• Accomplished
  • Aggravated
  • Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Anxious
  • Apathetic
  • Artistic
  • Awake
  • Bitchy
  • Blah
  • Blank
  • Bored
  • Bouncy
  • Busy
  • Calm
  • Cheerful
  • Chipper
  • Cold
  • Complacent
  • Confused
  • Contemplative
  • Content
  • Cranky
  • Crappy
  • Crazy
  • Creative
  • Crushed
  • Curious
  • Cynical
  • Depressed
  • Determined
  • Devious
  • Dirty
  • Disappointed
  • Discontent
  • Disgusted
  • Distressed
  • Ditzy
  • Dorky
  • Drained
  • Drunk
  • Ecstatic
  • Embarrassed
  • Energetic
  • Enraged
  • Enthralled
  • Envious
  • Exanimate
  • Excited
  • Exhausted
  • Flirty
  • Frustrated
  • Full
  • Geeky
  • Giddy
  • Giggly
  • Gloomy
  • Good
  • Grateful
  • Groggy
  • Grumpy
  • Guilty
  • Happy
  • High
  • Hopeful
  • Horny
  • Hot
  • Hungry
  • Hyper
  • Impressed
  • Indescribable
  • Indifferent
  • Infuriated
  • Intimidated
  • Irate
  • Irritated
  • Jealous
  • Jubilant
  • Lazy
  • Lethargic
  • Listless
  • Lonely
  • Loved
  • Melancholy
  • Mellow
  • Mischievous
  • Moody
  • Morose
  • Naughty
  • Nauseated
  • Nerdy
  • Nervous
  • Nostalgic
  • Numb
  • Okay
  • Optimistic
  • Pakistan
  • Peaceful
  • Pensive
  • Pessimistic
  • Pissedoff
  • Pleased
  • Predatory
  • Productive
  • Quixotic
  • Recumbent
  • Refreshed
  • Rejected
  • Rejuvenated
  • Relaxed
  • Relieved
  • Restless
  • Rushed
  • Sad
  • Satisfied
  • Scared
  • Shocked
  • Sick
  • Silly
  • Sleepy
  • Sore
  • Stressed
  • Surprised
  • Sympathetic
  • Thankful
  • Thirsty
  • Thoughtful
  • Tired
  • Touched
  • Uncomfortable
  • Weird
  • Working
  • Worried
  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
    Results 1 to 18 of 26
    1. #1
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Oct 22, 2004
      Posts
      1,183
      One of the most controversial ideas about Indian history is the Aryan Invasion Theory.

      This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India’s indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.

      Why is the theory no longer accepted?

      The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.

      Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely.

      Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It’s now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.


      India Acquired Language, Not Genes, From West, Study Says
      Brian Handwerk
      for National Geographic News


      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...dia_genes.html

      January 10, 2006
      Most modern Indians descended from South Asians, not invading Central Asian steppe dwellers, a new genetic study reports.

      The Indian subcontinent may have acquired agricultural techniques and languages—but it absorbed few genes—from the west, said Vijendra Kashyap, director of India's National Institute of Biologicals in Noida.


      The finding disputes a long-held theory that a large invasion of central Asians, traveling through a northwest Indian corridor, shaped the language, culture, and gene pool of many modern Indians within the past 10,000 years.

      That theory is bolstered by the presence of Indo-European languages in India, the archaeological record, and historic sources such as the Rig Veda, an early Indian religious text.

      Some previous genetic studies have also supported the concept.

      But Kashyap's findings, published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, stand at odds with those results.

      True Ancestors

      Testing a sample of men from 32 tribal and 45 caste groups throughout India, Kashyap's team examined 936 Y chromosomes. (The chromosome determines gender; males carry it, but women do not.)

      The data reveal that the large majority of modern Indians descended from South Asian ancestors who lived on the Indian subcontinent before an influx of agricultural techniques from the north and west arrived some 10,000 years ago.

      Most geneticists believe that humans first reached India via a coastal migration route perhaps 50,000 years ago.

      Soon after leaving Africa, these early humans are believed to have followed the coast through southern India and eventually continued on to populate distant Australia.

      Peter Underhill, a research scientist at the Stanford University School of Medicine's department of genetics, says he harbors no doubts that Indo-European speakers did move into India. But he agrees with Kashyap that their genetic contribution appears small.

      "It doesn't look like there was a massive flow of genes that came in a few thousand years ago," he said. "Clearly people came in to India and brought their culture, language, and some genes."

      "But I think that the genetic impact of those people was minor," he added. "You'd don't really see an equivalent genetic replacement the way that you do with the language replacement."

      Language, Genes Tell Different Tales

      Kashyap and his colleagues say their findings may explain the prevalence of Indo-European languages, such as Hindi and Bengali, in northern India and their relative absence in the south.

      "The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct contact with the Indo-European migrants, where they could have a stronger influence on the native populations to adopt their language and other cultural entities," Kashyap said.

      He argues that even wholesale language changes can and do occur without genetic mixing of populations.

      "It is generally assumed that language is more strongly correlated to genetics, as compared to social status or geography, because humans mostly do not tend to cross language boundaries while choosing marriage partners," Kashyap said.

      "Although few of the earlier studies have shown that language is a good predictor of genetic affinity and that Y chromosome is more strongly correlated with linguistic boundaries, it is not always so," he added.

      "Language can be acquired [and] has been in cases of 'elite dominance,' where adoption of a language can be forced but strong genetic differences remain [because of] the lack of admixture between the dominant and the weak populations."

      If steppe-dwelling Central Asians did lend language and technology, but not many genes, to northern India, the region may have changed far less over the centuries than previously believed.

      "I think if you could get into a time machine and visit northern India 10,000 years ago, you'd see people … similar to the people there today," Underhill said. "They wouldn't be similar to people from Bangalore [in the south]."

    2. #2
      Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Dec 7, 2005
      Posts
      269
      Some of the ethnic groups of the South Asia (mainly northern) are an amalgam of Dravidians and Aryans, the latter of which arrived later; I can’t say whether it was through invasion or migration.

      In some Indo-Aryan ethnic groups Aryan genes are more prominent than in others, for example Punjabis (especially the mountainous “Punjabis” of NWFP & Kashmir) are more Aryanised in their genetic makeup than other Indo-Aryan ethnicities such as Bengalis or Rajasthanis (amongst whom if Aryan ‘blood’ exists at all it is minimal and the few genes they have retained from the Aryans are almost always recessive and hardly ever expressed).

      In short the Aryans only had any substantial impact on the genetic makeup of people from northwest of South Asia (that is Pakistan and Khalistan) as is obvious from the distinct phenotype of the people from this region, the other South Asian countries (India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) which speak Indo-Aryan languages hardly have an Aryan genetic makeup and are by and large descended from the natives of South Asia.

    3. #3
      Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Nov 20, 2005
      Posts
      457
      Quote Originally Posted by nicols_john
      One of the most controversial ideas about Indian history is the Aryan Invasion Theory.

      This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India’s indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.

      Why is the theory no longer accepted?

      The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.

      Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely.

      Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It’s now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.


      India Acquired Language, Not Genes, From West, Study Says
      Brian Handwerk
      for National Geographic News


      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...dia_genes.html

      January 10, 2006
      Most modern Indians descended from South Asians, not invading Central Asian steppe dwellers, a new genetic study reports.

      The Indian subcontinent may have acquired agricultural techniques and languages—but it absorbed few genes—from the west, said Vijendra Kashyap, director of India's National Institute of Biologicals in Noida.


      The finding disputes a long-held theory that a large invasion of central Asians, traveling through a northwest Indian corridor, shaped the language, culture, and gene pool of many modern Indians within the past 10,000 years.

      That theory is bolstered by the presence of Indo-European languages in India, the archaeological record, and historic sources such as the Rig Veda, an early Indian religious text.

      Some previous genetic studies have also supported the concept.

      But Kashyap's findings, published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, stand at odds with those results.

      True Ancestors

      Testing a sample of men from 32 tribal and 45 caste groups throughout India, Kashyap's team examined 936 Y chromosomes. (The chromosome determines gender; males carry it, but women do not.)

      The data reveal that the large majority of modern Indians descended from South Asian ancestors who lived on the Indian subcontinent before an influx of agricultural techniques from the north and west arrived some 10,000 years ago.

      Most geneticists believe that humans first reached India via a coastal migration route perhaps 50,000 years ago.

      Soon after leaving Africa, these early humans are believed to have followed the coast through southern India and eventually continued on to populate distant Australia.

      Peter Underhill, a research scientist at the Stanford University School of Medicine's department of genetics, says he harbors no doubts that Indo-European speakers did move into India. But he agrees with Kashyap that their genetic contribution appears small.

      "It doesn't look like there was a massive flow of genes that came in a few thousand years ago," he said. "Clearly people came in to India and brought their culture, language, and some genes."

      "But I think that the genetic impact of those people was minor," he added. "You'd don't really see an equivalent genetic replacement the way that you do with the language replacement."

      Language, Genes Tell Different Tales

      Kashyap and his colleagues say their findings may explain the prevalence of Indo-European languages, such as Hindi and Bengali, in northern India and their relative absence in the south.

      "The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct contact with the Indo-European migrants, where they could have a stronger influence on the native populations to adopt their language and other cultural entities," Kashyap said.

      He argues that even wholesale language changes can and do occur without genetic mixing of populations.

      "It is generally assumed that language is more strongly correlated to genetics, as compared to social status or geography, because humans mostly do not tend to cross language boundaries while choosing marriage partners," Kashyap said.

      "Although few of the earlier studies have shown that language is a good predictor of genetic affinity and that Y chromosome is more strongly correlated with linguistic boundaries, it is not always so," he added.

      "Language can be acquired [and] has been in cases of 'elite dominance,' where adoption of a language can be forced but strong genetic differences remain [because of] the lack of admixture between the dominant and the weak populations."

      If steppe-dwelling Central Asians did lend language and technology, but not many genes, to northern India, the region may have changed far less over the centuries than previously believed.

      "I think if you could get into a time machine and visit northern India 10,000 years ago, you'd see people … similar to the people there today," Underhill said. "They wouldn't be similar to people from Bangalore [in the south]."
      This finding is not convincing. North Indians are distinctly different from South Indians. One can easily distinguish North Indians from South Indians but North Indians and Pakistanis (exclude Bengalis) are hardly indistinguishable.

      I lived in South India for a decade and was easily distinguishable among a South Indian crowd. No South Indian would ever attempt to speak to me in his or her native language. He will start either with Hindi or English.

      Just compare a Kashmiri with a Tamilian or a Telgu. No genetic research is required to distinguish the differences. And just compare a Kashmiri or a Punjabi with an Iranian. Sometimes it will be hard to tell whether someone is Iranian or Punjabi. I was thinking one of my colleague to be Iranian and after two months I learnt that he was in fact a Punjabi.

      I had been in a guppy meet in Toronto. If you have access to the pictures, just try to distinguish me from the Pakistani crowd. I bet you cannot. But I can show my picture in a South Indian gathering and I am easily identifiable.

      Aryan theory of Max Muller is valid because of its solid evidences. Genetic research of ancestry is not yet proven and cannot be relied upon. There are two ways to test ancestry by genetic means. One way is by Mitochondria route (which seems more reliable) and another way is via Y-chrosome route. And surprisingly both don't give the same result. How can we believe a technology which is not yet proven?

      The genetic research on human evolution doesn't agree with archaelogical findings too.
      Last edited by sal35; Jan 26th, 2006 at 10:31 AM.
      Jab Din Haseen Dil Ho Jawaan
      Kyun Naa Manaayen Picnic
      Sine Mein Aag Hoton Pe Raag
      Miljul Ke Gaayen Picnic

    4. #4
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Apr 5, 2005
      Posts
      2,391
      ^does that mean that all of south indians are black and is definitely distinguishable from north indians. I dont think so. I think rather than genetic make up it is the cultural and food habitat that causes the people to be either tall or dwarfed. I think the proportion of black to fair might also be the same in north and south.
      People identify me as north indian.. while i come from the southern most part of india. But i lived most of my life in north india.

    5. #5
      Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Nov 20, 2005
      Posts
      457
      Quote Originally Posted by vineshvk
      ^does that mean that all of south indians are black and is definitely distinguishable from north indians. I dont think so. I think rather than genetic make up it is the cultural and food habitat that causes the people to be either tall or dwarfed. I think the proportion of black to fair might also be the same in north and south.
      People identify me as north indian.. while i come from the southern most part of india. But i lived most of my life in north india.
      I am not talking of skin colour. I am talking about facial features. South Indians have typical facial features easily distinguishable from North Indians. A North Indian cricket crowd can be easily distinguished from South Indian cricket crowd or a North Indian cricket team can be easily distinguished from South Indian cricket team. Pakistani Cricket crowd or Pakistani cricket team cannot be easily distinguished with their North Indian counter part.

      Even South Indian Brahmins despite having fair complexion have a typical South Indian look which easily distinguishes them from North Indians. For instance Kamala Hasan is one good example. My neighbour was a Telgu Brahmin and had almost European like complexion (much fairer than most Iranians) but had a typical South Indian facial feature.
      Jab Din Haseen Dil Ho Jawaan
      Kyun Naa Manaayen Picnic
      Sine Mein Aag Hoton Pe Raag
      Miljul Ke Gaayen Picnic

    6. #6
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Sep 29, 2005
      Posts
      1,125
      I am a desi but I am indistinguishable from Brad Pitt.

    7. #7
      Senior Member
      ----
       

      Sayonee's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 31, 2002
      Posts
      763
      Blogs
      19
      LoL ^ You wish u were :P
      Khudi koh kar buland itna, Kay har takdeer say pehlay, Khuda banday seh khud puchaay... bataaaa... teri raaza kya hay ?!? - ALLAMA IQBAL

    8. #8
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Sep 29, 2005
      Posts
      1,125
      Quote Originally Posted by Sayonee
      LoL ^ You wish u were :P
      My dear Sayonee, I am afraid I was the reason of Brad's marriage with Jennifer Aniston broke up. He came home too early one day and caught us together.

    9. #9
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Sep 21, 2006
      Posts
      994
      There is a new book on Aryan debate....


      TWO FACES OF HISTORY


      Remains of the past
      The Aryan Debate
      Edited by Thomas R. Trautmann,
      Oxford, Rs 545

      The controversy about whether the Aryans were foreigners who destroyed the Dravidian Indus Valley Civilization or whether they were indigenous inhabitants of India, who were the founding fathers of both the Indus and the subsequent Vedic civilizations, has become a highly politicized issue. While the Marxists go for the former view, the proponents of Hindutva prefer the second. In this volume, part of the OUP series ‘Debates in Indian History and Society’, Thomas R. Trautmann has collected 18 articles which show the evolution of this debate in the last two and a half centuries.

      Various experts from comparative philology, archaeology and history have contributed to the Aryan debate. It began in 1786 when William Jones, using historical linguistics, proved that Sanskrit, Persian, Greek, Celtic and Latin had descended from a common Indo-European language. In 1816 Bishop Robert Caldwell discovered the Dravidian languages spoken by inhabitants of the deep south.

      Following the discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization in 1924, John Marshall argued, on the basis of a pseudo-biological racial theory, that around 1200 BC the dark-skinned Dravidians of the Indus Valley cities were destroyed by the fair-skinned Indo-Aryans, who entered India from Iran through the North-west frontier passes.

      From the end of the 20th century, the Aryan intrusion theory has been modified significantly by liberal Marxists. The invasion theory has been discarded in favour of the migration theory. In 1999, Romila Thapar claimed that instead of invading India, the Aryans entered through the North-west peacefully. Anthropologists no longer accept the racial and physical differences between Aryans and Dravidians. In 2001, Shereen Ratnagar argued that the Harappan Civilization collapsed because, around 1800 BC, its overseas trade with Mesopotamia closed down. However, Colin Renfrew, S.P. Gupta and B.B. Lal pushed for a re-evaluation of the existing picture. The indigenous origin of the Aryans received a shot in the arm with the discovery of cuneiform script in Turkey which could be dated to 1380 BC. It mentions the name of Vedic gods like Indra and Varuna.

      In 1997, Sandor Bokonyi claimed that dental remains of domesticated horses have been excavated from the Indus sites. These horses were imported from Ukraine before 1200 BC, the time when the Aryans arrived. Lal argues that this proves that the Aryans, who knew the use of horses, formed the Indus Valley Civilization. In 1999, Gupta claimed that while 150 sites were excavated along the river Indus, 250 sites could be identified along the bank of the river Saraswati in Rajasthan. Around 2000 BC, due to plate tectonic changes, Saraswati vanished and became the desert of Cholistan. Then the Aryans migrated from the Indus-Saraswati basin and founded the Vedic Civilization along the Ganga-Jamuna doab.

      The two sides of the debate, despite substantial differences, share a common ground. Neither accepts the theory of the destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization by the Aryan invasion. Both emphasize continuity rather than discontinuity between the Indus and Vedic civilizations. Trautmann rightly says that until the Indus script is interpreted, we cannot reach any decisive conclusion regarding the interrelationship between the Indus and Vedic cultures. He deserves praise for presenting the complex issues of the Aryan debate lucidly for the non-specialists.

    10. #10
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Dec 13, 2006
      Posts
      638
      Why do you guys dwell on the past so much?

      Lots of different races became part of South Asia (Pak, Ind, Nep, Bang, Sri, Mal) and enhanced it's culture, we have a wondeful culture today, let's just enjoy it and get rid of the negative things like castes and unnecessary languages etc.

    11. #11
      Senior Member
      ----
       

      WitchDr's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 10, 2005
      Location
      Islamabad
      Posts
      2,611
      Blogs
      1
      ^ Your field of play will become bigger

    12. #12
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Dec 13, 2006
      Posts
      638
      lol LoL LOL how do u know me so well?
      Last edited by -Promiscuous Paki-; Jan 5th, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

    13. #13
      Banned
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Oct 3, 2006
      Posts
      334
      how can we pay any credence to arguements of what people look like and draw racial conclusions over that? too much mix up has happened over 1000s of years. the dna/chromosomes don't lie, do they? that's physical evidence.

      for example the aryan theory goes on further about 3 branches, one which came our way, one that went towards ireland (I thin) and a third that went the mongolia route (the 3rd one I am not certain). Now are you going to argue that somehow iranians and irish have same facial features? makes no sense whatsoever

      Max Mueler based his conclusions on best guesses he could draw with the then available data and techniques. No longer acceptable.

    14. #14
      Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      May 5, 2003
      Posts
      196
      Blogs
      2
      interesting
      her jagga meray chamaknay say ujala ho jaye

    15. #15
      Banned
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Oct 3, 2006
      Posts
      334
      ^ boy, do you have the detail(s) upside down!

    16. #16
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Apr 3, 2004
      Posts
      4,636
      Quote Originally Posted by expatobserver
      My dear Sayonee, I am afraid I was the reason of Brad's marriage with Jennifer Aniston broke up. She came home too early one day and caught us together.
      Always thought Brad batted for the other team.
      Oh well. *shrugs*

    17. #17
      Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Nov 30, 2006
      Location
      Omnipresent
      Posts
      429
      Aryan invasion theory is crap. The word Arya is a Sanskrit word and means a person with noble thoughts, countenance and has nothing to do with the colour of skin, eyes etc.

      History is a propaganda of the victors. And that's what European historians have been writing about Asian countries.

      Check the following link for more inspiration:

      www.hinduwisdom.info

      It is more about history of the sub continent than about a religion.

      In my opinion Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis should be proud of the history of the sub continent prior to 1947. It is common for all.

    18. #18
      Senior Member
      ----
       


      Join Date
      Apr 3, 2004
      Posts
      4,636
      ^^^

      Agreed. We should be proud of our pre Islamic past as much as we are proud of our Islamic heritage.
      Oh well. *shrugs*

    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
    visitors found this page by using these recent terms: aryan invasion theory wrong,  indo-european theory is false,  aryan invasion theory false,  aryan theory wrong,  aryan invasion proved wrong,  aryan invasion theory incorrect,  http:www.paklinks.comgsculture-literature-and-linguistics205313-aryan-invasion-theory-proved-wrong.html,  aryan invasion theory is false,  false aryan theory,  aryan theory is wrong,  pakistani opinion on aryan invasion theory,  aryan invasion theory proven false,  aryan theory wromng,  false indoeuropean theory,  aryan theory false,  aryan invasion false,  aryan invasion theory proved wrong,  max muller false teory on aryans,  Has the Aryan invasion theory proved wrong,  invasions in india history,  aryan invasion of india proven false,  aryan invasion national geographic,  aryan invasion is wrong,  aryan invasion theory proven wrong,  is aryan theory wrong