Aryans: Religion and Genetics

[Prince_James]

Sparked by a great little discussion SamCDKey and I are having...

To summarize the debate (from the God thread) thus far:

Myself: The Aryan people are the ancestors of upper-caste Indians, Persians, and Europeans. Their religion's influence remains in Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and all the old pagan beliefs of the European peoples. Genetically, the the upper-castes of India, the non-Turkic peoples of Iran (Persians), and Europe are all related. The origin of the Aryans was around the Black Sea. Of course, the Indo-European languages descend from these people.

SamCDKey: The Aryan people did spawn the Indo-European languages, but the Aryan homeland was India and spread out from there. Moreover, the Indian population does not admit of two races, one subjugated, the other the conqueror, and Hinduisms spawned the European pagan beliefs, not a common belief that spawned both.

Now some direct replies...

Samcdkey:

According to population geneticist L.L. Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford, almost all Indians are genetically Caucasian,[4] but Lewontin rejects the label Caucasian.[5] Cavalli-Sforza found that Indians are about three times closer to West Europeans than to East Asians. Although genetic anthropologist Stanley Marion Garn considers the entirety of the Indian Subcontinent to be a "race" genetically distinct from other populations.[6][7] Others such as Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding claim South Indians are genetic intermediaries between Europeans and East Asians.[8][9][10] Recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome[2][3], microsatellite DNA[4], and mitochondrial DNA[5] in India have cast overwhelmingly strong doubt upon any biological Dravidian "race" as distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent. This doubtfulness applies to both paternal and maternal descent, however it does preclude the possibility of distinctive south Indian ancestries associated with Dravidian languages.[11]

Well first, Samcdkey. What Wikipedia page was this from? I want to follow the footnotes to the study.

Also, consider these links that show something different, namely, my view:

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/11/6/994

"MtDNA HVR1 genetic distances between caste populations and Africans, Asians, and Europeans are significantly different from zero (p < 0.001) and reveal that, regardless of rank, each caste group is most closely related to Asians and is most dissimilar from Africans (Table 1). The genetic distances from major continental populations (e.g., Europeans) differ among the three caste groups, and the comparison reveals an intriguing pattern. As one moves from lower to upper castes, the distance from Asians becomes progressively larger. The distance between Europeans and lower castes is larger than the distance between Europeans and upper castes, but the distance between Europeans and middle castes is smaller than the upper caste-European distance. These trends are the same whether the Kshatriya and Vysya are included in the upper castes, the middle castes, or excluded from the analysis. This may be owing, in part, to the small sample size (n = 10) of each of these castes. Among the upper castes the genetic distance between Brahmins and Europeans (0.10) is smaller than that between either the Kshatriya and Europeans (0.12) or the Vysya and Europeans (0.16). Assuming that contemporary Europeans reflect West Eurasian affinities, these data indicate that the amount of West Eurasian admixture with Indian populations may have been proportionate to caste rank. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA)

Two groups R1 (R1a and R1b) are found in Europe and R1a - which is strongly associated with Europe - is found in Indian populations. The upper-caste influences in the above include this, I do believe.

"Recent advances in molecular genetics have opened a promising approach to settle these questions, although the evidence at this stage remains inconclusive. Bamshad et al. studied the DNA of people from the Andhra region of Southern India and compared them to Africans, Europeans and East Asians.4 The mitochondrial DNA (transmitted matrilineally) of all castes was more similar to that of East Asians than of Africans or Europeans. The DNA of the Y-chromosome (transmitted patrilineally) of all castes was however more similar to that of Europeans than of East Asians or Africans. Moreover the higher castes were more similar to Europeans than were the lower castes. The authors conclude that "Indians are of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture" due to the Aryan invasion. The majority of the Aryan invaders were men who transmitted their European Y-chromosome to their sons born from the native women and placed themselves at the top of the caste hierarchy. But the maternal lineage remains largely "proto-Asian."" - http://www.hvk.org/articles/0506/63.html

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1812/18120840.htm

And for the religious connections...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion

 

[S.A.M.]

I cannot find the wiki page but here is a recent study:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jan 24;103(4):843-8. Epub 2006 Jan 13.Click here to read

A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: evaluating demic diffusion scenarios.

National DNA Analysis Centre, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata 700014, India.

Understanding the genetic origins and demographic history of Indian populations is important both for questions concerning the early settlement of Eurasia and more recent events, including the appearance of Indo-Aryan languages and settled agriculture in the subcontinent. Although there is general agreement that Indian caste and tribal populations share a common late Pleistocene maternal ancestry in India, some studies of the Y-chromosome markers have suggested a recent, substantial incursion from Central or West Eurasia. To investigate the origin of paternal lineages of Indian populations, 936 Y chromosomes, representing 32 tribal and 45 caste groups from all four major linguistic groups of India, were analyzed for 38 single-nucleotide polymorphic markers. Phylogeography of the major Y-chromosomal haplogroups in India, genetic distance, and admixture analyses all indicate that the recent external contribution to Dravidian- and Hindi-speaking caste groups has been low. The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward. The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family. The dyadic Y-chromosome composition of Tibeto-Burman speakers of India, however, can be attributed to a recent demographic process, which appears to have absorbed and overlain populations who previously spoke Austro-Asiatic languages.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16415161

 

[Prince_James]

Samcdkey:

The concept of Brahman seems different from that of chaos

“ Brahman is the unchanging, infinite, and transcendent reality of all things in this universe. Strictly speaking, Brahman is a Principle rather than a deity. However, because abstract principles can be difficult to grasp, Hinduism teaches that it is not wrong to think of Brahman in anthropomorphic terms. Thus, in Hinduism, one finds many gods and goddesses representing different aspects of the infinite principle of Brahman. ”

You are correct that Chaos and Brahman differ, in that Brahman is a central focus of Hinduism whilst Chaos is only considered the source and origin of all things, yet nonetheless the connection I would say is there. Greek philosophy, on the other hand, demonstrates a much closer conception.

Consider Stoicism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/ (search for "in accord with this ontology" for the most pertinent information)

Neo-Platonism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10742b.htm

And the semi-similar orthodox conception of God by Plato: http://plato-dialogues.org/email/960211_1.htm

Again if you look at the history of India, it seems more likely that the Hindus originated here.

Then pray tell why do we find aspects of Aryan religion predating the Vedas outside of India, in regards to the Ukraine and other such things?

The Indus Valley Civilization in its early phase began around 3300 BC, and reached its mature phase from around 2600 BC. This was followed by the Vedic Civilization. The origin of the Indo-Aryans is under some dispute. Most scholars[1] today believe in some form of the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, which proposes that the Aryans, a semi-nomadic people, possibly from Central Asia or northern Iran, migrated into the north-west regions of the Indian subcontinent between 2000 and 1500 BCE. The nature of this migration, the place of origin of the Aryans, and sometimes even the very existence of the Aryans as a separate people are hotly debated. The merger of the Vedic culture with the earlier Dravidian cultures (presumably of the descendants of the Indus Valley Civilization) apparently resulted in classical Indian culture, though the exact details of this process are controversial, with some claiming that the Aryans moved out of India. This theory suggests that the Indus Valley Civilization was essentially Vedic and spread to other parts of Europe between the 6th and 2nd millennia BCE.[2] ”

See some of the other genetic studies I linked you to, and I shall also search later for some more archaeological reasons to suggest Europe to India, rather than vice versa.

And in response to your quote from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=16415161 it would seem to be contested by the evidence I presented, which came to much different conclusions.

Hmmm, me senses a scientific controversy!

 

[Leo Volont]

No, no, no.

The Aryans were the Iron Age Invaders and Barbarians.

The Civilizations they Invaded already had their Religions and Moral Institutions. When the Aryans invaded, they murdered the Aristocracies that they encountered and took their Places.

The History that comes down to us gives Aryans the Credit for the Insititions they ururped.

My Proof?

Well, is Brahministic Hinduism that the Indian Aryans claim, is that anything like the Persian Zoroastrianism that the Persian Aryans claim, or is that anything like the Druidism of Europe that the Teutonic Aryans claim.

All of these "Aryan" expressions of Religion are different. What does that tell us?

It tells us that the Aryans were ignorant Barbarians who adapted to the Religious Institutions that they conquered.

And it is embarrassing that I need to explain this anybody.

Before people write Historical Essays, maybe they should spend five minutes first reading some History, or 10 minutes thinking about it first.

 

[Prince_James]

Leo Volont:

Actually, there is a good deal of similarity in the religions. Furthermore, Zoroastrianism and Hinduism share belief in the same divinities, only they each claim the other religion's Gods are the Devils/Titans of he other.

 

[Leo Volont]

Leo Volont:

Actually, there is a good deal of similarity in the religions. Furthermore, Zoroastrianism and Hinduism share belief in the same divinities, only they each claim the other religion's Gods are the Devils/Titans of he other.

It has been said that Greater Intelligence is discernable in proportion as one can distinguish a greater number of categories.

To you these religions seem the same.

But an intelligent person sees different religions entirely.

 

[Prince_James]

Leo Volont:

They develop along differing lines and are surely separate, but their commonalities are intense.The most notable of these is the Asura/Deva split.

You'll also note that many of the Aryan Gods are linguistically and characteristically similar.

 

[Leo Volont]

Leo Volont:

They develop along differing lines and are surely separate, but their commonalities are intense.The most notable of these is the Asura/Deva split.

You'll also note that many of the Aryan Gods are linguistically and characteristically similar.

Again, the "Asura/Deva" split may have pre-existed the Aryan Invasions.

As for language, well, it would not be the first time that a Conquering Barbarian People imposed their Language upon subjugated people. For instance, in India today they refer to their deities as "Gods". Well, that is an English word, isn't it. It does not mean that the English had anything to do with establishing the Hindu Pantheon, simply because now we have literature referring to them using the English word.

Likewise it means nothing that Old Civilized Religions are using the Language of another Barbarian Race of Conquerors.

 

[Prince_James]

Leo Volont:

This is unlikely, considering that the Germanic Aesir is also a cognate of Asura.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesir-Asura_correspondence

 

[Leo Volont]

Oh, and we might point out that the Aryans, nowhere, made a Civilization of their own. Whereever they conquered, they were assimulated, and as far as we can tell, they insisted upon nothing else except for their language. Oh, and in India they insisted upon racial segration. In the Epic Classic "The Ramayana" the Native Indian People are described literally as being 'Monkeys'. The Brahmin Class, that is the Aryans, were forbidden to mix with the population at all -- no Native 'monkey' was ever to eat at the table of an Aryan Brahmin. Even after several thousand years, one can still see in India today that the Brahmins are 'Aryans'. though they are very ugly on average. This is because in India most marriages are decided upon issues of land and money. When the health, form and comeliness of one's marital partners is never consulted, then it leads in very few generations to a very ugly people. One sees this in many people who focus on property and dowry considerations in their marriage institutions. Barbarian Conquerors, though Evil, at least look well formed and healthy. But then, once established on their conquered lands and set to acquisition no longer by the Sword but by strategical marriages, then each generation becomes more moronic looking. Simply look at Prince Charles compared to Charlemagne.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Samcdkey:



Well first, Samcdkey. What Wikipedia page was this from? I want to follow the footnotes to the study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_people

see under genetic classifications

from the same link:

"Current views
It has been suggested that the proto-Dravidians of the Indian subcontinent arrived from the Middle East, and may have been related to the Elamites[12], whose language some propose be categorized along with the Dravidian languages as part of a larger Elamo-Dravidian language family. However, many linguists dispute the existence of an Elamo-Dravidian language family.

The Dravidians were preceded in the subcontinent by an Austro-Asiatic people, and followed by Indo-European-speaking migrants sometime later. The original inhabitants may be identified with the speakers of the Munda languages, which are unrelated to either Indo-Aryan or Dravidian languages. This view is put forward in geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's book The History and Geography of Human Genes.
"

 

[Leo Volont]

Leo Volont:

This is unlikely, considering that the Germanic Aesir is also a cognate of Asura.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesir-Asura_correspondence

You are only referring to an Invaders insistence upon the adoption of the Conquerors Language. But look at the Gods being referred to! They are different!

Words.

All of the actual Institutions are different. The Characters of the Gods being nominalized are different.

What Wikipeda is doing is Resurrecting the Nazi Aryan Supremacy Doctrines.

Indeed, they are not alone. Even Scholars such as Bruce Campbell are bringing back Aryan Supremacy, in the new guise as some Superiority to be supposed in the most Recently Barbarian of Peoples. The Argument goes that these Barbarians were able to conquer Civilized Peoples and so this makes them superior to Civilized Peoples. However, what smarter Historians such as Toynbee and Durant point out is that while Civilizations are at the peak of their Health and Vitality, they roll over these Barbarian People and attract Assimulation and Emulation, in some degree begining the process of Civilization. It is only when Civilizations weaken, or decline, or become too diluted with Barbarian influences, that they collapse and Barbarian are permitted to murder and burn out all previous history, leaving the illusion that they created only what they had come to steal.

No. Just because an Apple will eventually rot, it does not mean that maggots are superior to Apples.

All this Nazi Aryan Supremacy talk is simply the most recent reincarnation of the notion that Nazi Maggots are better than Civilized People.

 

[S.A.M.]

Samcdkey:



You are correct that Chaos and Brahman differ, in that Brahman is a central focus of Hinduism whilst Chaos is only considered the source and origin of all things, yet nonetheless the connection I would say is there. Greek philosophy, on the other hand, demonstrates a much closer conception.

Consider Stoicism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/ (search for "in accord with this ontology" for the most pertinent information)

Neo-Platonism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10742b.htm

And the semi-similar orthodox conception of God by Plato: http://plato-dialogues.org/email/960211_1.htm

Again, it does not tell which came first.

Then pray tell why do we find aspects of Aryan religion predating the Vedas outside of India, in regards to the Ukraine and other such things?

It seems that the Indus Valley civilisation which predates the Vedas and which was completely wiped out was Vedic in nature. If so, considering that it was subject to invasions, that may explain the aspects of Aryan religion outside of India.

See some of the other genetic studies I linked you to, and I shall also search later for some more archaeological reasons to suggest Europe to India, rather than vice versa.

And in response to your quote from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=16415161 it would seem to be contested by the evidence I presented, which came to much different conclusions.

Hmmm, me senses a scientific controversy!

You can access the entire PNAS paper (it is free) from the link I pasted. If you read the whole paper, you can see that the study was conducted to refute previous studies and was more comprehensive in nature. The results preclude any Aryan invasion theory.

 

[Prince_James]

Leo Volont:

Oh, and we might point out that the Aryans, nowhere, made a Civilization of their own.

This is very hard to justify, considering the prevalence of European genetic types correlating to the Aryan migration in Europe, Persia, and in India. Also note that civilization in Europe, Persian, and Indian civilization does not have a pre-Indo-European language foundation.

Whereever they conquered, they were assimulated, and as far as we can tell, they insisted upon nothing else except for their language.

And religion, way of life, and probably the horse.

Oh, and in India they insisted upon racial segration. In the Epic Classic "The Ramayana" the Native Indian People are described literally as being 'Monkeys'.

Do you have the verse off hand?

Barbarian Conquerors, though Evil, at least look well formed and healthy.

I would ask upon what foundation do you claim an entire race of people is evil?

You are only referring to an Invaders insistence upon the adoption of the Conquerors Language. But look at the Gods being referred to! They are different!

Actually, we find many similarities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion

We even find many similar stories.

All this Nazi Aryan Supremacy talk is simply the most recent reincarnation of the notion that Nazi Maggots are better than Civilized People.

There is no notion of Nazi Aryan Supremacy presented in anthropological consideration of the Aryan people outside of your own imagination here. You are essentially hiding behind an ad hominem assault on it to satisfy your irrational hatred of it.

Let us not charge people with Nazi sympathies and accusations of ethnocentric supremacy here.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ramayana? Aryan? Dravidian?

This thread is certainly a conundrum and while eager to participate I was unsure how to lock in to a thread reply because there are so many issues raised on extremely dubious premises

there is a link particularly on the nature of the aryan invasion theory on
http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1klostermaier.html
(Questioning the Aryan Invasion Theory and Revising Ancient Indian History1 )

Here is an excerpt

A recent major work offers 'seventeen arguments: why the Aryan invasion never happened'.6 It may be worthwhile summarising and analysing them briefly:

1. The Aryan invasion model is largely based on linguistic conjectures which are unjustified (and wrong). Languages develop much more slowly than assumed by nineteenth century scholars. According to Renfrew speakers of Indo-European languages may have lived in Anatolia as early as 7000 BCE

2. The supposed large-scale migrations of Aryan people in the second millennium BCE first into Western Asia and then into northern India (by 1500 BCE) cannot be maintained in view of the fact that the Hittites were in Anatolia already by 2200 BCE and the Kassites and Mitanni had kings and dynasties by 1600 BCE

3. There is no memory of an invasion or of large-scale migration in the records of Ancient India-neither in the Vedas, Buddhist or Jain writings, nor in Tamil literature. The fauna and flora, the geography and the climate described in the Rigveda are that of Northern India.

4. There is a striking cultural continuity between the archaeological artefacts of the Indus-Saraswati civilisation and subsequent Indian society and culture: a continuity of religious ideas, arts, crafts, architecture, system of weights and measures.

5. The archaeological finds of Mehrgarh (copper, cattle, barley) reveal a culture similar to that of the Vedic Indians. Contrary to former interpretations, the Rigveda shows not a nomadic but an urban culture (purusa as derived from pur vasa = town-dweller).

6. The Aryan invasion theory was based on the assumption that a nomadic people in possession of horses and chariots defeated an urban civilisation that did not know horses, and that horses are depicted only from the middle of the second millennium onwards. Meanwhile archaeological evidence for horses has been found in Harappan and pre-Harappan sites; drawings of horses have been found in paleolithic caves in India; drawings of riders on horses dated c. 4300 BCE have been found in Ukraina. Horsedrawn war chariots are not typical for nomadic breeders but for urban civilisations.

7. The racial diversity found in skeletons in the cities of the Indus civilisation is the same as in India today; there is no evidence of the coming of a new race.

8. The Rigveda describes a river system in North India that is pre-1900 BCE in the case of the Saraswati river, and pre-2600 BCE in the case of the Drishadvati river. Vedic literature shows a population shift from the Saraswati (Rigveda) to the Ganges (Brahmanas and Puranas), also evidenced by archaeological finds.

9. The astronomical references in the Rigveda are based on a Pleiades-Krittika (Taurean) calendar of c. 2500 BCE when Vedic astronomy and mathematics were well-developed sciences (again, not a feature of a nomadic people).

10. The Indus cities were not destroyed by invaders but deserted by their inhabitants because of desertification of the area. Strabo (Geography XV.1.19) reports that Aristobulos had seen thousands of villages and towns deserted because the Indus had changed its course.
T
11. he battles described in the Rigveda were not fought between invaders and natives but between people belonging to the same culture.


12. Excavations in Dwaraka have lead to the discovery of a site larger than Mohenjodaro, dated c. 1500 BCE with architectural structures, use of iron, a script halfway between Harappan and Brahmi. Dwarka has been associated with Krishna and the end of the Vedic period.

13. A continuity in the morphology of scripts: Harappan, Brahmi, Devanagari.

14. Vedic ayas, formerly translated as 'iron,' probably meant copper or bronze. Iron was found in India before 1500 BCE in Kashmir and Dwaraka.

15. The Puranic dynastic lists with over 120 kings in one Vedic dynasty alone, fit well into the 'new chronology'. They date back to the third millennium BCE Greek accounts tell of Indian royal lists going back to the seventh millennium BCE.


16. The Rigveda itself shows an advanced and sophisticated culture, the product of a long development, 'a civilisation that could not have been delivered to India on horseback' (p.160).

17. Painted Gray Ware culture in the western Gangetic plains, dated ca 1100 BCE has been found connected to (earlier) Black and Red Ware etc.

http://www.iskcon.com/icj/3_1/sdg.html
(the first Indologists) takes you through an examination of the social agenda of the numerous british and european pioneers of Indology and their determination to deem indian culture as academically contingent on european culture

H. H. Wilson (1786-1860), described as 'the greatest Sanskrit scholar of his time', received his education in London and journeyed to India in the East India Company's medical service. He became secretary of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1811-1833), and medical duties notwithstanding, he published a Sanskrit-English dictionary. He became Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford in 1833, librarian of the India House in 1836 and director of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1837. Titles credited to his name include Vishnu Purana, Lectures on the Religious and Philosophical Systems of the Hindus and Rig Veda, among others. He also contributed to Mill's History of India and edited several other translations of Eastern literatures. In addition, he proposed that Britain restrain herself from forcing the Hindus to give up their religious traditions. Compared to the evangelists, he appears to have been a champion of the preservation of Vedic ideas.

Yet we may be a little startled by his stated motives:

From the survey which has been submitted to you, you will perceive that the practical religion of the Hindus is by no means a concentrated and compact system, but a heterogeneous compound made up of various and not infrequently incompatible ingredients, and that to a few ancient fragments it has made large and unauthorised additions, most of which are of an exceedingly mischievous and disgraceful nature. It is, however, of little avail yet to attempt to undeceive the multitude; their superstition is based upon ignorance, and until the foundation is taken away, the superstructure, however crazy and rotten, will hold together.

 

[S.A.M.]

I wondered where you were.

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

I'd have you reference non-Hindu nationalist based research if you might. Not to discredit ISKON on other levels, but they do not have scholarly respect in terms of history or anthropology.

 

[Prince_James]

ALso, I'd like to point out that the notion that Europeans are inherently anti-Eastern in their research at the time is fallacious. Many Europeans during the Enlightenment and well into the 19th century, took Eastern (Indian as well as Oriental) beliefs as extremely valuable and not at all dependent upon Western things. Confucius, for instance, was extremely well respected for a period.

 

[S.A.M.]

Lightgigantic:

I'd have you reference non-Hindu nationalist based research if you might. Not to discredit ISKON on other levels, but they do not have scholarly respect in terms of history or anthropology.

The site is ISKON but the work is not. This is the author

Klaus Klostermaier, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, is currently teaching as University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Religion at the University of Manitoba (Canada). He also served from 1986 to 1997 as Department Head and will take up the position of Director of Academic Affairs and Senior Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Vaishnava and Hindu Studies in 1999. He spent two years on the staff of the Institute of Oriental Philosophy in Vrindavan, U.P., India and, obtained a Ph.D. in Ancient Indian History and Culture from the University of Bombay. He is widely known as an expert on Hinduism. Some of his major publications are Hindu and Christian in Vrindavan (1969), A Survey of Hinduism (2nd ed. 1994), Indian Theology in Dialogue (1986), and Mythologies and Philosophies of Salvation in the Theistic Traditions of India (1984).

 

[Prince_James]

Samcdkey:

I shall check out the article then. Thanks for pointing that out.