About roots of Indians (south asians) PART 2
traceable to many places in the world
by v ramchandra raoPart 2--Some info on connections/roots of Indians (south asians) to Celts, Scythian, Goth, Greek, Hunnish, etc
( Part 1--Africans, Southeast Asians, Malaysians Indonesians, Polynesians, China, Jewish, Palestine, Arab, Turkic, etc.)
Celts and Scythians
It is possible the south Indian megalith builders are related to the early Celts or from the people who built similar tombs on the eastern coast of the Black sea and other areas. Some friends say there could be a "cimmerian / khumri" connection. In later times in India, Scythian , or SAKA connections are well attested. Very large number of Indians are actually descended from indo-iranian-dialect speaking sakas, who immigrated from central asia. The sakas in question were initially crude nomads, but settled down and created long lived empires. They were appointed as governors by the Persian Achamenids like Darayusha I ( who conquered afghanistan and west punjab) . The provinces include arachosia (today's kandhaar) gandaria (w.punjab). arria (herat) and hidu (probably east punjab).(behistan rock inscription). The governors became independent soon. (The earliest sanskrit inscription found so far in India is a Saka one: they also created the Saka era, which is still used for the Indian calendar). The later Sakas ruled large parts of Punjab, Gujarat and even Maharashtra for a long time.
Along with the scythians, there were several associated tribes, all lumped under indo-iranian for convenience. (saxon is derived from Saka --and some scythians called themselves Skutii...scots). The largest tribe was called Massagetae by greeks ( i.e. maha-jatta the same as jutes who gave the name to jutland) who are seen today in India as some of the jatts and perhaps kambhojs, for instance, and several communities in gujarat, maharashtra, and also rest of south India..... Danes and many Scandinavians resemble Indians probably because a section of north europeans are of Goth origin, who migrated west under pressure from atilla huns.
Later, these indo-iranian scythians and related indo-iranian tribes milling about in central asia revived the old persian plans of invading europe (plans based on the sucessful colonisation of europe by the old aryas) , then crashed into europe and destroyed the roman empire and settled there for good. They then took up christianity slowly, modified their ancient (of indo-iranian origin) keltic, gaulish and germanic and gothic deities and observances with a surface christian flavour and spread all over europe. They overran the whole of europe in several waves.
( That's why many europeans resemble Indians. Not because of some ancient hypothetical aryans, but because of fairly recent irano-Scythians and similar RECENT immigrants FROM Asia TO Europe,
assorted wild horsemen from Asia, like latinii, alani, gaul (--golla), galata (keltoi, celts-- gehlot, guhillat, gahlat), various goths (--jats), brigantii (phrygian,-- bhrigu/bhargav), britanni or prithanni (--parthians), vandals, lombardi (--lambadi), germanii, frankii, khazar/ gujar etc. Later there were many others like the turks huns avars magyars too.Any gene "studies" which show europeans and Indians have shared genes are CORRECT. Because of these folks and gipsy migrations, not ancient aryans surrreptitiously introduced as "steppe" , "demic diffusion", "aurignacian", "neolithic farmers" or "kurgan" etc . .
It is to be understood these invaders from asia who overran Europe certainly HAD a cultural heritage remotely derived from ancient aryan : their culture, religion, notions, language was close to indo-iranian. But they were NOT so called "ancient aryan". The gap between old Aryan (at least 2000 BC in conservative estimates : likely far older) and these clearly identified peoples who invaded europe in many waves ( 300 BC -400 AD) is over fifteen centuries. So they cant be "aryan". At the most, they could have SOME aryan cultural connections, but thats all. ( by the way many european jews are actually wild khazar / gujar horsemen from central asia, who converted en masse to judaism in early medieval times because their king decided to, for some political purposes like his rivals were christian/muslim--- and they have no connection to Israel except in religious faith terms...sorry 'bout that cohen, you guys arent a race at all and it is very bad science. (khazar/khajar/Gujars are from 'georgia...caucasus...caucusoid...white...cough.. 'ayran'. ) It actually means the so called european jews are very closely related to the rest of the europeans.. It also means the europeans massacred their own people quite regularly due to senseless theories.
Huns
similarly the Huns also have a link in India. Among the various hunnish tribes, a section of the Huns called white Huns, Ephthalites ( Abdali, like ahmed shah abdali) are known as Hoon or Hoonah in India. The original Huns came all the way from lake Baikal area, (or even further east, chinese researchers say the Xiongnu are actually ancient pastoral Huns.) In the periodic demographic movements probably due to cyclic climate changes, the Huns ejected the Yuehchi (Kushans) who ejected the Sakas who ejected the Bactrians who .... you get the idea. Hun wanderings are well documented and more information is coming to light regularly. They were migratory herdsmen keeping cattle and sheep. There were several Hunnish groups and all were not of the same "stock" . A section of the Huns ( like Atilla) invaded europe, while the white Huns settled on the borders of India, possibly afghan-iran uplands and blended with the iranian -afghan people there. Then in the 5th century AD, the white huns (epthalites) clashed with the uttar pradesh-M.P. Guptas and ultimately destroyed them and all the other little northern ganga plain kingdoms, along with the buddhist monasteries all over North India. The Hunas created a fairly large empire for a while. They had a reputation for cruelty. Some names--- Golla, Toraman, Mihiragula. Some sections of today's Jats/ Rajputs/ Afghans/ Kashmir / various upper castes (including some brahmin groups) are likely to be of hunnish origin. While the Rajput may be remotely connected to old kshatriya, of the three large Rajput divisions the chandravamsa and suryavamsa seem to have some hunnish/scythian/kushan connection. The agnikula are mostly descended from the famous rashtrakuta (maharashtra area) and chalukya (kannada), plus the ancient Bhil tribes...and the so called Aryan
Strong connections between very ancient Iran and India are well known: they were the same people at one time. Aarya meaning "noble" or Aar meaning "great" as they considered themselves to be i.e. patting themselves on the back, which is after all a most human trait. Later, there seems to have been migrations and cultural differentiation between devas and asura people and blending with other tribes all over the region from istanbul--basra to arabia to iran--india - central asia to urals-siberia. This diffusion picked up rapidly after the discovery of iron, and hitherto thickly forested areas were colonized for agriculture by the already blended peoples. There were several arya clans and tribes and related ones too, and were often at war with each other, usually quarrelling over water rights and cattle and bad mouthing each other as un-aryan in vedic verse, calling each other demons and creeps and whatnot. In the huge amount of literature of the period, the names of several tribes and places, not necessarily arya, of those times echo even today, here's a few-- paktha ( pakhtoon?), druhyu (any ideas? what about etruscan/troy?) asvaka (yusufzai), kaambhoja (kambhoj), gaandhaara (not the similar sounding kandahar), bheda (bedi?), matsya (meena), puru ( puri?), bhalanasa( bolan), sigru ( sukkur?), saptasindhu (later, panj -ab or five river), vanga (east India --today's westernmost part of bengal), dasa/daha and dasyu/dahyu (non aryan initially, enemies of the early arya, the aryans had not much use for them), pani ( probably banias, who were prosperous but stingy guys. the aryans tried a protection racket on the panis), aandhra (not today's Andhra, but the tribe on the Oxus river), aryaana ( haryana ?), ariana (afghanistan), eeran (iran), eer or eire (ireland) , danavas ( danoi, tuatha de danaan, eh?) etc--many others. The pic above is from an egyptian Pharoah relief ~1300 BC depicting elderly, Hittite prisoners of war. (The hittites' own name for themselves was actually Khatti ---kshatriya i.e. aryan) . Note the vasishta hair style, also seen on Indus seals and also on much later Don Cossacks. 
Invasion theory: --For some reason , there's a big quarrel going on TODAY between people who claim the classical aryans were invaders in India and those who say no they were very much local. The extreme camp on one side says crude violent bad illiterate moron brutish horsy smelly chariot riding aryans destroyed the peaceful highly civilised technologically advanced cultured literate educated regularly bathing harappans. The 'no invasion' folks say nothing of the sort ever happened the harappans WERE the aryans, etc etc. and both claim various proofs. Seems strong political aspects of today, really, correcting the absurd 19th century "histories" written from a european point of view. History is a selective look at events, and is a matter of standpoint, after all. Please keep this in mind. Both groups seem to select only that evidence which fits their theory while massively ignoring the remaining important evidence. I thought a theory has to explain the evidence, all the evidence? Only scientific investigation will clear up the matter. Even here the early "scientific" and "genetic" studies are thinly disguised "proofs" of various racial or regional standpoints. (making a separate page for reviewed links on this topic with various opinions and theories with their interpretations of facts, etc. Please send your links too)
Anyway, the old lawbook writers like manu say the four varnas including vaishya and sudra are fully arya : then the ones who were previously arya KSHATRIYA but have given up the practices include "the Paundraka, the Choda, the Dravida, the Kaamboja, the Yavana, the Saka, the Parada, the Pahlava, the Cheena, the Kiraata, and the Darada. "
Yavanas are likely ionians/central asian ancestors of classical greeks: sakas are scythians (---ancestors of many europeans), pahlavas and paradas (parthian) are old iranians (see pic at right), kaambhojas used to live in central asia: cheenas are north chinese-manchurians, kiraatas are broadly eastern hillmen/ mongoloids, perhaps even south china. Darada is Dardistan north of kashmir. As mentioned earlier several of these groups immigrated to India proper too and became complete 'locals'. Some became rulers too.
So according to manu most of asia from the black sea to china is aryan so it seems pointless for anyone to exclusively claim their ancestors were aryans, really..
Well, in that case who could be the descendants of the early aryans?
Now, might sound humorous on the surface, but think seriously about this query....I bet you'll reach quite interesting results.
The aryans date way, way back in time, compared to the fairly recent scythians and others from central asia. From the evidence we have, only the Iranians and Indians ever called themselves aryans. Wherever the classical ancient aryans came from, the sarasvati river or central asia or the arctic circle or altai-kurgan or siberia or they were always local in India ------- in any case by today,
in India the pure descendants of the pure ancient aryans would be pure BLACK in complexion by now, courtesy of the fierce Indian sun.Think what this means.... the cultural notions and history that most people assume, are FALSE. These notions have been FED to them like goebbels by interested parties..recent immigrants.
This is what Indians really looked like. Pics are from Ajanta paintings. I havent changed the features: merely given a haircut and removed the jewellery. People with IDENTICAL faces with the original dark aryan features flash a dazzling smiles even TODAY all over India.
 |  |
......furthermore, sorry to say this but most Indians (incl. pak-afgh) DONT want to share aryan ancestry with anyone ;-). Forget it. Ok, iranians and ukranians -south russians -siberians - gansu maybe.
Certainly not with neo-mousterians ! (the mousterians -neanderthals most probably bearing Y chromosome haplotypes like M170 lineages developed in northerly latitudes, very cold icy lands and hence developed white skin and blond hair (otherwise actually a genetic defect, but in these particular conditions, it was an advantage, for it helped to get Vitamin D from the pale sunlight). And as the rigveda says about a non-aryan group, possibly they also gibbered, didn't have a dharma, nor karma, had bent necks, etc. They were, well...somewhat crude and primitive, and were also one of the ancestors of today's 'whites'.
However, in spite of the unwarranted caveman image they have, basically they weren't monsters, but simple regular folk making a living the best way they knew. (sure there's some cannibalism evidence, but they never nuked millions) .Could have been the cannibal rakshasa or the reddish pisacha of the old stories.
In the manner it has ALWAYS happened in history, it is possible in very ancient times the aryas from asia swooped down (on reindeeer- or horseback ?) on these hapless ancient europeans and 'helped them'
(-gave them the works, as is told in the old books like the rigveda ;-).
Why should modern "white" europeans get agitated and suppress the evidence and burn the books ? So many priceless collections have conveniently vanished or just burnt up, like Mladec and Predmosti). What is the big problem if some of their ancestors were neanderthals or africans. The constitutional head of the english, Queen Elizabeth recently confirmed that a curious old painting of a portuguese noblewoman was indeed an ancestor of hers, visibly "african looking" .... it is only the nobodies and losers who clutch at race theories. Europeans are very socially advanced now, aren't they?
If you have any good links , do please share them with us.
Note : Nothing against neanderthals. Neanderthal/ Mousterian /middle paleolithic tools have been found all over India too . Besides there were neanderthals to the north of India: much later, some Tokharians who lived across the himalayas -tibet also had blond hair and green eyes, as seen in the 6th century AD paintings. Further, light coloured eyes are quite common in India, though not blond hair.
A reader from europe wrote he would be very proud to have neanderthal ancestors. (All of us have some, in fact. That's the spirit.Yeah! Grunt! )
Dravida
While this is a language term, incorrect quack anthropology insists on treating it as racial. Again, useful for TODAY's political purposes. The ancient dravida culture elements are all connected to Elam in north iraq -iran. (not the old chestnut the harappans and brahuis...brahui language is related to northern drav. languages, has loan words from recent baluchi only, and the brahuis far from being harappan are most probably tough chalukya -rashtrakuta from deccan who spoke a form of old kannada --northern dravida.) The Elamites were VERY close neighbours of the classical aryans of persia. (asura?). (Elam , or eelam may have been eezham, pronounced as in tamizh. It also sounds eerily like eeLa, Aila, etc old aryan names. The Achaemenids inherited the city of persepolis from Elam.) May be there was a large migration after some natural disaster like drying up of the lakes, or a flood or huge earthquake. (The area is a very active earthquake zone even today.) This also means the ancient Elam-Dravidas invaded south India. Perhaps the Elamo-dravidians bore haplotypes like J-M172, which are prominent in Iran and India, particularly the parsees. Another possibility is L haplotypes which are common in S. India. (by the way closely related K-M70 are found right from Morocco to Egypt and Ethiopia).
Although some tribals and sc people of Tamilnad do physically resemble australian aborigines and andaman islanders, the language they speak today (tamil) has NO resemblance in any manner with the australians/andamanese. They have no cultural similarity either.(except maybe a design of comb of Tamil tribal Kadars.) It simply means the invading Dravidas were highly aggressive and ruthlessly efficient in stamping out earlier cultures and language. It means they were a ruling group over the previous inhabitants. Now this is a very inconvenient and troublesome conclusion to some people, mainly because of political agendas, but is the actual true story. ( Note that iranians or elamites or anybody, even if they bathed in milk, would get the complete treatment of the Indian sun within six hundred years, never mind a couple of thousand).
There's one more thing often overlooked. Today's "tamil" people include immigrants from several places, including Andhra, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, even UP-Punjab-Kashmir-Swat ...even Afghanistan a long time ago. The fabulous imperial Pallavas remotely hailed from iran ( saka-pahlava -parthava), and are first noticed as feudatories of satavahanas.
Researches have indicated there were several language groups in India not just "aryan" or "dravidian" or "mundari". For instance Tibetoburman, Mon-Khmer, Paisachi ( burshaski), maybe something like the languages of Andamanese, Polynesian, Australian groups : there is some evidence of "substrate" languages swallowed up by later languages, like Nahali, Kusunda, Tharu, etc. Whatever the origins, after a while the speakers need not be any distinct ethnic group, as languages spread far and wide. While the language may not be spoken now, the words have entered the classical languages : even the rgveda bears influence of dravida sounds which are not found in nearby related languages. Many so called "dravidian" words are actually mundari words taken up into dravida languages. And so on.
Anyone who uses the term "aryan and dravidian" except in linguistics, for instance in genetic and anthropological studies is basically an amateur, or worse, may have been manipulated by hidden hands.
The tired agendas have been flogged to death and younger generation will not swallow the rubbish fed to them by hopeful politicians who want to create problems where none exist..... All the same, the people of India are competent to settle the matters themselves.
(This is only a beginning, much more needs to be done. Modern gene studies CONFIRM there were many streams : all of them helping to create the immediately recognizable thing broadly called Indian culture. Call it whatever you want, jambudveepe, bharatavarshe, bharatakhande, subcontinental, south asian, hindustani, bharatiya, hindutva, bindutva, buddhistic, jain, sikh, indigenous, dramila, saonthali, mundaari, aboriginal, hindislamic, indochristian, mazdayasni, whatever. But be cheerful!
Some links of interest--growing section! Note, the viewpoints are completely different. I dont necessarily endorse the views on the websites below, merely informing readers about the various viewpoints. Share your good links with all of us!
news, links, notes and jottings here
NEW-- this is what the ancestral people of India looked like.
running discussionPlease send your additions, suggestions and questions too.
back to index of cultural stuff, other communities too
© v ramchandra rao || all rights reserved. ||email vramrao@yahoo