The Aryan Invasion Theory

[Agrippa]

The Aryan Invasion theory is hardly new! In fact what is 'new' is the attempt to reject it. A new form of scholarly political correctness states that invasions by the Aryans and the Vikings etc., did not really happen, but were 'myths'!

I know that and even discussed with an Hindu about that issue which was quite interesting because in the end always religious arguments came in.

Unfortunately, such rejectionists cannot convincingly explain radical culture changes in general, and how Aryan culture was spread in particular.

They totally fail if its about real explanations, its the trial to make religious-ideological beliefs out of ill-understood science.

Fortunately, there have been invasions within recent history which provide a model of how one culture can invade another, conquer it, and then impose the conqueror's culture.

That discussion is in most parts not scientific at all, thats what I meant.

How does this relate to Christian fundamentalism? - can you be more precise?

They reject scientific proofs if they contradict their naive belief as well. Just look at the Creationist jerks.

[Rahul]

The trouble with explaining an Aryan Invasion into South Asian Sub-continent is that there is absolutely no actual evidence in terms of archaeology.

Even after studying fringe folk-groups such as the Pashtoons and others in the Afghan-Hindkoh Passes the picture may appear which speaks of a semitic invasion instead of an Aryan.

Pashtoons are considered by many to be a lost tribe of the jews.

Then they have a lot of ties with the Arabs too.

But where can one find the Aryan Invasion Evidence?

How do we enable readability into Archaeological evidence so that some relationship is understood between Kurgan and North West Frontier Area and a movement of people into that region.

So far the problem has been the inability to explain with proper evidence, a movement of people from the North into the Hindkoh Passes.

I know that and even discussed with an Hindu about that issue which was quite interesting because in the end always religious arguments came in.



They totally fail if its about real explanations, its the trial to make religious-ideological beliefs out of ill-understood science.



That discussion is in most parts not scientific at all, thats what I meant.



They reject scientific proofs if they contradict their naive belief as well. Just look at the Creationist jerks.

[Agrippa]

The trouble with explaining an Aryan Invasion into South Asian Sub-continent is that there is absolutely no actual evidence in terms of archaeology.

Even after studying fringe folk-groups such as the Pashtoons and others in the Afghan-Hindkoh Passes the picture may appear which speaks of a semitic invasion instead of an Aryan.

Pashtoons are considered by many to be a lost tribe of the jews.

Then they have a lot of ties with the Arabs too.

But where can one find the Aryan Invasion Evidence?

How do we enable readability into Archaeological evidence so that some relationship is understood between Kurgan and North West Frontier Area and a movement of people into that region.

So far the problem has been the inability to explain with proper evidence, a movement of people from the North into the Hindkoh Passes.

At that time their were many Aryan movements (Aryan in the narrower sense = Indoiranian) East, West and South.
So this happened in a special context with centres from which this migrations waves were coming from.
Afaik there was a change of material culture, horses came and new types of weapons, of course this changes are especially in this climate not always good to preserve, but on the other hand their are evidences for such an migration, but no for migrations waves from India to Southern Russia/Ukraine f.e.

The Nordindid type (most Pashtu) are primarily Nordindid which is the typical variant of Aryans of later times. Maybe its a mixture of Iranid with Nordid or must a similar type like Nordids/Atlantids which developed their on its own.

But this type, even in India typical for real Aryans and more typical for the upper castes, cannot be considered as being "Semitic" in any way, because typical Semitic are Orientalids of the Arabid branch which you may mind from time to time but explicitly in the Pashtus not more often than in the Beluchi or other groups of the region.

Furthermore the Iranid branch of the Orientalid type seems to be rather autochthon and was there even before the Aryans and Arabs, at least in the West (Western Pakistan, Iran)

A typical Nordindid, defined by Coon as Irano-Afghan and two Indian models which approximate, although mixed this type which is quite strong in Pashtus, Punjabis-Sikhs and upper caste people from Northern India.

[Shapur]

Agrippa this make all no sense. Irano-Afghan/Armenoid is the original racetype from Turkey to Pamir. Who say that the first Aryans were Nordid?
I don`t like Indian people! Only why they looking some European make this them Aryan? Defently not! I will say it so. Aryans are big nosed, high headed, long faced people. This you can find under Nordids, Irano-Afghan, Armenoid and some other types. Also when I see sometimes here posts of different people who show "pure" Indian "Aryans" I must everytime laugh. Yes they have blue/green eyes and indeed fair skin and hair but they are racial MUDS! You can see without problem the Dravidian racial features.
When you look on Iranians you see a pure Caucasoid human also when they haven`t fair hairs. I think pigmentation is not so important like real race relation.
I read some where that the original Slavs come from India?
I don`t know if this is true but my it is, this would declare why some pure Dravians have so many Slavic blood and have a near bone shape!

To the other guy. There is no genetical evidence for a semitic invasion.
We have only ONE evidence for an invasion. The invasion of agriculture man nothing else!

[Moody]

On the 'archeological evidence', see;

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch53.htm
5.3. THE ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

See section 5.3.9. called, Aryan settlements in India; to make a brief excerpt;

" ... the 'strategic' key to the Aryan invasion puzzle has been provided by the discovery ... of the post-Hararrapan town of Pirak, near the Bolan pass and near Mehrgarh in Baluchistan. Pirak was a new settlement dating back only to the 19th BC. Culturally it was closely related to the societies to its north and west, especially Bactria [the latter of Indo-Aryan culture]".

The full piece is;

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/

Of course, the evidence is not limited only to archeology, as this source makes clear.

[Agrippa]

Agrippa this make all no sense. Irano-Afghan/Armenoid is the original racetype from Turkey to Pamir. Who say that the first Aryans were Nordid?

First of all I didnt spoke about IE in general but in the narrower sense = Aryan = Indoiranian.

Their dominant type was and is in their core area from early times on Nordindid which is a fully Europid variant.

I don`t like Indian people! Only why they looking some European make this them Aryan? Defently not!

By their language and culture they are more or less "Aryan" in the narrower sense = Indoiranian.

I will say it so. Aryans are big nosed, high headed, long faced people. This you can find under Nordids, Irano-Afghan, Armenoid and some other types.

Whereas you can see the relation between Nordids and Nordindids, there is no relation between Nordids and Armenids. So it might be possible to explain the Nordindid type as a mix of related Nordid-Mediterranoid individuals mixing with Armenids, that might be not the case, but at least possible.

But Armenids on the other hand have no direct relation to the European IE types, not genetically nor morphologically, whereas the Nordindids have a position between Europeans (Nordids and Atlantids in special) and the Armenid-Orientalid-Indid mix of Northwestern India-Iran.

Also when I see sometimes here posts of different people who show "pure" Indian "Aryans" I must everytime laugh.

Those people which conquered India might have been already mixed and mostly of the Nordindid type, probably with Nordid admixture.
So Nordindid is for the whole region the "Aryan" type in the narrower sense, no matter if they are European or not.

Yes they have blue/green eyes and indeed fair skin and hair but they are racial MUDS! You can see without problem the Dravidian racial features.

If they have Dravidian features they cant be Nordindid, even Indids are different from Indomelanids, Weddids and other tribal racial types, which represent the pre-Aryan AND probably even pre-Dravidian times.
So "Dravidian" means today something else (ethnic-linguistic-culturual) than in the past.
Better say Weddid, which is true in general, because most people from pre-Aryan Harappa were already people like in the Middle East or Indid and mixed, pure Weddids were a minority.

When you look on Iranians you see a pure Caucasoid human also when they haven`t fair hairs. I think pigmentation is not so important like real race relation.

Most Iranians are Europid/Caucasoid, but what has this to do with being Aryan? Culturally they are, but by race can only Nordids, Nordindids and Northern Mediterranid types be.

I read some where that the original Slavs come from India?

No, the Slavs are related to "Aryans"-Iranians which were the forbears of the Indoiranians, therefore its more the other way around that "Satem speakers related to Slavs" came to India and brouth the "Aryan" culture.

Upper caste Indians are genetically more related to Eastern Europeans and the rests of Central Asian IE than the rest of the population which might be a clear indication.

I don`t know if this is true but my it is, this would declare why some pure Dravians have so many Slavic blood and have a near bone shape!

Dravian = Dravidian? Dravidians have nothing to do with Slavs and Aryans.

BTW on wide plains it was much easier for the chariot-horse using Aryans to conquer land, so in flat lands they needed to much people to defeat local groups if they were not really good organized.

The Mitanni are another example of their success and so today Aryan language speakers must not have too much Aryan blood.

Even more so if you look at how big/dense the population of the Aryan-Iranian groups was f.e. in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, especially of the herdsmen.
There were not enough people for a complete repopulation of already dense populated areas.
They probably could have killed the locals, but they wanted them as workers which should bring them what they as herdsmen didnt produced.
So especially in the regions of Iran which were already densely populated by peasants, we might expect not a big "Aryan impact".

Only in the East (Persis) they Aryan, especially Persian settling was stronger although even their Elamits (which were probably related to the Dravidians) were most likely the big majority...

Kurds and Meder came in regions already very densely populated by Armenids and Iranids. Not to speak about later immigration waves from other non-Aryan people.

[Shapur]

First of all I didnt spoke about IE in general but in the narrower sense = Aryan = Indoiranian.

Their dominant type was and is in their core area from early times on Nordindid which is a fully Europid variant.



By their language and culture they are more or less "Aryan" in the narrower sense = Indoiranian.




Whereas you can see the relation between Nordids and Nordindids, there is no relation between Nordids and Armenids. So it might be possible to explain the Nordindid type as a mix of related Nordid-Mediterranoid individuals mixing with Armenids, that might be not the case, but at least possible.

But Armenids on the other hand have no direct relation to the European IE types, not genetically nor morphologically, whereas the Nordindids have a position between Europeans (Nordids and Atlantids in special) and the Armenid-Orientalid-Indid mix of Northwestern India-Iran.




Those people which conquered India might have been already mixed and mostly of the Nordindid type, probably with Nordid admixture.
So Nordindid is for the whole region the "Aryan" type in the narrower sense, no matter if they are European or not.




If they have Dravidian features they cant be Nordindid, even Indids are different from Indomelanids, Weddids and other tribal racial types, which represent the pre-Aryan AND probably even pre-Dravidian times.
So "Dravidian" means today something else (ethnic-linguistic-culturual) than in the past.
Better say Weddid, which is true in general, because most people from pre-Aryan Harappa were already people like in the Middle East or Indid and mixed, pure Weddids were a minority.




Most Iranians are Europid/Caucasoid, but what has this to do with being Aryan? Culturally they are, but by race can only Nordids, Nordindids and Northern Mediterranid types be.





No, the Slavs are related to "Aryans"-Iranians which were the forbears of the Indoiranians, therefore its more the other way around that "Satem speakers related to Slavs" came to India and brouth the "Aryan" culture.

Upper caste Indians are genetically more related to Eastern Europeans and the rests of Central Asian IE than the rest of the population which might be a clear indication.




Dravian = Dravidian? Dravidians have nothing to do with Slavs and Aryans.

BTW on wide plains it was much easier for the chariot-horse using Aryans to conquer land, so in flat lands they needed to much people to defeat local groups if they were not really good organized.

The Mitanni are another example of their success and so today Aryan language speakers must not have too much Aryan blood.

Even more so if you look at how big/dense the population of the Aryan-Iranian groups was f.e. in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, especially of the herdsmen.
There were not enough people for a complete repopulation of already dense populated areas.
They probably could have killed the locals, but they wanted them as workers which should bring them what they as herdsmen didnt produced.
So especially in the regions of Iran which were already densely populated by peasants, we might expect not a big "Aryan impact".

Only in the East (Persis) they Aryan, especially Persian settling was stronger although even their Elamits (which were probably related to the Dravidians) were most likely the big majority...

Kurds and Meder came in regions already very densely populated by Armenids and Iranids. Not to speak about later immigration waves from other non-Aryan people.

My friend about what you are speaking has NO genetical evidence.
Your problem is that you read some german books of the years 1933-1945.
To say the Nordid racetype was the original Aryan or PIE racetype has no genetical or other evidences. Say me why should the Nordid racetype be the original Aryan/PIE racetype? The people who are today Nordid speak a language which was developed for 2900 years! If you want to know who were the first Aryans or the PIE nation you must look which culture of IEs is the oldest.
I can say 5 cultures. Iranians"including Indians", Greeks/armenians, Anatolian, Tocharians, Romanians. These 5 are the oldest IE cultures. So when for 8700 years the black haired Greeks spoke an IE language the nordish people in northern Europea didn`t. This is the reality.
Also to say the origin place was somewhere deep in the north is non-sense.
I read serval times the Avesta. And everytime it said the origin is by Vanguhi Daitya! So Airyana Vaeja is by the Aras where we can find the oldest IE cultures. The Anatolians, the Indo-Iranians, the Greek/Armenians and also the Tocharians! When we compare this with actual genetic studies and the Anatolia theory which mean the spread of IE by agriculture from Anatolia we have an other view. Look there were so many language groups.
Only few survived like the Basque language. We can today say that it is more realistc that the PIEs expand by a peacefull way and not warlike.
Later the Indo-Iranians expand by a warfull way this is the true.

So please explain me on which you base your theory?

[Agrippa]

My friend about what you are speaking has NO genetical evidence.
Your problem is that you read some german books of the years 1933-1945.

How do you know? Well, thats just not true but I dont want to discuss that point with you.

To say the Nordid racetype was the original Aryan or PIE racetype has no genetical or other evidences.

Did I say the original PIE racetype (if there even was a single one related to still existing types) was Nordid? No.

At certain stages and in certain regions different types may have spread the IE languages. The main candidates are Nordids, Mediterranids, Dinaroids and Nordindids.

Say me why should the Nordid racetype be the original Aryan/PIE racetype?

Forget PIE, thats an unsolved problem. If we speak about Aryans, they are Iranians = people which had their centres in Southern Russia and Central Asia.

Types in their graves were mostly Nordid-Cromagnid, just compare early Tarim base findings and Iranian graves in their mainlands, f.e. Kurgans in Southern Russia.

The people who are today Nordid speak a language which was developed for 2900 years!

That is not for sure but thats not the point anyway. You confused Nordid with "Northern European" or Germanic, but that was not what I said.

If you want to know who were the first Aryans or the PIE nation you must look which culture of IEs is the oldest.

Well, to know which was the oldest you should first know how old the others were, but if you dont have a written history it doesnt mean that they had no older IE culture, or would you disagree?

I can say 5 cultures. Iranians"including Indians", Greeks/armenians, Anatolian, Tocharians, Romanians. These 5 are the oldest IE cultures.

Sorry, thats total nonsence. The oldest well known culture was that of the Hethiters (maybe you meant them with Anatolian), but just because it was the first IE culture in the light of history, it doesnt mean that it does represent the "original IE culture".

Or were the mixed Babylonians more "Semitic" than the following waves of pure Semits, just because their was a better historical record about them?

For sure not.

Probably, and thats the most likely variant, the Hethiter were just part of one of the first waves of IE which left their homeland to occupy and settle in new territories, were they mixed with local peasantry.

So when for 8700 years the black haired Greeks spoke an IE language the nordish people in northern Europea didn`t.

8700? This would mean 6700 years B.C., for this time you dont know anything about a language or ethnic group, and there were non-IE groups in the Greek-Anatolian region mentioned in later times as well, whereas there is a clear prove that THE REAL GREEKS (Greekspeaking people) came as Dorians, Achaeans etc. much later.

So no matter if IE were present before them, what is quite unlikely if you look at linear A and the Minoan culture, but possible, the Greekspeaking IE came much later in time when in Northern Europe IE culture was most likely established as well.

This is the reality.
Also to say the origin place was somewhere deep in the north is non-sense.

Well, were the Neolithic farmers the first, the PIE, and the battle-axe-herdsmen later just secondary IE, or were hunter-gatherers of the North the first, turned with contact to neolithic farmers into herdsmen und spread the language?

I dont know it for sure.

No matter how it was, this herdsmen spread the "Aryan language and culture" to Iran and India, thats for sure.

What is for you deep in the North?

If Southern Russia and Central Asia is deep in the North then the "Aryans in the narrower sense", the forebearers of Indoiranian cultures were from the "deep North".

I read serval times the Avesta. And everytime it said the origin is by Vanguhi Daitya! So Airyana Vaeja is by the Aras where we can find the oldest IE cultures. The Anatolians, the Indo-Iranians, the Greek/Armenians and also the Tocharians! When we compare this with actual genetic studies and the Anatolia theory which mean the spread of IE by agriculture from Anatolia we have an other view. Look there were so many language groups.

Yes, PIE might have been farmers, but that doesnt tangent the Indoiranian story too much, like I explained.

Only few survived like the Basque language. We can today say that it is more realistc that the PIEs expand by a peacefull way and not warlike.

If you consider a spreading of farmers as something peaceful which might not be the case.

There were for sure fights between farmers and secondary farmers and hunter-gatherers, thats quite obvious.

Farmers werent always that peaceful, and for sure not if h-g would have stolen food or animals like they did oftentimes. Just look at the Aborigines and (Amer-) Indians etc.

Later the Indo-Iranians expand by a warfull way this is the true.

Yes, and they came from Ukraine-Southern Russia-Central Asia and their dominant type was Nordid (or Northern more robust Mediterranid like you want) + Cromagnid, in the peasantry which was not directly related to the Aryan upper class Dinaroid/Pamirid especially in Central Asia.

So please explain me on which you base your theory?

I hope I did. PIE have not too much to do with the later story and IE in Iran-India because the Aryans were herdsmen from the North, no matter who were the first speakers of IE.

[Rahul]

At that time their were many Aryan movements (Aryan in the narrower sense = Indoiranian) East, West and South.
So this happened in a special context with centres from which this migrations waves were coming from.

Indo-Iranian is hollow for Aryan when the Puru Bards of the Rig Veda called Pakhtoons other than themselves, they saw them as another people and it is I suspect that modern Pakhtoons, whether they are in Khowar, Wazerestan, Parachinar or Herat or wherever in Pakhtoonkhwa, they have always been a race different from what must have been an Aryan presence, in racial terms, with respect only to the Rig Vedic People. Baltis, Northern Kashmiris, Kashmiris west of the Pir Panjal in Poonchh region, Native Potoharis etc live in the frontier region of the Pakhtoonkhwa and have a linguistic relationship with the Irano-Afghanis. But that is all for the evidence in its favour.

These Kashmiri variants are slightly distinct from Afghanis. SOme Kashmiris actually believe that they are Afghanis. Such an example are the Ghazis of the Valley and Sudhans of West Kashmir Hills.

The statement that there were many movements at that time is mostly meant to construe a conclusion that there was a migration/invasion of the Kurgans/Aryans from the North. I said it is mostly mean to provide a basis for a movement.

Afaik there was a change of material culture, horses came and new types of weapons, of course this changes are especially in this climate not always good to preserve, but on the other hand their are evidences for such an migration, but no for migrations waves from India to Southern Russia/Ukraine f.e.

Pirak or the Bactria?

What are you referring to? Can you provide some more reference to the sources you have chosen?

Do you know the climate? Or you are thinking of the usual Indian Hot Tropical climate?

The climate of this frontier is one of the most archaeology friendly climates in the region. Till this date we have evidence of Shiva worship by Kashmiris in Mansehra. The evidence goes back to the period of King Ashoka before he embraced Buddhism and some more years before him, some evidence is from the period even before Alexander.

To my knowledge, there is no credible evidence of any migrations to or from this region into Southern Russia/Kurgan region.

There is only this linguistic connection which is blown out of proportion.

The Nordindid type (most Pashtu) are primarily Nordindid which is the typical variant of Aryans of later times. Maybe its a mixture of Iranid with Nordid or must a similar type like Nordids/Atlantids which developed their on its own.

But this type, even in India typical for real Aryans and more typical for the upper castes, cannot be considered as being "Semitic" in any way, because typical Semitic are Orientalids of the Arabid branch which you may mind from time to time but explicitly in the Pashtus not more often than in the Beluchi or other groups of the region.

Pakhtoons might have been common to a possible Indo-Iranian Stock. But there is absolutely no evidence, because the Genetic evidence which we have points to a Semitic-North Afrikan origin of the Pakhtoons. I will speak of my source later.

The Matrilineal lineage could be related to the Potohari-Kashmiri stock though. And this is not highly Asiatic which sets it apart from the rest of the Indian Subcontinent. And the South Asian race oft erroneously called Dravidian is not one but many different people who have ancestry common to the Asiatics and not Africans or west Eurasians/Russians-Ukranians.

Furthermore the Iranid branch of the Orientalid type seems to be rather autochthon and was there even before the Aryans and Arabs, at least in the West (Western Pakistan, Iran)

A typical Nordindid, defined by Coon as Irano-Afghan and two Indian models which approximate, although mixed this type which is quite strong in Pashtus, Punjabis-Sikhs and upper caste people from Northern India.

I am not sure which population group you speak of as Iranid-Orientalid prevalent even before Aryans and Arabs!

Pashoons have Turkic, Tadjik, Armenian, Egyptian and Arab ancestry other than Northern Potohari and Kashmiri.

Kashmiris and Potoharis are rather distinct because they were geographically isolated from the rest of South Asian developments.

One of Punjabi castes are probably Armenoid-Greek. Genetically they are akin to the UP Brahmins and Dalits of Punjab.

Jatts I have no info on. They have been agrarian and that explains their tall heights. But there are more Jatt Sikhs who have possible Middle Eastern origins. Some are quite dark and flat-nosed too. Genetically I sense their stock might be related to the Gypsies. Notwithstanding the ideals of Sikh religion, Jatt sikhs still believe in the caste system although they ridicule Hindus quite a lot over this burden. Funny bit of hypocrisy there.

Sikhs look like Nordindids not because their proper ancestry is Nordindid, but rather owing to the violation of their camp-women mothers by invaders from the North, all sorts including Tocharis, Huns, Mongols, Arabs and Turks, and now later the Afghans.

A lot of Jatt Sikh girls fancy Pakhtoons because of their characters which they are unable to find in their own men. I have heard of a lot of cases where they become Muslims to have them as husbands.

They have no sense of blood and ethics and soil. But Pakhtoons stand out from them in this regard. Sometime back the temporal head of the Sikhs killed her own daughter who married another against her wishes. This is the Sikh sort.

In short, I think this Aryan Migration/Invasion should be explained with sincerity, beyond imaginary isoglosses of languages which have percieved similarities, only for a set of ideologues.

A lot of these invasionist europeans should really think again. It might be that Pre-IE Europeans mothers had been planted with seeds of Aryans by invaders coming from the east, east of Urals, might have been even east of Kurgan!

Calling populations Celtic-Italic is also a part of an erroneous tradition.

Celts, as they really were, may not have anything at all in common with these mothers who bore children for them who became forefathers of some of the Modern Europeans. Others were Mongols, Hamitic Afro-Asiatics, and some Finn and Lapp.

[Rahul]

Shapur has a very good argument.

The IE as we know them today originated in Anatolia-Turkey.

Those who carried linguistic influence into Europe were locked in a primeval struggle with the European Pre-IE stock. That is how we find Finns using the word Orja(which cognates with Arya-Noble) for a slave.

And Fenris, the cannibal Pre-IE European population's representative biting off the hand of an Aryan God-Thorburn.

Makes entire sense.