Then there are the so-called Heqqa Kashewet (‘foreign rulers’- Hyskos in Greek) elite that conquered Egypt later on, a group of foreigners that ruled over Egypt for 200 years, appearing at around the same time as the Mitanni.

That the Sarasvati Civilization was the precursor -among many other smaller states- to the Mauryan empire (identifiable with the Northern Black Polished Ware, archaeologically) is well known and established by now, thus completely rubbishing the notion of there ever having been an influx of peoples into India. Devilish little details- such as the use of the same system of weights, the game of dice being a favourite pastime of both the ‘Harappans’ and the Mauryans and later Indians, same layout of cities, etc (for more, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Black_Polished_Ware)- are proof enough for someone with half a brain. The question then becomes- what became of the Indians that lived in the Sarasvati network after the river dried up, a process that would have taken hundreds, if not thousands, of years to take place? The Rg Veda mentions that there was a ’15 year drought’, during which time ‘rshis and great sages roamed the banks of the river’. There is no doubt in my mind that this was when the hymns of the Rg Veda were finally collated (composition would have taken place thousands of years earlier) into one ‘Veda’, presumably by chief among the rshis, Vyaasa. This would have been followed by a gradual migration of some tribes to the east and south, as well as to the west, and it was this group of people moving west that settled down in Iran, Anatolia, Egypt, and so on, bringing their language, gods and customs with them. Archaeological evidence points to the fact that the Indus network had ceased to be a major power by 1500 BC, which would meaning the drought, the collation of the Rg Veda, and subsequent migration of peoples would have begun centuries earlier, which tallies perfectly with the dates of the Indian kingdoms that sprung up in the near West.

I suggest people reading this look up the Gundestrup cauldron and note the similarity of this celtic work of ‘art’ with that of the Pashupati Indus seal from 3000 years earlier. This and more evidence- such as the mention of the tribe of Druhyus [Druids] having been driven to the west after the Battle of the Ten Kings in the Rg Veda, or the fact that there is absolutely NO archaelogical evidence to support the theory of there having been any significant influx of peoples INTO India after 25000 ybp (check the Genographic Project for more genetic proof), or indeed the fact that other IE nations such as the Iranians still retain a memory of an IMmigration from India. The Iranians (by which I mean ancient Persians, of course) believed their homeland was the land of the Hapta-Hendu (‘Sapta-Sindhu’), which was ‘too hot for man’, and in parallel the Airyanam Vaejo, which was ‘too cold’ with a harsh winter (Kashmir).

The fact that Indus sites are the oldest urban sites in South Asia and the oldest Indo-Iranian civilization (I prefer the term Indo-Iranian to Indo-European, why associate with a bunch of barbarians that were not civilized until Indian 800 BC, by which time India had already passed through a creation-destruction cycle?) , older even than Egypt, with Mehrgarh (7000 BC) proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earliest phases of settlement and transition to subsistence and agriculture, thence on to actual civilization and the building of city-networks- all happened right here, in India- pretty much proves it was a migration from the East (i.e. the Indus valley), on to the arid plateau of Iran, which has no fertile river valleys on the scale of the Sarasvati, the Sindhu, or even the Nile to support the birth of a civilization – common sense, really- and thence on to Asia Minor and Europe, settling first in the easternmost edge of Europe- Greece, and later Italy.

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

Great. Replace Europe stupid Aryan-Dravidian race theory and replace with African stupid Aryan-Dravidian race theory.

Lets get the origin of the words out in the open:

“…As an adaptation of the Latin Arianus, referring to Iran, ‘Aryan’ has “long been in English language use”.[3] Its history as a loan word began in the late 1700s, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ā́rya- to refer to speaker of North Indian languages.[3]. When it was determined that Iranian languages — both living and ancient — used a similar term in much the same way (but in the Iranian context as a self-identifier of Iranian peoples), it became apparent that the shared meaning had to derive from the ancestor language of the shared past, and so, by the early 1800s, the word ‘Aryan’ came to refer to the group of languages deriving from that ancestor language, and by extension, the speakers of those languages.[4]

Then, in the 1830s, based on the erroneous theory that words like “Aryan” could also be found in European languages, the term “Aryan” came to be used as the term for the Indo-European language group, and by extension, the speakers of those languages. In the 19th century, “language” was still considered a property of “ethnicity”, and thus the speakers of the Indo-European languages came to be the so-called “Aryan race”, as contradistinguished from the so-called “Semitic race”. By the late 19th century, the notions of an “Aryan race” became closely linked to Nordicism, which posited Northern European racial superiority over all other peoples (including Indians). This “master race” ideal engendered both the “Aryanization” programs of Nazi Germany, in which the classification of people as “Aryan” and “non-Aryan” was most emphatically directed towards the exclusion of Jews.[5][n 2] By the end of World War II, the word ‘Aryan’ had become firmly associated with the racial theories and atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.

In colloquial modern English it is typically used to signify the Nordic racial ideal promoted by the Nazis. As the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states at the beginning of its definition, “Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.”[1][6]

In present-day India, the original ethno-linguistic signifier has been mostly lost, the denotation having been semantically replaced by other, secondary, meanings. In Iran, the original self-identifier lives on in ethnic names like “Alani”, “Ir”, and in the name of Iran itself.[7] In present-day academia, the terms “Indo-Iranian” and “Indo-European” have made most uses of the term ‘Aryan’ obsolete, and ‘Aryan’ is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term “Indo-Aryan” to represent (speakers of) North Indian languages. Notions of an “Aryan race” only survive in the context of fascist nationalism, in which nationhood is defined by ancestry….” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

DNA even mt-dna has around a million molecular leisons occuring per cell/per day and hence DNA cannot be used in racial classification.

so where in you opinion is the origin of the caucasoid features? is it indus valley or fertile crescent or caucasus/russia?

Any info, inputs or bullshit on Aryan invasion theory : plz. mail me at britsin@gmail.com

gaurav,

lucknow (UP)