Yes, we had a topic in the old forum discussing this same problem. Let me repost it here now:
OLD CONTENT
I was surprised to see just how spot-on these guys were - save for the misconception regarding the use of the word "Aryan".
---
"I was surprised to see just how spot-on these guys were"
There is no reason to be surprised; this is mainstream anthropology that anyone can look up.
"save for the misconception regarding the use of the word "Aryan"."
This clown of a presenter was using the term "Iranian agriculturalists" without even realizing that "Iran" and "Aryan" are the SAME WORD FFS (the meaning of which is "agriculturalist", by the way, so "Iranian agriculturalists" actually means "agricultural agriculturalists"(!)), and then he goes off and calls the steppe subhumans "Aryans" despite
himself declaring that they are pastoralists ("Turan" in Iranian terminology).
---
thediplomat.com/2019/01/where-did-indians-come-from-part-3-what-is-caste/
The farmer/steppe (ANI) to farmer/aboriginal (ASI) ratio of the castes is relative in each particular region, in a gradient from northwest to south India, so a a lower-caste individual in Punjab may be more ANI genetically than a high-caste individual from Tamil Nadu. The Meghwal, an “untouchable” caste from Rajasthan are 60.3 percent ANI, while the Velama, a high caste associated with administration and rule from Andhra Pradesh, are 54.3 percent ANI.
Finally, an article that covers the information that matters. I've seen endless talk of ANI vs ASI on HBD forums (i.e. Turanian vs Aboriginal), but none of them talk about neolithic DNA.
---
@90srf
“Iranian” has also been hijacked by the Turanian WNs (see Jason Reza Jorjani) to refer to the steppe subhumans (e.g. Scythians). They do the same trick in Iran; conflate the Turanian ancestors of the Avestans (PIE speakers) with the original agriculturalists, then lump them together in the same llinguistic category (“Indo-Iranians”).
---
scroll.in/article/936872/two-new-genetic-studies-upheld-aryan-migration-theory-so-why-did-indian-media-report-the-opposite
Thanks to the Cell paper released on September 5, we now know that the people of the Indus Valley had no Steppe DNA. They mainly had a mixture of Iranian-farmer-related DNA as well as some DNA from Ancient Ancestral South Indians.
The Steppe population came in from grasslands in Eastern Europe corresponding to modern-day Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan. The genetic research identifies that this Steppe ancestry burst into India during a “narrow time window” dated between 2,000 BC and 1,500 BC.
...
This ancient encounter is, incredibly, reflected even in the present-day Hindu caste system, with Steppe DNA correlated with upper-caste status. “Groups that view themselves as being of traditionally priestly status, including Brahmins who are traditional custodians of liturgical texts in the early Indo-European language Sanskrit, tend (with exceptions) to have more Steppe ancestry than expected on the basis of ANI-ASI mixture,” says the research in Science.
While this new genetic research backs it up, this claim has been made before by experts using only linguistics and archaeology. In his remarkable 2007 book The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, David Anthony, a professor of anthropology and one of the world’s leading authorities on Indo-European migration, pointed out that funeral sacrifices at Sintashta, an archaeological site all the way out on the Russian Steppe “showed startling parallels with the sacrificial funeral rituals of the Rig Veda”.
We already know the above. But what I want to raise is the attitude problem:
Vasant Shinde, co-author on both studies, put out a press release on September 6 where he argued that the new data “completely sets aside the Aryan Migration/Invasion Theory” and also proves that the “Harappans were the Vedic people”.
Wtf?
Shinde also disagreed with the linguistic conclusions in the research, claiming that they were not based on any scientific proof. “The Harappans were speaking Sanskrit since they were so advanced,” Shinde told Scroll.in.
Wtf?
What about Shinde’s claim that the Indus Valley Civilisation was the same as the Vedic civilisation, with both speaking Sanskrit? This is, in fact, an assertion that has long been made by many Hindutva supporters as a way to claim that key cultural markers of modern Hinduism such as Sanskrit or the Rig Veda have completely indigenous origins.
However, there is little data to support this theory. In fact, this recent genetic research backs up the claim that the Indus Valley Civilisation was completely different from the Vedic people.
...
While all people are interested in their origins, why do feelings in India run especially deep? Reich, in an interview to Scroll.in in February, put forward a cultural argument, noting that in contrast to India, its Muslim-majority 1947 twin Pakistan doesn’t seem to care very much about the ancient past.
...
India is today dominated by the politics of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism, an ideology which is fiercely nativist. Vinayak Savarkar, the founder of Hindutva and a foundational thinker for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, based his nationalism on nativism arguing that for a true Indian, India had to be both his pitribhumi (ancestral land) and punyabhumi (the land of his religion).
“A Hindu therefore could not be descended from alien invaders,” said historian Romila Thapar, explaining how Hindutva saw the world. “Since Hindus sought a lineal descent from the Aryans, and a cultural heritage, the Aryans had to be indigenous.”
I have already provided a way to achieve this:
aryanism.net/culture/aryan-race/aryan-diffusion-part-3/
All you need to do is call the Vedics by their real name - Turanians - and recognize Harappans as the actual Aryans, and you have exactly what you want. It's so easy. Why is this not being done?
Much the same argument was echoed by Madhav Golwalkar, the highly influential second chief of the Rashtriya Swayasevak Sangh, the parent organisation of the BJP: “Hindus came into this land from nowhere, but are indigenous children of this soil always from time immemorial”. It is this racial factor that, as per Gowalkar, “is by far the important ingredient of a nation”.
Fine, so instead of wishing the Vedics were indigenous (even though they obviously are not), why not emphasize Indus Valley civilization as the true Hindu heritage that you want?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_dynasty
But keep worshipping the Vedics, and eventually you will end up worshipping Russia. Which is what Dugin wants.
---
It is because Zionist academia constantly refers to Harrapans as” Dravidian” and hence non aryan, despite the fact that “dravidian” is merely a linguistic group (where have we seen this semantic trick before?). Moreover, they also crudely associate the Harappa culture with the indigenous gentile (I.e. vanavasi) culture, and explicitly only showcase phenotypes belonging to this group, thereby causing Indians to conflate harappans with aboriginals.
And yes, regarding duginism, you are most certainly correct that this is his plan:
4threvolutionarywar.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/dugins-guideline-the-aryan-union/
---
"Zionist academia constantly refers to Harrapans as” Dravidian” and hence non aryan, despite the fact that “dravidian” is merely a linguistic group (where have we seen this semantic trick before?)."
But where does the ridiculous idea come from that Dravidian languages are less "advanced" (whatever that means) than Sanskrit??
"they also crudely associate the Harappa culture with the indigenous gentile (I.e. vanavasi) culture, and explicitly only showcase phenotypes belonging to this group, thereby causing Indians to conflate harappans with aboriginals."
This is where we should be jumping in to change perception. It is indisputable that the Indus Valley people were full-time farmers (as opposed to merely farming on the side like Gentiles do):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Agriculture
Research by J. Bates et al. (2016) confirms that Indus populations were the earliest people to use complex multi-cropping strategies across both seasons, growing foods during summer (rice, millets and beans) and winter (wheat, barley and pulses), which required different watering regimes.
Recent discoveries also strengthen the case that farming in India was indeed an indigenous development:
According to Jean-Francois Jarrige, farming had an independent origin at Mehrgarh, despite the similarities which he notes between Neolithic sites from eastern Mesopotamia and the western Indus valley, which are evidence of a "cultural continuum" between those sites. Nevertheless, Jarrige concludes that Mehrgarh has an earlier local background," and is not a "'backwater' of the Neolithic culture of the Near East."[96] Archaeologist Jim G. Shaffer writes that the Mehrgarh site "demonstrates that food production was an indigenous South Asian phenomenon" and that the data support interpretation of "the prehistoric urbanisation and complex social organisation in South Asia as based on indigenous, but not isolated, cultural developments".[157]
which further consolidates Suryavansha prestige.
Home
Search
Login
Register