravidians were more pagan and worshipped the multiple gods, sun god, moon god, water god, etc. The Aryans brought to them the teachings of the Hindu trinity and eventually accepted the Dravidian gods as incarnations of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

Those that didn't accept the invading Aryans retreated further south into Sri Lanka and became known as the demons led by Ravan, leading to the Ramayana

Now this is what he said, I don't completely agree with his assessment since the Rig Veda shows that the Aryans worshipped Agni devta.

Now these Aryans (and as a Hindu, I am often scolded for saying such things, but it's not what I believe persay, because honestly I don't know, just thoughts) were Alien invaders imo who arrived in the area via their vimanas and brought their culture to the Indian subcontinent. They conquered by force, see the Mahabarat for example of their warfare and set the basis for Indian religion and culture.

I dunno but I am Half Persian from my fathers side and he has told me that Aryans were Ancient Persian people who were light hair, light skined, blue eyes... dunno if this helps.

Originally posted by The_Final
I dunno but I am Half Persian from my fathers side and he has told me that Aryans were Ancient Persian people who were light hair, light skined, blue eyes... dunno if this helps.

From what you have said here it seems that you are describing the norwegian (sp?) native people. I am in no way familiar with the Aryans but am now intrigued.

-Dagger

I highly doubt this fact because Perisa was located in present day Iran. Also aryan's are only a small sect of Persians most were of what you would consider a person from the middle east. Darker brown... skin dark brown eyes...

But it was interseting to find out that when I was born I had blue eyes blonde hair along with my father but currently I have brown eyes light brown hair and my father has black hair with dark brown eyes

I have heard that the aryans were from what are the caucaus region and the russian steppe. they were supposedly fair skinned and there is evidence in china of european mummies. If i was guessing the aryans were from the north and came south. now i dont know about the whole invasion thing because supposedly the aryans were received well and traded and intermingled with persians and indians.

This is my first post, so I hope I do it the right way. I'm sure the Administrators will let me know if I don't.

I have been interested in this topic for some time and have previously come across the following article with useful information. As far as I understand I can quote the article. It has a copyright, but it is posted on the internet for anyone to read, at the following website by David Frawley. Please see the following website for more interesting reading.

[url=http://hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley_1.html ]

"The idea of Aryan and Dravidian races is the product of an unscientific, culturally biased form of thinking that saw race in terms of colour. There are scientifically speaking, no such things as Aryan or Dravidian races. The three primary races are Caucasian, the Mangolian and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and Dravidians of the south is not a racial division. Biologically both the north and south Indians are of the same Caucasian race, only when closer to the equator the skin becomes darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to become a little smaller. While we can speak fo some racial differences between north and south Indian people, they are only secondary."

I hope you all find this useful and it stimulates more discussion!

The quoted portion is intersting but I have some issues with it

The three primary races are Caucasian, the Mangolian and the Negroid.

Basically my issue is that these 'races' are as equally non-existant as the 'aryan/dravidian' division.

Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the
Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch.

This is news to me, I don't recall ever hearing that the indians, either in the north or south, had anything to do with mediteranean peoples. I think I mentioned it earlier, that the only population I am familiar with any genetic studies linking indians and anyone else links some indians with 'asians', which of course is rather broad, and might as well have to do with just plain old diffusion of genes.

Biologically both the north and south Indians are of the same Caucasian race,

See, 'race' doesn't have any validity in biology anyways. There's no such thing as a 'caucasian race', at least not in terms of biology, its a social phenomenon.

only when closer to the equator the skin becomes darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to become a little smaller.

Populations of humans usually get 'longer' limb proportions when in tropical climates.

But over all I'll agree, its relatively difficult to talk about large biological distinctions between southern and northern indians (even tho one often tell them apart, and especially indians can distinguish between even smaller and more restricted groupings). Heck, lots of pakistanis immigrated there from india, so where's the cut off right? Does it stop at the pashtuns? The kashmiri?

But, while I'm not particularly convinced that there was an 'aryan' people, I do think its at least possible for a group, tribe, ethinicity, to have considered themselves by some name like that and have basically done what the 'aryans' in the 'aryan myth' are proported to have done. IOW while I think that its phsyically possible and doesn't have to have anything to do with 'race', I don't think that it did happen that way.

So just like the idea of an aryan and dravidian 'race' is unscientific, i think any racial divisions are unscientific.

However, 'dravidian' need not refer to biology, but linguistics. There is a difference of course between the southern dravidian languages and the 'northern' sanskrit languages. I'm wondering if thats a division that was allways there, or how sanskrit (and who knows what other non 'southern' cultural traits) was brought in to india (or, conversely, arose natively in india)

I -do- think that there is validity to the idea of an 'proto-indo-european' people (not race) who spoke the original 'proto-indo-european' language, which spread across the globe, of course the question has allways been how much was spread by the sword and on horse back and how much was spread by 'cultural diffusion'.

Again, I don't expect to get an answer here, but I think its interesting to find out what a generally large population of people think about it (ie the ATS posting 'population' is big and should serve as a good representation of what most people think).

The replies so far have been very interesting of course.

"There's no such thing as a caucasian race" really i seem to remember that there is. i have taken biology anumber of times in both high school and college. The fact is caucasians are different right down to the mitochondrial DNA level. your statement is the result of the "equality" brainwashing where it is taboo to suggest even the most minute difference in the races. I think in biology it was said that blacks have to have more vitamin d which they absorb through their skin. the problem with this Aryan thing is that it involves race and as long as it does people will try to simply forget.

Originally posted by CGB_Spender
"There's no such thing as a caucasian race" really i seem to remember that there is.[q/uote]
Really? Define it biologically.

i have taken biology anumber of times in both high school and college. The fact is caucasians are different right down to the mitochondrial DNA level. your statement is the result of the "equality" brainwashing where it is taboo to suggest even the most minute difference in the races.

And what genetic markers define all caucasians? None. I don't doubt that there are differences between populations, but when one talks about the 'caucasian' race, one isn't talking about slightly different mDNA or different haplotypes. All those things can be passed on and swapped between different populations. Its not brainwashing to understand that the differences between populations don't amount to a difference of race.

I think in biology it was said that blacks have to have more vitamin d which they absorb through their skin.

"Blacks' have dark skin which allows for them to process sunlight and other materials to make vitamin D (or one of its products or something like that). However, other 'non-blacks' have equally dark skin that has the same properties. So this cannot be a 'racial characteristic', since it occurs outside of the supposed 'race', and its variation within the 'race' trends into the variation of other 'races'. Nothing allows one to define races, certainly nothing like the observable 'racial' characteristics that one thinks of as defining races.

the problem with this Aryan thing is that it involves race and as long as it does people will try to simply forget.

The aryan question tends to be associated with race, but there is no need for it. "aryan", as it can be understood and recognized, has nothign to do with race, but one coudl talk about aryan culture, language, etc.

Aryan invasion never happened. And those rascists who believe they were blond haired and blue eyed really ought to shoot themselves or find themselves a new identity.

There is no evidence in ANY of the nordic/germanic geographical areas even vaguely resembling anything remotely close to the vedic civilisation of India. Nothing culturally or historically ties us with them. The only one that resembles the vedic civilisation is that of Iran. And that can be proven culturally linguistically as a latter day offshoot of Indian civilisation.

And to boot there are some Nazis out there trying to prove otherwise. All they can prove is just because of some horse footprints were not found, that the mohejendaro/harappa civilization was preceded the Aryan and were subsequently chased to the south which is utter rubbish, nonsensical crap.

All started by some 18th and 19th century British linguists and archaeologists, who had a vested interest to prove the supremacy of their culture over the one in our subcontinent.


[edit on 10-12-2004 by aryaputhra]

Originally posted by CGB_Spender
here you go nygdan all the genetic facts proving caucasians are deifferent.

Again, i didn't say that there are factors unique to some populations. What I did say was that, as far as I am aware, there is no 'genetic marker' that identifies one as caucasion or not or any other 'race'. And there are no 'racial characteristics' that sort into one race or another. Skin colour, for example, is cuased by the same pigment in every human being on the face of hte earth. (excluding albinos who have no pigment). Its not even that, say, darker people have more melanocytes (the cells that produce the pigment, melanin). They just end up producing more melanin than others. And there is no, say, 'black' racial skin colour. The darkest 'africans' have skin that is as dark as say, some indians, or melanesians, or australians.

aryaputhra
Nothing culturally or historically ties us with them

Linguistically tho sanksrit and latin and german are part of the wider 'indo-european' branch.

All started by some 18th and 19th century British linguists and archaeologists, who had a vested interest to prove the supremacy of their culture over the one in our subcontinent

Are you suggesting that the Indo-European linguistic group is invalid?

I agree with the fact that Aryan's did not invade India but that they actually came from India. If you look at southern Indians and there facial characteristics (excluding the tribes that are close to Aborigines) they have the same facial features as northern Indians it’s just that there skin color is darker. There languages might be different but that could be do to the fact that over the thousands of years they interbred with the Aborigines forming a new dialect of language.

Is it possible that Aryans began to coexist with the people already living there? Sort of like a mass immigration that might look like a invasion.

Surf

---

---

There is much mystery and not enough fact concerning the subject of Aryans.

This has been a subject of great scholars for centuries.

The most recent conclusion is that it was an Indo-European group.

It is thought that The indo- European people's home had been northern Europe.

If you will research the German/Iranian history you will see a relationship between the two countries.