Can /his/ educate me upon Aryan Invasion of India and how the subcontinent looked and what ethnicities it was made of before it?

>>17841813 (OP)
There were too few of them unfortunately, leading to the indians of today

>>17841840
Please elaborate

>>17841813 (OP)
First people here where abbos like dradivians, then iran_n who where like MENAs
Them mixing gave you the typical indian look
Then indo aryan conquerors came and mixed with them and this is why some indians are little bit lighter compared to other indians
There is also some mongoloid looking people in the hymalayas and the east

>>17841813 (OP)
>Can /his/ educate me
Doubtful

>>17841854
Please provide me with some resources if you have

>>17841813 (OP)
There's no archaeological evidences

>>17841813 (OP)
Most of the people in the Gange/Hindustan region were related strongly to the Indus Valley people, whom the Aryas had already subjugated before.
Because they were similar in customs and races to the Indus people they'd already enslaved (the Mulekhas), it probably pushed them to see them as literal subhuman just like their slave underlings and eventually led to the Aryan invasion of Hindustan.
South of India was mostly Dravidians with some very minor Austronesian holdovers. Very limited exposure to arya culture except for Ceylon, who got fucking blitzkrieged, the most vedic thing they ever embraced was either Buddhism or Shivaism.
Most of the Austronesians however were located in Central-Eastern India, which they had settled over a series of migrations over the past centuries. Aryas admixture was very limited here.
Current-day Bangladesh was populated by Tibeto-Burman people that were ventually driven either northward or eastward by the invading aryas

>>17841813 (OP)
Doesn't the lack of material evidence of the invasion seem incredible to you? There are no cultures confirmed as Vedic or even Vedic samples

>>17841871
any resources?

>>17841874
>>17841870
what about the studies from David Reich and others? What explains the variation in Haplogroups in india which are closely aligned towards some found in eastern europe and iran?

>>17841882
This doesn't explain the lack of archaeological evidence anon. My problem is exactly that, besides, with a lack of Vedic samples to trace events chronologically, things get complicated. Some models show good P values for a Scythian source.

>>17841884
Copper Hoard culture, was IE

>>17841891
Not him, but cope. Not even IE
>>17841882
He is correct, there's no archeological evidence

>>17841891
debatable
but the last time I read, there is no consensus on identification or even dating, and apparently, some resurgence of IVC settlements in post-1900 periods

>>17841894
>Nordicist
Ad hominem

>>17841882
Models failed

>>17841854
Dravidians were MENA migrants from before the Aryan invasion, not Negrito/Abbo/Papuan-like natives. Elam in modern Fars in Iran was thought to be a Dravidian polity.

>>17841894
>3000 BC
>2000 BC
Was CPH that old? What source do you have to provide? Even Wiki says it could be Vedic.

>>17841919
Whether Dravidian was native or not does not matter. Modern Indians derive most of their ancestry from AASI.

>>17841910
Yeah, a few qpAdm runs failing doesn’t mean steppe ancestry didn’t happen. That just means those specific models didn’t fit maybe bad source picks or too few populations. It happens.

RoopkundA_PallanLike isn’t even a clean source, it’s already mixed. Use Steppe_MLBA or Sintashta and the models usually pass just fine. You’re cherry picking.

Also, steppe ancestry is literally visible in the ancient DNA Swat Valley samples, rising R1a-Z93, etc. No one’s claiming there’s a Vedic guy in the dataset, but the pattern is there. The Reich lab and others already covered this.

>>17841932
They've been using the same arguments for years, literally copy-pasted arguments, it's a widespread fallacy. Furthermore, they use this 900 BC Maxjmo sample as evidence of being the Steppe source, implying that everything is refuted.

>>17841975
>Maxjmo
Swat valley

>>17841932
Let's get out of the haploautist debate, but archaeology makes everything too complex for your simplicity.
Why do you ignore archaeology?see>>17841894

>>17841984
you’re just posting Copper Hoard culture as if it debunks everything. No one’s claiming the whole subcontinent was empty before the Steppe guys showed up.

Copper Hoard ≠ Vedic culture, and dating metal tools doesn't disprove steppe migration. The archaeology and genetics both show movement into the Gangetic plain post 2000 BCE that’s when we see steppe ancestry rise, cremation spreads, and Vedic type material starts to appear.

It is not“too complex,” you’re just handwaving DNA evidence because it breaks your pet theory.

>>17841932
>No one’s claiming there’s a Vedic guy in the dataset
Maybe not, but we have some samples that could, at best, be pre-Indian Vedic peoples or, at worst, subgroups related to the Vedic peoples. In addition, the region where such samples were found is consistent with theories and archaeological sites that some say were routes to territories of the Proto-Aryan (Proto-Indo-Aryan waves) branch.
Mainly the cultures as tazabagyab and bishkent
anyway, it's a bit complicated

>>17842021
Yeah, fair I’m not denying there are proto-Indo-Aryan-related samples like from Tazabagyab, Bishkent, Andronovo, etc. That’s actually the point.

Those groups are part of the broader Steppe_MLBA horizon, and they sit right in the path between Sintashta and the northern subcontinent. So finding their traces near Swat or northwestern India lines up perfectly with early Indo-Aryan movement.

It’s not just random. By the time you hit Swat Valley Iron Age, you’re seeing steppe ancestry + cremation + cultural shifts. Vedic-like or not, the pattern fits.

>>17842003
>you’re just posting Copper Hoard culture as if it debunks everything.
How does it not refute, Troon? This culture, and especially its variations, are dated to a period relatively close to the supposed invasion, but Archaeologically, there is general continuity and there are no similarities with steppe cultures that could be the "source".
>No one’s claiming the whole subcontinent was empty before the Steppe guys showed up.
This is not the point
it's the opposite. So this is the post-steppe evidence? Or can you tell me that the Aryans were actually the ones who were assimilated?
>Copper Hoard ≠ Vedic culture, and dating metal tools doesn't disprove steppe migration.
disproves, as it shows the fragility of finding material cultures that would be Vedic, and that were postulated, ended up being post-harrapan anyway, with interrupted continuity
>The archaeology and genetics both show movement into the Gangetic plain
>archeology
the burden is yours here.
>post 2000 BCE that’s when we see steppe ancestry rise, cremation spreads, and Vedic type material starts to appear.
CHC, CHP, and OCP show no changes or new material styles, and they all present continuity.
By the way, how do you determine "Vedic" ?if we don't even know what their culture was like or what it might have been? troon

It is not“too complex,” you’re just handwaving DNA evidence because it breaks your pet theory.

>>17842032
Not him, The absence in Swat is why I hypothesized that the main entry and/or proliferation of Indo-Aryans may have been after the Bronze Age.

>>17841857
There's nothing to doubt, the answer is no.

>>17842061
You're acting like migration has to come with scorched earth and new pottery styles. That’s not how it works. People can move in, mix with locals, and still keep using old tools or adopt local ones. In-fact that was also a key aspect of steppe culture, adoption of different cultuculture as it fita. That’s literally how steppe ancestry spread gradual, male-driven, with locals.

Copper Hoard doesn’t “disprove” anything. It’s a mixed culture from the mess after the Harappan collapse. No one serious says it’s Vedic. You’re just using it as a stand in because there’s no direct “Vedic layer” in the ground like that’s surprising. Vedic people obviously didn’t leave graffiti saying “we were here.”

And yeah, post 2000 BCE we do see changes cremation starts showing up, chariot and horse stuff starts appearing, and most importantly steppe DNA shows up in actual bodies. You can’t keep ignoring that just because it breaks your headcanon of uninterrupted local continuity.

>>17842064
You’re not totally off, but the data doesn’t back that. Early Swat samples don’t show much steppe, yeah — but once you hit Iron Age Swat (~1200 BCE), it’s there. Steppe ancestry shows up, and in decent amounts.

That fits the timeline for the Vedic texts, too. The Aryans didn’t flood in and take over instantly. It was a slow drip elite males, gradual takeover, not some blitzkrieg. Which is why you see the DNA shift happening over generations, not overnight.

So nah, you don’t need to push the whole migration after Bronze Age. It’s already showing up right on cue if you actually look at the later samples.

>>17842061 #
You're acting like migration has to come with scorched earth and new pottery styles. That’s not how it works. People can move in, mix with locals, and still keep using old tools or adopt local ones. In-fact that was also a key aspect of steppe culture, adoption of different cultuculture as it fita. That’s literally how steppe ancestry spread gradual, male-driven, with locals.

Copper Hoard doesn’t “disprove” anything. It’s a mixed culture from the mess after the Harappan collapse. No one serious says it’s Vedic. You’re just using it as a stand in because there’s no direct “Vedic layer” in the ground like that’s surprising. Vedic people obviously didn’t leave graffiti saying “we were here.”

And yeah, post 2000 BCE we do see changes cremation starts showing up, chariot and horse stuff starts appearing, and most importantly steppe DNA shows up in actual bodies. You can’t keep ignoring that just because it breaks your headcanon of uninterrupted local continuity.

>>17842064 #
You’re not totally off, but the data doesn’t back that. Early Swat samples don’t show much steppe, but once you hit Iron Age Swat (~1200 BCE), it’s there. Steppe ancestry shows up, and in decent amounts.

That fits the timeline for the Vedic texts, too. The Aryans didn’t flood in and take over instantly. It was a slow drip elite males, gradual takeover, not some blitzkrieg. Which is why you see the DNA shift happening over generations, not overnight.

So nah, you don’t need to push the whole migration after Bronze Age. It’s already showing up right on cue if you actually look at the later samples.

>>17842032
>Yeah, fair I’m not denying there are proto-Indo-Aryan-related samples like from Tazabagyab, Bishkent, Andronovo, etc. That’s actually the point.
Well, that's exactly why I mentioned these cultures. There is some evidence (being as neutral and impartial as possible) that links these Fedorovo-related cultures in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as part of the Proto-Indo-Aryan horizon.
I'm bringing a more "material" perspective because I know people do mental gymnastics about this, photo related.
Although appeal-to-authority arguments are gay, Mallory himself associates these complexes with the Proto-Indo-Aryans.
And of course, such sites present evidence of pastoralism, at least as a means of subsistence, and evidence of the use of horses at these sites has also been observed. Men were buried facing their left and women facing their right, a practice similar to contemporary Indo-European cultures in the region, such as Andronovo, In addition to the use of metal similar to that of the Andronovo.
Davidski wrote a good argument for this, if you'd like to read it, but this time, focusing on genetics. Such samples could be related to the Vedic for the reasons mentioned above and because they are a good proxy.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html

Why do Indians fight the truth so hard? Is it just scamming culture?

Indians, you're just thinking about this the wrong way. It's all in your head. Nobody invaded your country. You ARE the invaders. Aryans aren't somebody else. You ARE the Aryans. White people aren't foreign. White people ARE your daddies. Nobody raped you. You ARE the rapists.

There, see? It's just a matter of perspective.

>>17842165
Finally, I would like to point out that the so-called "BMAC influences" are often exaggerated. We have no "BMAC" genetic influx in India after 1500 BC, and the IVC themselves, probably related to the Shahr-i-Sokhta samples, are not synonymous with BMAC, as some Indians claim. What links them is a more general Iranian ancestry. Returning, the most common "BMAC influences" are the fire cult or the drink soma. I could explain better, but for now, the drink is not attested among the BMAC, and the word itself has an IE etymology. The literature argues that the BMAC influences for the Indo-Aryans were not as significant as for the Iranians. And the fire cult is an ancient practice in IE traditions, and it makes no sense to limit something as banal as people X, Y, or Z.
So so answer your question; yes. The aryan invasion happened *or* (if we shouldn't make people seeth) migration

>>17842166
See here>>17841975

>>17842166
but saaaaaaaaar how can I larp as fair skinned aryan invader with this fecal flesh bloody bastard bitch

>>17841813 (OP)
good morning

>>17842098
No. Its post-bronze age

>>17842165
>>17842182
You're much smart from haplotards

>>17842182
>>17842165

>>17842208
>Andronovo
>Nords
Nah, Poles are more genetically related to them.

>>17842223

>>17842098
>People can move in, mix with locals, and still keep using old tools or adopt local ones. In-fact that was also a key aspect of steppe culture, adoption of different cultuculture as it fita. That’s literally how steppe ancestry spread gradual, male-driven, with locals.
I accept this concession, my bro.
>Copper Hoard doesn’t “disprove”
anything.
Why not? So far you have not shown evidence of Vedic material culture even in your leftist cope above, where is the evidence of Aryan material syncretism? Everything has interrupted continuity
>It’s a mixed culture from the mess after the Harappan collapse. No one serious says it’s Vedic.
at the same time, this was cited by archaeologists haha
>You’re just using it as a stand in because there’s no direct “Vedic layer” in the ground like that’s surprising. Vedic people obviously didn’t leave graffiti saying “we were here.”
at the same time, this was cited by archaeologists haha
>chariot and horse stuff starts appearing
Sinauli site in Uttar Pradesh was not described as Vedic

>>17842223
No analysis shows this, and this PCA is garbage.
Even G25 shows them closer to the Scandinavians. Don't make me make the models, it would be embarrassing.
The only ones that look most like Finns have more chink

>>17842098
>>17842227
However, both are treating all of this very simply.
As if there were a concession beyond what Xiiter's accounts in India say.
There are some good arguments for the CPH being, even if influenced, Indo-Aryan. Moving away from the arguments about dates, and Wikipedia being biased garbage, we have such a statement.
open quote
>Associations with the Indo-Aryan of the second millennium BCE have also been proposed,
according to Mallory, and basically the counterargument they themselves use is that such an area is outside the territory commonly described as Vedic and the culture in the east. It's a weak argument, in my view.
Read Falk's articles. He mentions an association with the Middle Vedic period and the kingdom of the Kuru-Pancalas, who expanded eastward. and Parpola, who has a very definite bias, even he associates the copper hoards with a first wave of Indo-Iranian migration into the Indian subcontinent, which reached regions further east than the later Vedic Aryans.
So it is not illogical to dismiss it as being Vedic/Indo-Aryan, but what can you do? Archaeology in India is nationalistic and no one wants to dig or study it.

>>17842165
>>17842182
obscure booklet sources are not an argument
there is no consensus sameflag
>>17842282
Read my post here>>17841894

>>17842294
Calm down, anon, in your own words
> there is no consensus
So the debate, fortunately, is still open. See, I could simply download one of Parpola and Mallory's books and do the same as you did... Anyway, I'd like to read this book. Where can I find it? And in case you don't know, it's not like a culture can 100% eradicate some elements of its previous culture. The CWC peoples also show some material influence from the GAC, but this doesn't necessarily imply that the CWC didn't migrate to Poland and Germany or that the GAC existed beyond their described period of decline. And it's complicated to read about these cultures; we have books and articles published with dates as early as "4000 BC," motivated by gay chauvinism.
And since you responded to the other anon with the Sinauli site, there are some theories that might be interesting, but I'll have to leave now. I'll get back to you

>>17841813 (OP)
70% of Indian R1a is L657+ (Y3) which does not descend from Andronovo & Sintashta's Z2124, they both come from a common ancestor Z94. L657 was formed in 2300 BCE, before Andronovo, which did not have this subclade.

>On Y-Haplogroup R1a-L657

>Y haplogroup can be determined by analyzing the Y chromosome of a male. The non-recombining portion of Y Chr is passed on only from father to son, and thus paternity can be determined. Once in many generations, one male undergoes one or many mutations in the Y Chr (eg C -> T, G->A, etc) and thus a subclade is born. This mutated subclade will now pass on through his son

>This is how R-L657 was born from Z93. (Brackets denote ISOGG notation)

>R>R1>R1a>R1a1>R1a1a>R1a1a1>R1a1a1b>

>Z93(R1a1a1b2)> Z94(R1a1a1b2a)> Y3(R1a1a1b2a1)> L657(R1a1a1b2a1a)

>Sample id I6942 is the only R-L657+ (+ means DERIVED or presence for the particular mutation, - means ANCESTRAL or absence of that mutation) found in ancient DNA so far. R-L657 is that subclade of R1a which is now common in the Indian subcontinent and the middle east, but not found in modern Europe or ancient Europe/steppe. The ISOGG name for it is R1a1a1b2a1a. Technically, I6942 is + for R-Y5 (R1a1a1b2a1a1a1~) and R-Y928 (R1a1a1b2a1a1a1f~) which implies that it is + for L657 as well

>It is safe to say that R-Y3 & R-L657 and their subclades were born in the Indian subcontinent given their absence in modern and ancient steppe and Europe (except Indian immigrants and the Romanis). I have always maintained that given that the formation and spread of R-Y3 is 2600 BCE and R-L657 is 2200 BCE respectively (YFull), that their paternal ancestors (Z93 and Z94) were somehow present in the Indian subcontinent but without the presence of autosomal steppe ancestry which enters Indian subcontinent only post 1500 BCE

>How did R-L657 reach India?

>Here, it is worth noting that the oldest Z93 samples have been found in Fatyanovo culture, Russia dating to 2500 BCE

>>17842325
>So it is likely that this Z93 did enter India around the same time from Russia, however, it would not be accompanied by any noticeable change in autosomal ancestry. Autosomal ancestry is that which recombines and is present in Chr 1-22 and is passed 50-50% from both parents to the child. Steppe autosomal ancestry only enters India post-1500 BCE

>The other option of course is that India was the source of R1a to Europe, to prove which we need tonnes of ancient DNA which we don't have. Europe also has ancient samples of ancestors of Z93, like Z645 and M417 and so on, which makes the European origin of R1a much more likely. So I will not consider this option yet, although it's plausible. There can always be haplogroups that reach multiple places due to some travel-savvy ancients :)

>This has happened before, we see y hg J2 and J1 (and subclades) from Iran, the Caucasus, and SC Asia neolithic in European samples in Karelia_EHG and Austria LBK, Hungary_Sopot without any apparent autosomal ancestry from the source regions. Autosomal ancestry from a parent can dilute to ~0% easily in 7 generations if the sons end up marrying local women (50%>25%>12.5%>6.25%>3.125%>1.5%>~0) ie 150 years

>Some make the argument that the lack of R1a in Shahr Sokhta, BMAC, Turan Eneolithic proves that R1a was absent in this region. To which my response is that these regions saw population turnover starting 4th mill BCE or even earlier by a population like Tepe Hissar/Seh Gabi to the tune of >60% and a resulting Y HG turnover. This is the reason why west Asian Y haplogroups like E1b and G2 appear in the record in the regions adjoining NW India. This turnover never happened in the Indian subcontinent as Indians lack this Anatolian heavy component. So I don't consider this evidence very strong, more data is needed

>>17842325
>>17842328
>Hue appears
>70% of Indian R1a is L657+ (Y3) which does not descend from Andronovo & Sintashta's Z2124, they both come from a common ancestor Z94. L657 was formed in 2300 BCE, before Andronovo, which did not have this subclade.
The same cope ever>>17841975
- L657 is downstream from Z93.
- Roopkund samples are thousands of years after the migrations of Z93 bearers.

>>17842342
2/2
R-Z93's earliest detection is in the steppes. Unless the arrow of time causality is reversed, the former is more significant than the latter

>>17842316
This was semantics, and you were missing the point, like your "friend" above.
The culture doesn't just present mere artistic similarities, but a post-1900 community, making it indistinguishable, and there's nothing to use as a reference for what is Vedic other than funeral practices? Is that it? Or are your posts above from obscure sources that aren't relevant to the point because they don't address India itself or the culture we're talking about, just the origin of the Aryans

>>17842345
>R-Z93's earliest detection is in the steppes
And earliest R1a is from Iran.

>The genetic divergence of R1a (M420) is estimated to have occurred 25,000 years ago, which is the time of the last glacial maximum. A 2014 study by Peter A. Underhill et al., using 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia, concluded that there was "a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a". The ancient DNA record has shown the first R1a during the Mesolithic in Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (from Eastern Europe, c. 13,000 years ago), and the earliest case of R* among Upper Paleolithic Ancient North Eurasians, from which the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers predominantly derive their ancestry. The genome of an individual belonging to the R1a5 subclade, dated to 10785–10626 BCE, from Peschanitsa, Arkhangelsk, Russia, and identified as a Western Russian Hunter-Gatherer, was published in January 2021

>According to Underhill et al. (2014), the downstream M417 (R1a1a1) subclade diversified into Z282 (R1a1a1b1a) and Z93 (R1a1a1b2) circa 5,800 years ago "in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey". Even though R1a occurs as a Y-chromosome haplogroup among speakers of various languages such as Slavic and Indo-Iranian, the question of the origins of R1a1a is relevant to the ongoing debate concerning the urheimat of the Proto-Indo-European people, and may also be relevant to the origins of the Indus Valley civilization. R1a shows a strong correlation with Indo-European languages of Southern and Western Asia, Central and Eastern Europe and to Scandinavia being most prevalent in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and South Asia. In Europe, Z282 is prevalent particularly while in Asia Z93 dominates. The connection between Y-DNA R-M17 and the spread of Indo-European languages was first noted by T. Zerjal and colleagues in 1999

>>17842385
>And earliest R1a is from Iran.
Not reading the rest.

>>17842385
Iranjeet cope.

>>17841813 (OP)
>In India, we learned that in order to get the work published, we had to make a compromise. We had to let the Indian researchers write the paper in a way that puts a gloss on what the genetic data actually show

>The compromise was to describe the mixing of different groups in India as having occurred between ‘Ancestral North Indians’ and ‘Ancestral South Indians,’ a terminology that implies parity between the groups, rather than calling them what they really were: a mixture between West Eurasians (including Steppe migrants) and indigenous South Asians

>It was a politically motivated maneuver to avoid inflaming what is perhaps the most politically sensitive topic in India: the origin of the caste system

>Source - Who we are and how we got here : David Reich, Chapter 10: The Genomics of Race and Identity

>>17842450
Goddamn, did he really say that? Lmao

Indians are a hybrid race composed of various groups. The base population had genetic affinities to Australian Aboriginals and Melanesians. The region was then invaded by a hunter gatherer population circa 5000 bc from Iran whose closest modern survivors are the Brahuis and Balochis of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. India then got invaders whose closest living populations are in North China.
Finally around 1500 bc steppe Europeans entered South Asia via the Hindu Kush and began to conquer the collapsing Indus Valley Civilization, gradually intermixing with its native inhabitants. They introduced Indo-European languages and culture to the region and recorded their conquest via the world’s oldest religious text, the Rigveda.

>>17841813 (OP)
Elamites (who are the progenitors of the Dravidian languages) from the Iranian Plateau had already invaded/colonized the Indus and Ganges plain. It is highly likely these Elamites had created the caste system in the first place. The Aryans inherited the Elamite system and freely comingled with the Elamites but not the "native" Australoids.
All Indians are some mixture of Aryan, Elamite (both of which are Caucasoid), and dark Australoid.
The Indus essentially has zero Australoid admixture as of today. The Ganges plain is about 25% Australoid.
It's a gradient of increasing Australoid admix as you go South and East. However, Elamite (Dravidian) and Aryan language/culture reached the entirety of the Subcontinent, including Sri Lanka.

>>17842934
That is to say, Elamites had a massive power gap over the Australoids due to agriculture, and their innate population advantage implanted them in the Indus and Ganges. The Aryan's usage of chariots put them at a military advantage over the Elamite/Dravidian civilization. However, the Aryan population at the point of invasion was quite a bit smaller than the Elamite, and Aryan admixture increased as a function of being nobility.

>>17842934
>It is highly likely these Elamites had created the caste system in the first place.
It's not likely at all. The caste system is a Proto-Indo-European inheritance that was implemented in Iran, Ireland, and the Germanic territories.

>>17842941
>The caste system is a Proto-Indo-European inheritance that was implemented in Iran, Ireland, and the Germanic territories.
this is incorrect. The Indian Caste System is not homologous to regular systems of military nobility found in all other cultures.

>>17842941
>implemented in Iran
Prove.

>>17842948

>>17842992

>>17842992
>If I define everything as a highly stratified caste system in the same vein as India, then, you see, these other societies had a highly stratified caste system in the same vein as India
Why would cognates for professions corroborate the asinine idea that Ireland had an Indian-style caste system?

>>17842941
>>17842992
>>17842995
t.

>>17842973
It's described in the Avesta:
4. huitiš
3. vāstriia- fšuiiant-, lit. “cattle-breeding pastoralists” (parallels Old Irish bóaire)
2. raθaēštar-, lit. “standing in a chariot” (warriors)
1. āθrauuan- (priests)

>>17841904
Jej

>>17843000
Nice fantasy you got there. Have you taken your meds yet today?

I mean this respectfully but what the fuck happened to India. Things had to have been fucked before colonialism. How did they go from a Steppe/Indus River admixture to the mess that it is now?

>>17843007
Well, if that's the case, then, I declare that in modern America there exists an Indian-style caste system
4. Artisans (etsy sellers)
3. Ranchers
2. Soldiers in the US army
1. Priests
virtually identical, as I have proved.

>>17843017
Caste system = 3,000 years of hyper-inbreeding across each caste and subcaste and subsubcaste ad infinitum.
Incredible IQ depression as a result.

>>17842999
Oh, there had to be some differences in practice between the Indian caste system and the Irish one of course but the point here was to demonstrate that a caste system was inherited from Proto-Indo-European times.
But some thought must be giving to who the *dósos referred to before anyone went to India. It's entirely possible it referred to Early European Farmers at first.

>Nice fantasy you got there. Have you taken your meds yet today?

>>17843018
You have to carefully examine the similarities that have been presented to you. This generalization fallacy has been tried over and over, but it simply doesn't work because there are cognate terms and oddly specific implementations of classes. The cognate terms are one of things that let's us be confident that it was inherited from Proto-Indo-Europeans.

>>17843034
In every society that has ever existed there has been a degree of "caste"
There has only ever been one Indian caste system.

>>17843056
What you're not getting is that by attempting to explain this phenomenon as a universal social hierarchy, you fail to explain things that cannot be coincidental, such as cognate terms.
aire & aryah
rí & rājanyah
doír & dāsa

>>17843067
Yes, "noble" meant "noble" in PIE, and thus the cognates.
Yes, "king" meant "king" in PIE, and thus the cognates.
and so on and so forth lol.
You realize that Dravidian-speakers obey the caste system, right?

>>17843087
>noble
It wasn't just a class distinction. It was also an ethnic identity used by Proto-Indo-Europeans. It contrasts with *dósos, who were non-Indo-European.

Again, it's not just the classes and their names but also how classes are implemented in practice. Why does the Irish bóaire parallel the Iranian vāstriia-fšuiiant? Why is the first level of freeman a pastoralist with cattle, an Indo-European profession?
There's no reason for a universal hierarchy to follow specifics like this.

>>17843087
Basic fallacy. There are multiple Indo-European words which mean noble or king respectively. You can't explain it as a coincidence that they settled on the same words. You are desperate.

>>17843107
Yes, the Indo-Europeans made an initial distinction between themselves and the people they conquered. This happens with every conquest. The Normans in England, for example. The Franks in Gaul. These identities are soon subsumed into the identity of the nobility through intermarriage. This didn't occur in India.

>>17842165
Yeah, that’s literally why I brought up Tazabagyab, Bishkent, etc. They line up with what we’d expect from early Indo-Aryan groups, especially the ones moving toward South Asia. There’s decent evidence tying those Fedorovo-adjacent cultures in modern Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to the Proto-Indo-Aryan horizon.

I’m focusing on the archaeology because every time this gets brought up, people start doing mental gymnastics.

And yeah I get appeal to authority is cringe, but even Mallory links these sites to Proto-Indo-Aryans. You’ve got pastoralism, horse remains, burial rites (men left, women right classic IE), and metallurgy that's near identical to Andronovo.

If you’re into the genetics side, Davidski did a pretty good write up on it here:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html

These samples arent the Vedic people, but they’re solid proxies for the kind of populations that could’ve formed that base.


>>17842182
Just wanna add the whole “BMAC influence” thing gets overblown. There’s no genetic trace of BMAC in India after 1500 BC. And IVC ≠ BMAC, even though a bunch of people love to conflate them. They just both carry some Iranian-related ancestry that’s it.

People always bring up fire worship or soma and go “see? BMAC influence” but that’s weak. Fire cults were already a thing in broader Indo-European culture, and soma doesn’t even show up in BMAC contexts. Word’s got an IE etymology anyway.

The reality is BMAC probably had more impact on the Iranians than the Indo-Aryans. For Aryans coming into India, it was mostly a pass trough.

>>17842227
>Why not? where is the evidence of Aryan material syncretism?

You’re applying 21st century expectations of Vedic graffiti to a culture that was oral and ritual focused. Of course there isn’t a pottery shard that says “Indra was here.” Vedic culture was transmitted through recitation, not monumental architecture. You keep asking for physical artifacts of a primarily spiritual literary tradition.

> Everything has interrupted continuity.


Except it doesn’t. There is continuity just not the kind that fits your Indus = eternal cope. Cultural transitions are messy. The Copper Hoard cultures coexisted with early Vedic elements. There’s no evidence against steppe input and DNA makes that pretty clear.

>This was cited by archaeologists haha

Yeah, as transitional. Not as Vedic proper. Big difference between maybe related and definetely You’re just cherry-picking ambiguity and calling it refutation.

>Sinauli was not described as Vedic

No serious geneticist or historian said it was.

>>17842934
I actually agree with you, but I think this topic is for another post

>>17843007
These aren't castes you dumb fuck. These are classes in society and they were fluid, retard.

>>17843225
Referring to all of them across Indo-European branches with the same term, caste or class is fair just for convenience. Don't get mad. I never said Iran necessarily had a caste system with a heavy racial emphasis. That could technically be in the historical background since there are signs of it elsewhere. It's not obvious though.

The point was only that it looks like Iran inherited some Indo-European social classes.

For anyone interested in the exact situation in Iran, the door is still wide open. The 4 terms from the Avesta are just a cursory glance. I've already seen signs there may be alternative terms, but I haven't cared to look into it further.

>>17843138
>course there isn’t a pottery shard that says “Indra was here.” Vedic culture was transmitted through recitation, not monumental architecture. You keep asking for physical artifacts of a primarily spiritual literary tradition.
This alone shows your irrelevance here.
Hahaha, if you really believe this, you must **necessarily*** assume that there was no Vedic people and are, ironically, more aligned with Indian ideas of nativism. Your argument implies that Vedic was a mere idea, not a population. Haha, and if it is a pop culture, were they really so irrelevant that they had no cultures? So what's the point of believing in the idea of an invasion? How do you colonize a place with nothing to integrate it with other than its language? Even Muslim migrants have their own culture with practices, clothing, etc. when they come to India, or Italians in New York, but their precious Vedas were so unsuccessful that they had nothing? KEK KEK KEK KEK

>>17843026
Weak arguments anon
BTFO'd here>>17843018
We have this system everywhere, even among the Africans

>>17843018
This feels extremely reductionist

>>17843487
Lol at you confusing material absence with cultural absence Vedic culture was built on oral tradition, not temples or inscriptions. These people memorized and recited thousands of verses with insane precision for generations. Manuscripts didn’t even become a thing until much later, especially after Buddhism made written texts more mainstream. Before that, it was shruti, not stone tablets.

And the idea that “they had nothing” is laughable. There is archaeological correlation, chariot burials, fire altars, cremation, horse symbolism, and pastoral patterns that line up with Indo-Aryan cultural markers across Swat, PGW, and other zones.

Germanic tribes migrated across Europe without leaving stone murals of Odin, yet they still reshaped half the continent.

>>17842372
>>17843138
I think we're being too vague here again. It wouldn't make sense that the Vedas didn't have a material culture because they were part of a migration and would bring their culture with them. However, the other anon and his respective bizarre comment basically dismissed my sources and accused them of being false without posting anything meaningful. Calm down.
However, what I'd like to share is that I see this as an expansion of this thread of mine here.>>17842316
As I said before, arguing that CPH was Vedic, or at least related, is not unreasonable. There are some interesting connections that cannot be mere coincidence. Harry Falk associated the Celtic bars with the vajra found nearby, and Kuznetsov also associates this artifact with Indra's vajra, noting similarities with a symbolic scepter-club found in a burial of the Yamnaya culture of the Eurasian steppes. An archaeologist named Monika Zin reiterates and acknowledges such possible connections, and the Avestan word vazra means "hammer," and this weapon has parallels in other IE deities, such as Zeus, for example. Another interesting one:
1/2

>>17843527
2/2
is what Parpola proposed about the site of Sanauli and its possible connection with IE aspects
This is what Parpola, a far from impartial guy adored by Indians based on distorted arguments, proposed the Sanauli site and its possible connection with IE aspects. Note that I don't believe his arguments are correct in their entirety, especially with the inclusion of theories that date the arrival of the Aryans back to 1900 BC, which doesn't make much sense. But focus on the aspect where he sees that the site may at least have had IE influence from an elite in the region in the late stages of the IVC. Using these "bigas" as evidence of Aryan migration, although again, the rest of the explanation is forced by combining BMACs who were IE speakers. Genetics rules out that whatever the origin of the steppe in India, there was no BMAC influx.
Now, I also want to forget about the leaked post-Harrapan sample, with 81% Sintashta and 18% "IVC." I don't intend to theorize too much because we don't know anything about the sample, but apparently it's real and was found at the Sanauli site. It could be related to those Jabaquara from this camp. Of course, the sample is of very poor quality.
>>17843000
Why do you keep doing this to this anon? You guys are being mean in every thread of his, I just saw people posing as him as retarded, clearly different, and copy-pasted arguments from other places, like the other guy did above.
>>17842948
However, the etymological similarities with the words for slave cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence. Ireland is considered one of the regions with the greatest PIE cultural archaism, and if you fear you've ruined your argument here by saying that the Elamites created the caste system, we could simply respond to your rebuttal and say that
I declare that in modern Brazil there is an Elamite-style caste system.
4. Artisans (sellers of Brazilian products)
3. Farmers (grains)
2. Brazilian soldiers
1. Catholic communities
Weak argument

>>17843501
You got btfo
>>17843551
Seethe

>>17843244
>The 4 terms from the Avesta are just a cursory glance. I've already seen signs there may be alternative terms, but I haven't cared to look into it further
Therefore, there is no way to trust your shitty tables. It's your interpretation and you only look at what you want to read. You assumed here and I'm sure that in other threads you said that Aryan didn't have the same connotations in India and Iran and then these threads come with sources interpreted by you. Pathetic anon.

>>17842948
>The Indian Caste System is not homologous to regular systems of military nobility found in all other cultures.
actually it is.
it's very similar to Irish in some ways

I am not arguing for a systemic varna system (which was theoretical anyway) but some for of endogamy existed even in IVC, and this goes in line with the larger idea of jatis being the indian version of ethnicities/tribes

>The subsequent population to arrive in the subcontinent would be Neolithic Zagros Herders, which diverged from the Zagros Highland farmers at Ganj Dareh around 10k years before present. From 8-5k years before present, these groups, along with related Central Asian Farmers carrying mesolithic Central Asian ancestry, would have mixed with the Ancient Ancestral South Indian population native to the Northwest Subcontinent forming the Chalcolithic Indus Valley Civilization.
At this point, the notion of 'untouchability' first developed. We can see upper castes in the Nilgiri hills, particularly the Badaga Gowdas and Todas, persecuting the lower caste Kurumbas, considering them polluted sorcerers and scammers. The Todas practice a non-Brahmanical, non-Vedic religion and have low levels of AASI ancestry relative to surrounding populations. As the primary differentiator between dalit groups and upper castes is low Indus Periphery-related ancestry, this idea of endogamy is almost certainly a carry-over from the Indus Valley Civilization, especially as a recent study found a West Asian component from the Mature Indus Valley in almost all tested Dravidian groups, which earlier studies confused for high Steppe Aryan ancestry. Furthermore, the date of endogamy for the Komati caste (a wealthy merchant caste from Andhra) is proposed to be >4k years before present, so we can safely say that there was some form of caste endogamy in the Mature Indus Valley Civilization. We also find the Pulayars referenced in the Sangam literature of Tamil Nadu in a derogatory manner, suggesting that anti-dalit discrimination existed in Ancient Tamilakam as Chuhras.well (700-200 BCE).

>>17843056
>In every society that has ever existed there has been a degree of "caste"
In every society that has ever existed, there has been a degree of "warrior."
Do you see how your arguments are worryingly reductionist and relativist? This is so dangerous that it can be applied to absolutely everything, even things like agriculture. Although abstract concepts can be shared by several different peoples, some patterns and peculiarities can form, which is why if I used your argument above about warrior cultures and agricultural techniques, you would probably laugh at me. Although the Romans and the Celts (I could use other examples, but we'll help you) both had warrior cultures, as did the Assyrians, each of these cultures had its own different and unique techniques, practices, concepts, and strategies. The same goes for types of agriculture; EEF agriculture was different from Anatolian agriculture, which was different from Chinese agriculture. You get caught up in abstract concepts and forget that innovation can occur in abstract ideas or practices.
Regarding the PIE caste system, I didn't research it like the other anon, but although you can say that caste and social stratification existed before and after the PIE, just as the Romans waged war in a unique and distinct way from the African Yoruba, although both adhere to a "warrior" ideology, they have their peculiarities. Thus, the PIE caste system is distinct, and the similar use of etymological words and attributions among uncontacted populations separated by millennia cannot be disregarded. There is no more plausible explanation than a common inheritance.

>>17843056
>>17843605
Oh yes, and You ignore and overlook the similarities that separate this society from other caste-based societies and bring Indonesian-speaking communities closer together, among their peculiarities:
being an Aryan-cow in a small village in Connacht, a humble member of the herder-cultivator caste. When we win (it should be any day now, keep posting), this will come to fruition.
Interesting, perhaps.
It's tempting to think that the varna (color) system in India is related to racial differences, and it is, but the association of caste and color predates this and is also reflected in other Indonesian cultures (Dumezil
The primary role of the warrior caste is to retrieve/take cattle and other wealth from non_aryans

Old, but interesting

>>17843597
Large irrelevant text
>>17843605
>>17842992
>>17843118
Looks like very speculative, not facts

>>17843638
?

>>17843597
It was probably Zagros elites and AASI slaves with mixed populations in between

>>17841919
I vaguely recall reading that Indus Valley were more closely related to Babylonians than Dravidians.

>>17843563
Anon, I'm not sure what you mean. I've never been particularly reliant on the Iranian data. It's only been useful to acknowledge in passing that there's those 4 social classes in the Avesta.

>>17843563
>It's your interpretation and you only look at what you want to read.
There's a reason those threads have so many references and citations. They are there so anyone reading and following along can confirm the claims and understand it's not merely my interpretation or personal opinions which are being presented. But I doubt anyone has ever tracked down a single reference I offered and actually read what the literature says.

There are plenty of examples of migrations which did not come with a change in material culture, just look at the Germanic migrations into Europe in the late Roman empire or the Aryan and Hurrian conquests in the middle east in the middle bronze-age. In these cases aswell as with India what we're (mostly) dealing with are not even mass migrations, but rather elite dominance from steppe barbarians, so we wouldn't expect a change in material culture to begin with(unless you count chariots of course).

Frankly the linguistic evidence along with the Vedas should be suffient to prove the theory but appearently some Indians are deluded enough to think that the Aryans spread from India into the steppe and later Europe and partly into the middle east, going against all the archeological, linguistic and genetic evidence we have.

>>17842450
>>17842664
>Hindutva (/hJnˈdʊtvə/; lit.'Hindu-ness') is a political ideology encompassing the cultural justification of Hindu nationalism and the belief in establishing Hindu hegemony within India. The political ideology was formulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1922. It is used by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the current ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and other organisations, collectively called the Sangh Parivar

>Inspired by European fascism, the Hindutva movement has been variously described as a variant of right-wing extremism, as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony and as a separatist ideology. Some analysts dispute the identification of Hindutva with fascism and suggest that Hindutva is an extreme form of conservatism or ethno-nationalism

>According to Anthony Parel, a historian and political scientist, Savarkar's Hindutva, Who is a Hindu? published in 1923 is a fundamental text of Hindutva ideology. It asserts, states Parel, India of the past to be "the creation of a racially superior people, the Aryans. They came to be known to the outside world as Hindus, the people beyond the Indus River. Their identity was created by their race (jati) and their culture (sanskriti). All Hindus claim to have in their veins the blood of the mighty race incorporated with and descended from the Vedic fathers. They created a culture—an ensemble of mythologies, legends, epic stories, philosophy, art and architecture, laws and rites, feasts and festivals

>They have a special relationship to India: India is to them both a fatherland and a holy land." The Savarkar's text presents the "Hindu culture as a self-sufficient culture, not needing any input from other cultures", which is "an unhistorical, narcissistic and false account of India's past", states Parel

>>17844022
Bell Beakers were a type of pottery made by EEFs. Indo-Europeans came and took some EEF women who knew how to make Bell-shaped Beakers. Suddenly IEs became the new vector of Bell Beaker pottery culture and the pottery went all over the place.

>>17844028
>The Dravida Nadu movement was a separatist movement seeking to create a homeland for the Dravidians by establishing a sovereign state in the predominantly Dravidian-speaking southern regions of British India consisting of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. It was started by the Justice Party under Periyar and later the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam led by C. N. Annadurai

>The concept of Dravida Nadu had its root in the anti-Brahminism movement in Tamil Nadu, whose aim was to end the Brahmin dominance in the Tamil society and government. The early demands of this movement were social equality, and greater power, and control. However, over the time, it came to include a separatist movement, demanding a sovereign state for the Tamil people. The major political party backing this movement was the Justice Party, which came to power in the Madras Presidency in 1921

>The prominent Tamil leader, E. V. Ramasamy stated that the Tamil society was free of any societal divisions before the arrival of Brahmins, whom he described as "Aryan invaders". Ramasamy was an atheist, and considered the Indian nationalism as "an atavistic desire to endow the Hindu past on a more durable and contemporary basis". Ramasamy notably remarked that upon seeing a Brahmin and a snake, he would encourage people to attack the Brahmin

>The proponents of Dravida Nadu fabricated elaborate historical anthropologies to support their theory that the Dravidian-speaking areas once had a great non-Brahmin polity and civilisation, which had been destroyed by the Aryan conquest and Brahmin hegemony. This led to an idealisation of the ancient Tamil society before its contact with the "Aryan race", and led to a surge in the Tamil nationalism. Ramasamy expounded the Hindu epic Ramayana as a disguised historical account of how the Aryans subjugated the Tamils ruled by Ravana. Some of the Dravidians also posed Saivism as an indigenous, even non-Hindu religion

>>17844022
>we wouldn't expect a change in material culture to begin with(unless you count chariots of course).
It's a change in material culture. The only reason you have to go out of your way to point this out is because they have blinders on and engage in mental gymnastics.

>>17843992
Hey dasa, we're waiting for your new thread. They're quite interesting and stand out from the garbage we see here day after day.
By the way, don't worry about the idiots pretending to be you. It's common practice these days on /his/. If they have to slander you so basely and personally, it's because it offends them. Keep up the good work.
I have some interesting sources to share with you.

>>17843941
You should not talk about what you have not researched in your words, you have not studied in depth and create these tables based on your premises without looking at the evidence against them.

>>17844912
What I have investigated briefly, I have treated briefly. What I have investigated in depth, I have treated in depth.
The things I have talked about in depth are not dependent on the Iranian data. I don't intend to make any overreaching assumptions about Iran, and I don't think I'm being unfair merely by referring to four named classes in the Avesta.

>>17844781
>I have some interesting sources to share with you.
I look forward to it.

>>17844999
There is no evidence that this caste system is Indian or Irish.
This is the problem, and it is precisely because it lacks depth that you reach such weak conclusions.
We want to hear your opinions

>>17844999
>I look forward to it.
Well, I won't post here because we have a noisy section, and my other threads, besides the literal memes being shared here, have been ignored. When a better opportunity presents itself, I'll share. By the way, have you ever thought about creating a thread about the etymology of Deyeus Pater? It's a huge and well-studied framework. At this point, there's no denying this PIE character at this point... I missed the word "Dasyu" in your thread about the caste system; apparently, it's related to Dasa, which in turn has IE etymology. There are examples in Greek, Indian, and Irish. I don't know about other places.

>>17845013
>We want to hear your opinions
I don't

>>17845013
>There is no evidence that this caste system is Indian or Irish.
I'm sorry but you may need to rephrase this. It reads like it might be broken English which makes it difficult to respond to. If it's what you intended to say, the claim was that there was a PIE caste system which had various realizations in different IE cultures such as Ireland and India. Some references have already been given to provide evidence for what social categories existed in Ireland and India.

>>17845037
>By the way, have you ever thought about creating a thread about the etymology of Deyeus Pater? It's a huge and well-studied framework. At this point, there's no denying this PIE character at this point...
I haven't thought about, because as you say, it's well studied. Is there something about this word you want to learn, such as how the sound changes work?

>I missed the word "Dasyu" in your thread about the caste system; apparently, it's related to Dasa, which in turn has IE etymology. There are examples in Greek, Indian, and Irish. I don't know about other places.
It's an interesting word. Apparently the -yu suffix is an innovation to replace an older heteroclitic stem suffix.
PIE *-wr̩ > PIA *-wur > *-wu > (glide correction) -yu

>>17845199
>haven't thought about, because as you say, it's well studied. Is there something about this word you want to learn, such as how the sound changes work?
It would be interesting to have a thread looking beyond the superficial or Facebook tables that show the same old cognates. There's more we can talk about, like
reflexes are variants that have maintained both linguistic descendants of the root *dyeu- ("heaven") alongside the original structure "God the Father." Some traditions have replaced the epithet *ph2ter with the childish word papa.
>Luwian: Tātis tiwaz, "Daddy Tiwaz," the Sun-god
>Palaic: Tiyaz papaz, "Papa Tiyaz," the Sun-god
perhaps the innovation was due to less friendly contact with the Indo-Aryan inhabitants? possibly, dasa comes from Dasyu, if I am not mistaken, perhaps because dasa was so associated with the IVCs (which remember; they were not AASI) that perhaps the word lost its general meaning and gained nominative attributes. since in some passages of the Rigveda, Dasyu is more or less used as an etymony for them

>>17841813 (OP)
>Can /his/ educate me
No, absolutely not. This hellhole is reserved for autism and shitposting

>>17845320
>>17845199
>Cypriot Syllabary: ti-wo, interpreted as pertaining to Zeus, and the possible genitive Diwoi

>Palaic: tiuna, "divine, a god"

>Proto-Armenian: *Tiw, the Sky- or Thunder-god

>Armenian: tiw (Տիւ), "day, daytime, morning" and ti, "day" (only in erk-ti "two days"); and possibly also ciacan "rainbow" (according to Martirosyan, from *Ti(w)-a- attached to *can- "sign, omen", thus "the sign of the Sky/Thunder-god")

>Messapic: Zis or Dis, the sky-god,

>Thracian: Zi-, Diu-, and Dias- (in personal names)

>Phrygian: Tiy-,

>Bithynia: Tiyes and the place name Tium (Τιεῖον)

>>17845333
>>17845333
Wasn't this supposed to be more related to the IE "Thor"? Instead of the PIE father god? Zeus is interesting; he absorbed characteristics of the god of thunder, or, in subsequent IE cultures, the god of thunder became a separate deity from the previous father god.

But Perkunas makes everything more complicated, the anon above. The biggest linguistic autistic could make thread after thread about this, but you gays scare him by trolling.

>>17845333
Mycenaean greek changed the suffix
Why???

>>17845344
>thor
>perkunas
Possibly, but unlikely .
And yes, I've heard this theory that Deyeus Pater originally held the same characteristics as the god of thunder. As time went on, both entities underwent not only linguistic but also mythological innovations, with the characteristics of thunder now being transplanted to new entities. But I don't think it's very logical. Perkunas is at least as old as the Illieus, but the Greeks definitely always had their god (who later became Zeus) with thunder characteristics as far as we know, and in none of the tablets do we know of a separate deity for thunder. It's strange when and how this happened. Perhaps it's something common among the branches of the Catacomb culture? The Anatolians present something similar, and they are quite archaic. But the lower Illyrian and Thracian mythology leaves us without ideas.

>>17843118
Correct, they were the proto-indo-aryans
What about that leaked post-Harrapan sample?

>>17845393
We don't have the ID and coordinates. The user who originally leaked the sample doesn't want to talk about it because of "authorship" issues. Although it wasn't him, a guy involved in an Indian study leaked it to him. Anyway, it's 81% steppe, and the rest is "IVC," whatever source this proxy the leaked model used for this. I wouldn't expect "pure" Europeans outside of Europe by the Iron Age, but in the Bronze Age it's possible. We have pure Europeans in places as far south as Tajikistan and as far east as Xinjiang. It's possible, but who knows.