DNA will best solve if IndoEuropeans were a major part of the IndusValley Civilization at its climax

[Rakovsky]

Hindu gods like Indra and Dyaus Pita match IndoEuropean gods, while others like Krishna are unique to the Indian subcontinent. R1b and R1a DNA are found in Europe and Asia, but R1b is not found to a major extent in India. Also in the Vedas we read about the conflict between the victorius IndoEuropean deities and local demons like Mahisha Ashura. So I think that the Indo-European homeland is outside India, that is, they came to India from the north. Even Indian Vedas talk about the Aryans coming from the north.

However, when exactly that happened is more uncertain. I have seen educated intelligent arguments as to whether they came before or after the height of the Indus Valley civilization. Being familiar elementarily with the arguments for and against the idea that they came during the Indus civilization's time, I believe that only DNA tests of many skeletons from the height of the Indus civilization, 3100-2500 BC, will give a clear picture of this. I kindly ask that those of you with connections in Pakistan and India encourage such tests.

Here, feel free to list in a short, concise way a few of the main reasons you find in favor or against the theory that they were part of this society.

Let me start:

One reason given that the Indus are not considered Aryan is that Aryans are associated with horses. However, I know that Indo-Europeans could come in multiple ways, and I am skeptical that Indo-Europeans are always associated with horses in the prehistoric period of migrations. I don't know if that can be said of the Minoans, the Tocharians, the Kelts, and everyone else in 6000-3000 BC who was IndoEuropean.

A reason those who see the Indus as Aryan give is that the Saraswati is in the Vedas. However, this could only mean that the Aryans arrived before it dried up sometime in 2200-1500 BC, not that they were a major part of the society at its build up and height in 5000-2400 BC. Alternately, the Dravidian pre-aryans could have kept the memory of the Saraswati alive and then the Saraswati stories got pulled into the Aryan Vedas when the Aryans arrived and took in local Dravidian mythology, culture, and religion.

As you can see, there are lots of arguments and counterarguments that can be made forever. This is why I want DNA tests done to clear things up.

 

[George-ananda]

This is why I want DNA tests done to clear things up.

I would have to look into this as I cannot believe there are not experts that have weighed in on the existing DNA evidence. I'm a bit curious now myself

 

[Vinayaka]

I would have to look into this as I cannot believe there are not experts that have weighed in on the existing DNA evidence. I'm a bit curious now myself

Many have, George. Many have. Just do a google search on Aryan Invasion Myth, and you can be reading for a few hours.

 

[George-ananda]

Many have, George. Many have. Just do a google search on Aryan Invasion Myth, and you can be reading for a few hours.

Including the DNA evidence? I would think so.

 

[Jainarayan]

Here's my theory. Can I prove it? No. Is it crack-pot and off the wall? Probably.

• Humans have been indigenous to India for 100,000 years, probably migrating from the "southern route".
• There was no major, or even minor "invasion" and displacement of the indigenous Indians.
• So how did an Indo-European language and culture get such a foothold? It happens today. All it takes is a small group with new ways to influence a larger group. It may seem prestigious and novel to imitate them and adopt their ways. How much of America is fascinated with Italian food, fashion and culture? It's part of American culture now. And that took less than 150 years.
• That Dravidian languages and cultures still exist tells me that there was no displacement, but rather, a mixing. Both language families borrowed from each other.

I don't think it's an either-or situation, and is more complicated and intricate than people think.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't think it's an either-or situation, and is more complicated and intricate than people think.

The Harappan civilisation is just the oldest one archeologists have discovered TO DATE. There will be more to come. There always is. I don't get the fascination personally. The fact of the matter is the Guru lineages that have survived have brought down through the ages all the knowledge we need for moksha. After that, there is nothing left. You don't see sages and Satgurus arguing about the AIM.

 

[Jainarayan]

I also don't understand the fascination, except that it may have to do with national and cultural identity. Humans get around, no nation on Earth is "pure" anything.

 

[Vinayaka]

I always think of it in general terms, and just as one example of what goes on. So for me its just a case study of bigger things, principles that apply to life. There are lots of historical theories that come and go, evolve, get changed, etc. That process takes time, just as the introduction of technology takes time, and some people were hesitant to change. I've observed an old farmer who wouldn't get a telephone, people who bought cars based on loyalty, not on irrefutable evidence that it was the best car. So for me it becomes another self-reflective exercise which involves asking, "Am I that stuck in my ways that I can't remold the subconscious to better reflect the world as it is?"

I remember Granny from the Beverley Hillbillies, stuck on who actually won the American Civil War. So it's like that.

But yes, some people do have what they feel is a vested interest in this particular debate. Sad to say it still boils down to east/west paradigm divide, and also in India itself, North/South animosity. At least that's what I think, not that what I think means anything.

 

[Rakovsky]

I would have to look into this as I cannot believe there are not experts that have weighed in on the existing DNA evidence. I'm a bit curious now myself

There are many scholars who reach opposite conclusions based on the DNA of current Hindustani peoples. Iin the last 10 years, Stanford and Harvard studies that I have read sound quite educated and intelligent yet reach opposite conclusions on this very question. The Stanford study says that variations in microsatellites show enough change that the populations mixed at such a long ago time period that the Cordaux genetic study must be wrong when the 2004 Cordaux study says that the populations mixed at a recent time. The Harvard study is a third one that proposes that the population mix is post-Harappan.

This is why I said in my OP: "I believe that only DNA tests of many skeletons from the height of the Indus civilization, 3100-2500 BC, will give a clear picture of this."

There have been Zero successful tests of DNA remains from the Indus civilization to show directly what haplogroups the Indus people belonged to.

All we know is that today the population of Pakistan is 37% R1A, with the remainder being mostly J, R2, and L. J is associated with the Middle East, while R2 and L are associated with Dravidians. And then based on tests of the current population who are living at the current moment, educated mainstream scholars make conflicting proposals about when that mix must have come together - whether it was 1500 BC (end of Harappa) or before.

 

[Rakovsky]

The Harappan civilisation is just the oldest one archeologists have discovered TO DATE. There will be more to come. There always is.

I don't think any civilization has been discovered that predates Egyptian civilization of 3300 BC, unless we stretch the definition of "civilization" to include anything with farming, villages and pictographs.

I don't think we are going to find anything on earth much more advanced than Egyptian existing before 3500 BC, although I am fine with being wrong. There are of course the urban myths about subterranean aliens.

You don't see sages and Satgurus arguing about the AIM.

What is the "AIM"?

Maybe they are not approaching the question from the angle of what civilization has been around for thousands of years, and are just accepting the religion they have chosen without going into modern academical Comparative Theology.

 

[Rakovsky]

I also don't understand the fascination, except that it may have to do with national and cultural identity. Humans get around, no nation on Earth is "pure" anything.

Well, in my case I am interested in the oldest theological systematic beliefs about God. So Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Indus beliefs are interesting for me here, because they were already civilizations in 3500-1500 BC.

Other people are not so interested in an historical approach. They just wanted to compare ideas at a purely philosophical level.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For me, it is interesting hisotry. I am a history buff more than a God buff.

Also in the Vedas we read about the conflict between the victorius IndoEuropean deities and local demons like Mahisha Ashura. So I think that the Indo-European homeland is outside India, that is, they came to India from the north. Even Indian Vedas talk about the Aryans coming from the north.

Not correct. Most Aryan Gods were relegated to secondary position including their chief God, Indra. Local demons are not that important and even in that ase the Hindu God/Goddess Mahesha/Durga came out winners. Aryans (fewer) merged into Hinduism (more numerous) and not the other way round. Vedas perhaps say that Aryans came not just from North but from far North.

 

[Kirran]

Genetics aren't really a major decider here, as it's culture and language that's under discussion.

 

[Rakovsky]

Genetics aren't really a major decider here, as it's culture and language that's under discussion.

LanGuage is under discussion, but we can't time travel to india to know this directly. But we can do dna tests on corpses to tell their haplogroup and we know r1a is associated with east Slavic and indo Iranian languages. If there is zero r1a dna at harappa, they must not have been speaking sanskrit.

 

[Quagmire]

***Thread Moved to Historical Debates***​

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I also don't understand the fascination, except that it may have to do with national and cultural identity. Humans get around, no nation on Earth is "pure" anything.

It's a race thing that some types have been fascinated with since the 19th century. When someone brings it up, I think of the Nazis, honestly.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

LanGuage is under discussion, but we can't time travel to india to know this directly. But we can do dna tests on corpses to tell their haplogroup and we know r1a is associated with east Slavic and indo Iranian languages. If there is zero r1a dna at harappa, they must not have been speaking sanskrit.

Pl lay out evidence of r1a.

 

[metis]

Hindu gods like Indra and Dyaus Pita match IndoEuropean gods, while others like Krishna are unique to the Indian subcontinent. R1b and R1a DNA are found in Europe and Asia, but R1b is not found to a major extent in India. Also in the Vedas we read about the conflict between the victorius IndoEuropean deities and local demons like Mahisha Ashura. So I think that the Indo-European homeland is outside India, that is, they came to India from the north. Even Indian Vedas talk about the Aryans coming from the north.

However, when exactly that happened is more uncertain. I have seen educated intelligent arguments as to whether they came before or after the height of the Indus Valley civilization. Being familiar elementarily with the arguments for and against the idea that they came during the Indus civilization's time, I believe that only DNA tests of many skeletons from the height of the Indus civilization, 3100-2500 BC, will give a clear picture of this. I kindly ask that those of you with connections in Pakistan and India encourage such tests.

Here, feel free to list in a short, concise way a few of the main reasons you find in favor or against the theory that they were part of this society.

Let me start:

One reason given that the Indus are not considered Aryan is that Aryans are associated with horses. However, I know that Indo-Europeans could come in multiple ways, and I am skeptical that Indo-Europeans are always associated with horses in the prehistoric period of migrations. I don't know if that can be said of the Minoans, the Tocharians, the Kelts, and everyone else in 6000-3000 BC who was IndoEuropean.

A reason those who see the Indus as Aryan give is that the Saraswati is in the Vedas. However, this could only mean that the Aryans arrived before it dried up sometime in 2200-1500 BC, not that they were a major part of the society at its build up and height in 5000-2400 BC. Alternately, the Dravidian pre-aryans could have kept the memory of the Saraswati alive and then the Saraswati stories got pulled into the Aryan Vedas when the Aryans arrived and took in local Dravidian mythology, culture, and religion.

As you can see, there are lots of arguments and counterarguments that can be made forever. This is why I want DNA tests done to clear things up.

My father's early ancestry traces back to that region as I just found out a few months ago on 23 and Me.

Gotta go, but I'll try and catch up on this thread later, so thanks for posting this.

 

[metis]

Hindu gods like Indra and Dyaus Pita match IndoEuropean gods, while others like Krishna are unique to the Indian subcontinent. R1b and R1a DNA are found in Europe and Asia, but R1b is not found to a major extent in India. Also in the Vedas we read about the conflict between the victorius IndoEuropean deities and local demons like Mahisha Ashura. So I think that the Indo-European homeland is outside India, that is, they came to India from the north. Even Indian Vedas talk about the Aryans coming from the north.

However, when exactly that happened is more uncertain. I have seen educated intelligent arguments as to whether they came before or after the height of the Indus Valley civilization. Being familiar elementarily with the arguments for and against the idea that they came during the Indus civilization's time, I believe that only DNA tests of many skeletons from the height of the Indus civilization, 3100-2500 BC, will give a clear picture of this. I kindly ask that those of you with connections in Pakistan and India encourage such tests.

Here, feel free to list in a short, concise way a few of the main reasons you find in favor or against the theory that they were part of this society.

Let me start:

One reason given that the Indus are not considered Aryan is that Aryans are associated with horses. However, I know that Indo-Europeans could come in multiple ways, and I am skeptical that Indo-Europeans are always associated with horses in the prehistoric period of migrations. I don't know if that can be said of the Minoans, the Tocharians, the Kelts, and everyone else in 6000-3000 BC who was IndoEuropean.

A reason those who see the Indus as Aryan give is that the Saraswati is in the Vedas. However, this could only mean that the Aryans arrived before it dried up sometime in 2200-1500 BC, not that they were a major part of the society at its build up and height in 5000-2400 BC. Alternately, the Dravidian pre-aryans could have kept the memory of the Saraswati alive and then the Saraswati stories got pulled into the Aryan Vedas when the Aryans arrived and took in local Dravidian mythology, culture, and religion.

As you can see, there are lots of arguments and counterarguments that can be made forever. This is why I want DNA tests done to clear things up.

My father's early ancestry traces back to that region as I just found out a few months ago on 23 and Me.

Gotta go, but I'll try and catch up on this thread later, so thanks for posting this.

 

[River Sea]

R-M124. That's what Hebrews has, right?
What are your thoughts about R-M124?

@metis So you have R1b and R1a DNA, or, please clarify, as I'm new to this: What about R-M124, do you have that? You were explaining that your father's earlier ancestry traces back to that region.