The Aryan Invasion Theory

Is it actually true? I see Indian nationalists decry it as this racist conspiracy and Varg tier stormfags use it to explain how whites created every civilization on earth.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa#Examples_by_language_family
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Scandinavians also have autistic meltdowns about the idea that they might descend from a bunch of rapists from Ukraine.

Its true

the aryans weren't white, more like iranians

Nope they had nothing to do with Iranians. They came from the forest-steppe of Russia.

I'm not sure. But I understand ancient Hindus valley culture was destroyed by others and it's not the same as later Vedic civilisation(The India culture we see today), they don't even share same writing system. The caste system is created by Vedas.

IndoEuros certainly did. The actual Aryans were just one group. It probably wasn't them, specifically

No they came from Ukraine, mongrol russian trash

How else do you explain the fact that the Indo-Aryan languages are related to the European languages and completely unrelated to the Dravidian languages?

>Ukraine
>Russia

Same thing.
They did however set up base in the Urals and Kazakhstan centuries before they migrated down to India.

No, it's complete bullshit. Europeans are incapable of creating civilization, let alone create ancient scriptures such as the Vedas and Mahabharata.

Oh look, it's this meme again. How about you actually take the time to learn a Dravidian language instead of reading bullshit on the internet?

Not the same thing you russian mutt

i'll try to get some actual information out here before the yelling guy comes to ruin the thread.

Nowadays it usually isn't called the Aryan "invasion" any more but rather the Aryan migrations, because it likely wasn't a mass military invasion. It has essentially been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Aryans migrated into india bringing with them the Sanskrit language, which is related to other indo-european languages and shows many similarities especially with the older attested varieties like latin or ancient greek. This language eventually developed into the modern indo-aryan languages. besides the linguistic evidence there is also archeological evidence and cultural continuities that connect the steppe homeland of the aryan peoples to later cultures and settlements in india. one example would be remains of vedic horse sacrifices found on the steppes mirroring descriptions found in the indian vedic texts. Also if you read the vedas (the oldest sanskrit texts) you will find that they were clearly written by a steppe culture with nomadic herder roots. there are tons of references to cattle and horses and the spoked-wheel chariots that were likely invented by the aryans.

The reason why hindu nationalists hate this fact and why white nationalists love it, is that both of these groups misunderstand the implications.

cont.

Dravidian languages are not related to IE languages, in any way.
Dravidian languages are thought to have been brought to the subcontinent from Iran during the Neolithic.

A multi-century linguistic consensus isn't a meme just because you're butt-chafed over it.

Look at the map
Iranian specifically called themselves 'Aryan' in their old dialect (proto Persian, old Persian, Parthian, Avestan)

Artificial borders don't mean anything.

So? Black people call themselves Brits these days. Original Aryans moved to both Iran and India from the Caspian steppe.

>literally words that have nothing in common with each other in terms of pronunciation

Congratulations, you just played yourself. If the spread of language happened, then it was because people had to communicate to trade, wage war, etc with each other. It doesn't mean you have to we wuz and shiet nor does it indicate people themselves made a permanent migration. Do the African descendants of America have anything to do with Europeans because they speak a European language?

>A multi-century linguistic consensus
Initially conducted by who?

I thought that the Aryan migrations were pretty much universally accepted.

>Dravidian languages are not related to IE languages, in any way.

Oh look, it's this meme again. Do you not know how to read in your own language, let alone interpret Dravidian languages?

It would be more politically convenient for both leftists and Indians if it wasn't true and that Indo-Europeans actually originated in India and conquered their way to Europe.

cont.
hindu nationalists think that (evil, racist, western) scientists are trying to tell them their culture was made by europeans and that the "native indians" contributed nothing. of course this presupposes an essentialist view of culture in which a certain "nation" has some sort of an unchangeable core identity and that the "indian nation" is to be identified with the people who lived in india since the beginning of time. cultural exchanges and mutual influencing isn't something that these people can accept into their world view. it's either Completely Indian Since The Beginning Of Time or Not Indian At All. Therefore they also reject the part of their history in which islamic dynasties ruled over them and pretend that it didn't influence indian culture at all.
importantly though, what they don't understand is that what is meant by "aryan migration" is not that white europeans brought civilization to europe. it means that a group of steppe nomads that really wasn't "european" in the usual sense at all migrated to india and had a significant influence on indian cultural traditions thereafter most significantly in the areas of language and religion. parts of the same wider cultural-linguistic grouping had earlier expanded into europe, though not as much by migration but more by cultural transfusion, but that is really the only connection to europe. Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't Europeans and Aryans even less so because they never were in Europe at any point.

This point is misunderstood by white nationalists in the same way which is why they love the theory. they also often misuse the term Aryan which correctly should only be applied to indo-iranians who, as i said, were not European at all.

universally =/= eurocentric

Why would you rule out the possibility for the sake of "politically convenience"? Pic related.

>what is the comparative method
>"languages spread by war, not invasion"
>the fact that non-Europeans speak European languages somehow disproves that Sanskrit is very clearly related to other Indo-European languages
They are, the OP is pants-on-head retarded. This is up there with flat-earthism, evolution denial, etc.

>brought civilization to europe
sorry that was supposed to say "brought civilization to india"

Cite a source, literally any fucking reputable academic source, that claims that Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages are related.

>>"languages spread by war, not invasion"
>>the fact that non-Europeans speak European languages somehow disproves that Sanskrit is very clearly related to other Indo-European languages

Literally had nothing to do with I said, but okay. Keep distorting messages to make it feel good for we wuzing.

And people from those region were part of larger Iranic people

Not really "destroyed", see this:
The Aryan migrations were pretty interesting for this point in time because they didn't totally supplant the native culture and religions. The strong systems that grew forth was derived from a union with parts from each. Just looking at the Hindu religion, Shiva was worshipped by local Indus Valley peoples, whereas Vishnu came from the Aryan faith. Nowadays they are of course two of the most important characters in the pantheon.

The northern Indian historic societies were a fusion. There was a lot of Aryan factors because they were the rulers for some time, but the initial civilization and foundations there were quite strong before the Aryans arrived.

>le academic source
>critical thinking and having a mind of your own is invalid

Again, why won't you learn the languages yourself and come up with your own conclusion? Classic case of the blind leading the blind.

Try again, we wuzer.

They were genetically european and let us not kid our selves here but europeans are the superior people on this planet.

Originally Indo-Iranians were just an extension of European people. Iran is just one place they conquered.

>"you didn't quote me word-for-word, ergo your argument is wrong"
>hypocritically accuses others of wewuzzing while wewuzzing

Literally kill yourself, you waste of oxygen.

Original Europeans weren't IE niggers.

>critical thinking and having a mind of your own is invalid
Please show some examples that you have personally found then demonstrating relationships between Dravidian and Indo-European languages. Since you seem to have quite proudly reached this conclusion on your own, you must obviously have some solid evidence.

>europeans are the biggest exploiters and opportunist on this planet.

Fix'd that for you.

>"me sitting around 'critically thinking' (aka confirming my own biases) is superior to people who've dedicated their lives to studying the issues"

Not an argument. Try again, we wuzing.

Second sentence should say, "were derived".

Just wanted to add that trying to assign sole responsibility and credit for the achievements of this area to one ethnic group is just as stupid as trying to tie modern India to just Britain. Obviously there were significant things brought to India by the British, but the culture is obviously still "Indian" as well.

Europe ends at the Ural mountains and the IE homeland was to the west and south of them.

>I'm going to waste time constructing something just so you can refute it because you are too attached to eurocentric "academia"

Maybe a little later after I eat.

I like how this asshole started with a legitimate question and only went full retard after people started responding. This was good bait.

Still saged and reported, though.

>>"me sitting around 'critically thinking' (aka confirming my own biases) is superior to people who've dedicated their lives to studying the issues"

>studying something their entire life cannot be disproved because they were too fixed on learning information from someone who initially had a false interpretation.

nice meme

this is incorrect and this fallacy is what gets everyone so agitated about this topic.

just accept that this is wrong and aryan migrations are right. not only is that the truth but also everyone can be happy with it.

>theories are facts

>the entire academic consensus of two centuries had a false interpretation, but my googling does not

Nice meme, wewuzzer.

What, I'm not saying you're wrong. If you've found some legitimate links I'd be thrilled to see them, that'd be a massive find in linguistics and bridge the gap between the two largest language families in one of the most populous regions on Earth.

why is it eurocentric to say that sanskrit is indo-european and dravidian is not?

indo-european DOES NOT mean european

What are you on about?
Andronovo and Sintashta were very closely related to Northern Europeans. They had the same set of ancestors.

>learning a language since a young age came from google

Try again, we wuzism.

Sanskrit is not indo-European. Both Sanskrit and Dravidian languages are native to India.

There's no homogenous 'European people' at that point, what happen was the Balto-Slavs moved to the east, mixed and replaced the original Iranic Sarmatian people in Caspian steppe

Inferiority complex in action

It's amazing how these street-shitting rapists will brag about how many Indian doctors and scientists there are, but the second you mention something academic they don't like all of the sudden academia is "Eurocentric" and "racist".

Fucking Pajeet wewuzzers.

Saged.

Jelly af

Well the original Hindus valley cities really were destroyed and forgotten by locals, the ruins only have been rediscovered during 19th century. But of course it's not like saying they were just wiped out from the world, I'm sure some of them indeed are absorbed by later cultures. Just like they absorb Islam influences.

>implying you can do anything beyond using google translate and ordering at Taco Bell

Worthless wewuzzing faggot.

>Sintashta
> Allentoft et al. (2015) analysed ancient DNA recovered from remains at four Sintashta sites. The five samples analysed included the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups U2e, J1, J2 and N1a. The two male individuals both belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1.[7]
?

You know absolutely nothing about the subject. There was no "Iranic Sarmatian people" before there were Indo-Iranians, who were Europeans in every way.

Hahaha

Not an argument

>Indo-Iranians were just an extension of European people
Well not really, you may only say they have similar origins.

Phoenicians, Jews, Akkadians,Sumerians Egyptians, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, Andean and Mesoamerican cultures are not indo-european in origin. So indo-europeans are not the origin of all civilizations on earth.

Also like others said, there were elements taken from pre-IE civilizations, like the Indus valley deities, or more notably the agricultural technology of the indigenous europeans.

Yes, that's true, many cities were indeed forgotten or destroyed. I was really just focused on the ideas, government systems, religion, etc. which were all maintained and integrated to various extents.

As far as I know OP didn't really posit a specific question on the subject, so I was just pointing out that the roots of the civilization there are decidedly non-Aryan, and that the later ones have obvious (but not complete) Aryan qualities.

what does "native" mean to you?

sure, sanskrit is native to india, but an earlier form of it came from outside india. A distant ancestor of dravidian also came from outside india at some point, since humanity did not originate in india. you can of course still say that dravidian is native to india but it depends on your definition of "native". also what do you make of austro-asiatic languages of native tribes in india that are related to south east asian languages. are these also native to india in your opinion?

>claims I'm inferiority complex
>tries to feel superior by claiming another person's culture

Nice self projection

Not an argument. Try again we wuzism

Yes those guys. What about them?

Nope. More like identical origins. The founding population of Indo-Europeans was only so large so the DNA was pretty homogenic.

I think Indian culture has a lot of local character to it, easily even the majority of it.

...

>fat basement dwelling neckbeards are suddenly geneologist with PHDs

Kek. This thread is so funny.

*Eastern Europeans

>using Wikipedia as a source who in turn get their source from academia fools

Never go full retard

NW and North Europeans are essentially Eastern Europeans in exile since the bronze age.

see, that's where you're wrong. nobody's trying to claim your culture.

you should not project your feelings about today's world (that may very well be reasonable) back on history and let them distort your interpretation of historical facts.

>what about them
They are not closely related to Northern Europeans.

Yes they are. Very closely actually.

>the thread is literally about the supposed Aryan migration
>hurr durr we not tryna claim your culture at this moment. Only when it's convenient to us

Try again, we wuzism

pls respond to this mr. angry hindu nationalist

Source? These groups are almost nonexistent in modern North Europe.

>austro-asiatic languages of native tribes in india that are related to south east asian languages. are these also native to india in your opinion?

Be more specific. What language in particular are you referring to?

Read the Allentoft paper.

the ones that belong to the austro-asiatic family.

a specific example would be the munda languages like mundari, santali or korku

Prove it. I don't have time to read this whole paper.

I don't know those languages so I cannot speak on their behalf. I can only speak for Sanskrit and Dravidian languages.

I reckon it's mix ofearly hindu traders using Sanskrit and local dialect. Indonesians speak a language called bhasa it's cognate to bhasha which means speech in sanskrit.

>"learn an entire fucking language to see my side of the story"
>"a paper? I don't have time for that!"

nice meme wewuzzer

can you give examples of dravidian-sanskrit cognates?

i feel like the words you're thinking of are probably either sanskrit loans into dravidian (or possibly some of the few that went the other way around) or words that tend to be similar crosslinguistically like mama/dada/amma/atta/baba/gaga for family members due to baby talk

>baby talk

>all human babies cry the same
>this means babies originated in Europe and migrated out

This is literally your way of thinking.

>Indonesians speak a language called bhasa it's cognate to bhasha which means speech in sanskrit

that's a loanword.
loanwords are not considered evidence when we try to assign languages to families (i.e. when we try to group languages that had a common ancestor) because a word can be taken over from one language to another at any time with no regard for the origin of the language.

all babies start babbling in syllables that are easy to produce and parents in all cultures tend to identify these first syllables their child makes with themselves. if you don't believe that look at this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa#Examples_by_language_family

surely you would not claim that all of those languages are related.