It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Theory that Vedic Aryan culture originated in India
In recent times a different viewpoint has been proposed: that no such Aryan migration or invasion occurred; that the Indus Valley civilization was the civilization described in the Vedas; and that the Aryans originated in India. Some advocates of this position propose that the Proto-Indo-European language actually originated in India, from which its earliest speakers spread westwards. Others believe that the Indo-European languages originated outside India, but that they spread into India before the development of the Indus Valley Civilisation. On this view, the Indo-Aryan sub-branch of the IE languages evolved within India, along with the beliefs that became Vedic culture.
Recent discoveries of what are interpreted as Vedic elements in the Harappa and Mohenjodaro sites, as well as newly excavated cities in Gujarat and off the coastlines of Eastern and Western India seem to give the lie, according to some historians, to the Aryan Migration Theory. The counter-theory proposes that in fact the great Vedic Saraswati River is the dry river bed that has been identified in North-Western India and that the 'Aryan race' is in fact nothing more than those Indian tribes considered 'noble' for adherence to Vedic principles, not for their racial characteristics or lineage. This theory of the Aryan culture being indigenous sometimes has Vedic Indian culture coming into being as early as 5000 BC, and slowly developing till around the time of the dissolution of the Harappa and Mohenjodaro cultures, whose disappearance is now linked to the drying of the Saraswati River. In other versions it may have developed within the conventional time-frame, but from long established inhabitants of the area.
Researchers remain divided on this topic with the majority adhering to the established account.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by CGB_Spender
here you go nygdan all the genetic facts proving caucasians are deifferent.
Nothing culturally or historically ties us with them
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