NationStates Jolt Archive

Just remembered something from a documentary I once saw. It was about a well off Jewish family from America spending a fortnight (I think) with a well off equivalent in India, who, by Western standards, wasn't that well off. Anyway, there was one part where the family saw a Hindu (I think) shrine with swastikas on it. Not knowing that it was a holy symbol to them, the father said "Do you know that the Germans used to use that?" The Indian guy, misintepreting the question, said something along the lines of "There is a special relationship between Indians and Germans because we are Aryan and they are sons of Aryan."

So, what's up with that? Does this Aryan-sons of Aryan thing apply to all Europeans? Was this guy just rambling?

Aryavartha, you're Indian. I'm looking at you.

the ayran empire stretched from persia to about tibet. thats were hitler got his idea from and symbol from. but theres a difference in the two symbols, by about 45 degrees.

I don't know about a special relationship between the Germans & Indians, but the swastika was a common symbol throughout India & Asia for thousands of years before the Nazis appropriated it.

I took this photo in Japan (Kyoto) a couple of months ago.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g66/Boonytopia/DSC01832.jpg

I know about the common use of the swastika as a religious symbol in southern and eastern Asia.

I do not know the specifics, but I do know that due to migration flows Europeans, Indians, Pakistani’s and Iranians are somehow related. We can see this in their languages; for all the languages belong to the Indo-European sub-set (another is Semitic languages). For example the English words for brother, mother, father and daughter are quite similar to their Farsi (Persian) equivalents eg baradaar, madaar, pedaar, and dokhtaar…
Moreover we have good and better and they have khoob and behtaar...

See the similarities, even the name of Iran is derived from Aryan

(note that my transcription of Farsi may not be clear to everyone :D )

Just remembered something from a documentary I once saw. It was about a well off Jewish family from America spending a fortnight (I think) with a well off equivalent in India, who, by Western standards, wasn't that well off. Anyway, there was one part where the family saw a Hindu (I think) shrine with swastikas on it. Not knowing that it was a holy symbol to them, the father said "Do you know that the Germans used to use that?" The Indian guy, misintepreting the question, said something along the lines of "There is a special relationship between Indians and Germans because we are Aryan and they are sons of Aryan."

So, what's up with that? Does this Aryan-sons of Aryan thing apply to all Europeans? Was this guy just rambling?

Aryavartha, you're Indian. I'm looking at you.



Yep as somebody has already said the majority of us in Europe share a common language root with the Indian continant(Indoeuropean) , and high caste Hindu Indians revel in their shared Arayn heritage.

I don't know about a special relationship between the Germans & Indians, but the swastika was a common symbol throughout India & Asia for thousands of years before the Nazis appropriated it.

I took this photo in Japan (Kyoto) a couple of months ago.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g66/Boonytopia/DSC01832.jpg
lol
-PLUG-
----------
This very topic has been done before on the same show, it was the hell as funny, not as funny as when they sent a family to Africa, and a tribesman died but the person that informed the tribe didn't tell the chief first so they beat him.
The death wasn't the funniest part, that was the beating.

Swastikas can be found in ancient temples in Israel too.

Just remembered something from a documentary I once saw. It was about a well off Jewish family from America spending a fortnight (I think) with a well off equivalent in India, who, by Western standards, wasn't that well off. Anyway, there was one part where the family saw a Hindu (I think) shrine with swastikas on it. Not knowing that it was a holy symbol to them, the father said "Do you know that the Germans used to use that?" The Indian guy, misintepreting the question, said something along the lines of "There is a special relationship between Indians and Germans because we are Aryan and they are sons of Aryan."

So, what's up with that? Does this Aryan-sons of Aryan thing apply to all Europeans? Was this guy just rambling?

Aryavartha, you're Indian. I'm looking at you.

Aryan is originally a linguistic group. And Europeans and Indians are in same linguistic group.
Aryan as in Aryan and as in Hitler's Aryan arent the same things.

I do not know the specifics, but I do know that due to migration flows Europeans, Indians, Pakistani’s and Iranians are somehow related. We can see this in their languages; for all the languages belong to the Indo-European sub-set (another is Semitic languages). For example the English words for brother, mother, father and daughter are quite similar to their Farsi (Persian) equivalents eg baradaar, madaar, pedaar, and dokhtaar…
Moreover we have good and better and they have khoob and behtaar...

See the similarities, even the name of Iran is derived from Aryan

(note that my transcription of Farsi may not be clear to everyone :D )

All humans are related if you go that far back. If you go enough far, you are also related with cockroaches since we are all evolved from single cell organisms at oceans.

Swastikas can be found in ancient temples in Israel too.

I also thought that they were used by native American groups. Could be wrong though.

Well..I'm not sure how factual this is but....The orginal group of "Aryans" invaded Northern Indian and were known by myths legends and stories to be the first fair people on earth. They conquered India and the "darker people" there...and spread their culture...this eventually found its way through Iran and eventually to Europe....hence Indo-European, where Indo-Aryan is also sometimes used. That is the connection that I have understood, though I dont know how much of it is fact and history, and how much of it is myth and legend.

Anyway, there was one part where the family saw a Hindu (I think) shrine with swastikas on it. Not knowing that it was a holy symbol to them, the father said "Do you know that the Germans used to use that?" The Indian guy, misintepreting the question, said something along the lines of "There is a special relationship between Indians and Germans because we are Aryan and they are sons of Aryan."

So, what's up with that? Does this Aryan-sons of Aryan thing apply to all Europeans? Was this guy just rambling?

Aryavartha, you're Indian. I'm looking at you.

The Aryan theory was very widely believed in India due to the British influence and it being in the textbooks and all.

Nowadays it is discredited but it is still popular...since...well..I think residual effect..old beliefs die hard...the theory was in vogue for about a century now.

So, the answer is no. Most informed/educated Indians of today don't believe in the Aryan nonsense or a genetic link between Indians and Europeans as it was earlier believed.

But there was a lot of bonhomie between the German Nazi and certain Indian nationalist groups during the 40s. Subhash Chandra Bose, the founder of the Indian national Army allied with Germany and Japan, in a bid to free India from British occupation. A lot of literature and propoganda flowed from that and your man might be a result of that.

Well..I'm not sure how factual this is but....The orginal group of "Aryans" invaded Northern Indian and were known by myths legends and stories to be the first fair people on earth. They conquered India and the "darker people" there...and spread their culture...this eventually found its way through Iran and eventually to Europe....hence Indo-European, where Indo-Aryan is also sometimes used. That is the connection that I have understood, though I dont know how much of it is fact and history, and how much of it is myth and legend.

That theory is now discredited.

It was invented by Max Mueller, a German "historian" (also a Christian evangelist) who was in the pay of British. Guess how many times he visited India to study archeology, the people, the local texts, etc..?

Zero. He never even visited India. But his theory took off because the British liked since it justified the "white man's burden" ..."hey we spread civilization once and we are doing it again...shuttup..we are your massa".

Besides, the Brits could not stand that us brown dark folks could have had an advanced civilization even around 2000 BC. How could that be? So invent a "master race" theory and make it fit using linguistics...the weakest of the sciences.

The ultimate irony was when Hitler one upped the Brits and took the Aryan fantasy to the extreme and the theory ended up resulting in a deadly war for the Brits.

This link traces the development of the theory.

http://www.sabha.info/research/aif.html#origin

Well..I'm not sure how factual this is but....The orginal group of "Aryans" invaded Northern Indian and were known by myths legends and stories to be the first fair people on earth. They conquered India and the "darker people" there...and spread their culture...this eventually found its way through Iran and eventually to Europe....hence Indo-European, where Indo-Aryan is also sometimes used. That is the connection that I have understood, though I dont know how much of it is fact and history, and how much of it is myth and legend.

The consensus now is that the Indo-Europeans originated in what is now the southern Ukraine, around the northern shores of the Black and Caspian Seas. From there they went both east and west. The eastern branch went down into Persia and as far as India and Central Asia. The western branch went into Europe and also into Anatolia, through the Caucasus. The general division between the two branches is symbolized by the word used for the number 100. In the West, the word has a hard sound in front, like the Latin "centum." In the East, the sound is soft, as in the Sanskrit (I think) "satem." Except that there is a "centum" language in the East and a "satem" language in the West (these were the people who couldn't follow directions, I suppose).

The Indo-Europeans used to be called Indo-Aryans, but that's changed since Hitler and his mob discredited the term Aryan (among other things). When they arrived in India they did drive out the indigenous people, or at least drove them south. Those people are Tamil speakers, I've heard them called Dravidians, too. It's thought that their language group once extended from Iraq to India and that the Elamites of ancient history and of biblical fame may have spoken one of those languages.

That theory is now discredited.

It was invented by Max Mueller, a German "historian" (also a Christian evangelist) who was in the pay of British. Guess how many times he visited India to study archeology, the people, the local texts, etc..?

Zero. He never even visited India. But his theory took off because the British liked since it justified the "white man's burden" ..."hey we spread civilization once and we are doing it again...shuttup..we are your massa".

Besides, the Brits could not stand that us brown dark folks could have had an advanced civilization even around 2000 BC. How could that be? So invent a "master race" theory and make it fit using linguistics...the weakest of the sciences.

The ultimate irony was when Hitler one upped the Brits and took the Aryan fantasy to the extreme and the theory ended up resulting in a deadly war for the Brits.

This link traces the development of the theory.

http://www.sabha.info/research/aif.html#origin


Abbe Dubois' "Hindu manners, customs and ceremonies" is one of the most informative and interesting books out there, if you can get past all the talk of savages and hoodoo linguistics.

The indoeuropean language moat likwly originated in south-central europe. IE Penetrated as far as india, but clearly did not import any particular culture. Also, not all indians speak indoeuropean languages.

At any rate, a far cry from Mueller and Dubois' chrisianist nonsense.

Abbe Dubois' "Hindu manners, customs and ceremonies" is one of the most informative and interesting books out there, if you can get past all the talk of savages and hoodoo linguistics.

The indoeuropean language moat likwly originated in south-central europe. IE Penetrated as far as india, but clearly did not import any particular culture. Also, not all indians speak indoeuropean languages.

At any rate, a far cry from Mueller and Dubois' chrisianist nonsense.

Not all Indians do speak Indo-European languages, that's certainly true. I think, though, that the Indo-Europeans who entered India did bring their culture with them, the culture of early Sanskrit religious texts like the Rigveda (a nomadic way of life, with horse-drawn chariots, metal weapons, horse sacrifices, etc.).

The consensus now is that the Indo-Europeans originated in what is now the southern Ukraine, around the northern shores of the Black and Caspian Seas.

That was the consensus then. Not now.

Now, academics are distancing themselves from the theory.


The Indo-Europeans used to be called Indo-Aryans, but that's changed since Hitler and his mob discredited the term Aryan (among other things). When they arrived in India they did drive out the indigenous people, or at least drove them south. Those people are Tamil speakers, I've heard them called Dravidians, too. It's thought that their language group once extended from Iraq to India and that the Elamites of ancient history and of biblical fame may have spoken one of those languages.

Using Bible and linguistics as sources are unacceptable.

The Aryan theory has been discredited by genetics, archeology and such hard sciences.

Btw, I am a Tamil and we have literature going back to 1000 BC and we don't remember being anywhere than "Kumari Kandam" - the southern peninsula.

Not all Indians do speak Indo-European languages, that's certainly true. I think, though, that the Indo-Europeans who entered India did bring their culture with them, the culture of early Sanskrit religious texts like the Rigveda (a nomadic way of life, with horse-drawn chariots, metal weapons, horse sacrifices, etc.).

At any rate, whatever influence they brought did not last the centuries and really manifest itself in developed hindu culture, there are wide cultural differences between the different speakers of indo european languages.

I think, though, that the Indo-Europeans who entered India did bring their culture with them, the culture of early Sanskrit religious texts like the Rigveda (a nomadic way of life, with horse-drawn chariots, metal weapons, horse sacrifices, etc.).

Have you ever read the Rig Veda?

Thought so. It does not speak about "nomadic way of life". It talks about purush (pur - town, purush - town dweller).

Please update yourselves.

http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=2&limit=1&limitstart=0
Myth of Aryan Invasion Update
Written by Dr. David Frawley

That was the consensus then. Not now.

Now, academics are distancing themselves from the theory.




Which academics? Peer reviewed academic journal citation please.

Have you ever read the Rig Veda?

Thought so. It does not speak about "nomadic way of life". It talks about purush (pur - town, purush - town dweller).

Please update yourselves.

http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=2&limit=1&limitstart=0
Myth of Aryan Invasion Update
Written by Dr. David Frawley

I was simply quoting the Wiki article on the Rigveda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda). That article does list Dr. Frawley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frawley) in the bibliography.

Refering to your post prior to the one quoted, if the southern steppes of Russia/Ukraine are not where the Indo-Europeans originated, where did they come from?

As for citing the Bible and linguistics, I merely mentioned that the Elamites do appear in the Bible, but more to the point, why isn't linguistics a valid field of information for determining the origins of peoples?

Refering to your post prior to the one quoted, if the southern steppes of Russia/Ukraine are not where the Indo-Europeans originated, where did they come from?

When there is no such race and no such invading group, then where is the question of where they came from?

Tsk, and I thought we might have a nice discussion of the Indo-European question and linguistics and such.

I attended a lecture by James Mallory a number of years ago, which he opened by saying, "The good news is, the home of the Indo-Europeans has been found." He then put up a slide of the world from Scandinavia to South Africa and from Gibraltar to Bangla Desh and said, "And here it is."

You had to be there but it was funny.

When there is no such race and no such invading group, then where is the question of where they came from?

The Indo-Europeans didn't exist, is that what you say? Or do you just dispute the "invading Aryans"?

When there is no such race and no such invading group, then where is the question of where they came from?

You posted above, without providing evidence, that 'academics' (one? two? three?) are 'moving away' from the idea that the indoeuropean language originated in southeastern Europe and spread to India and Ireland.

Do you have any evidence from peer reviewed academic publications for this?

You posted above, without providing evidence, that 'academics' (one? two? three?) are 'moving away' from the idea that the indoeuropean language originated in southeastern Europe and spread to India and Ireland.

Do you have any evidence from peer reviewed academic publications for this?

At the risk of putting words in someone else's mouth, check the link in Post #20. That seems to be Aryavartha's source.

At the risk of putting words in someone else's mouth, check the link in Post #20. That seems to be Aryavartha's source.

I checked that link and it isnt relevant to his claim that 'academics' (unless he really did mean two or three) are 'distancing themselves' from SE-Europe origin of IE.

I checked that link and it isnt relevant to his claim that 'academics' (unless he really did mean two or three) are 'distancing themselves' from SE-Europe origin of IE.

What can I say? It's only source he provided. :rolleyes:

Aryan refers to Indo-European generally, an ancient group of people somewhere around the Black Sea. Their language, Proto-Indo-European, has been artificially constructed from many current languages from Sanskrit to Latin to Greek to English. We have found out a lot about their culture just from their language. Although it may all be wrong, it probably is correct. Eventually the people mushed together with other tribes and took them over, but the Aryans were absorbed and now anyone from Britannia and Iberia through Russia to Persia and northern India are at least partially Aryan. The reason Basque is an isolated language is because every other tribe in Europe was wiped out and they survived...or their language did at least.

Unfortunately, Hitler gave a cool symbol and word a bad name that will take decades to restore.

Which academics? Peer reviewed academic journal citation please.

"The real Eve"
by Stephen Oppenheimer

Page 116.

South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in south Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a "Male Aryan Invasion" of India. One age estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan through Kashmir, than via Central Asia and Russia, before finally comming to Eruope.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:iroQNzDXv_0J:evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf+kivisild+straight-forward+suggestion+would+be+that+both+Neolithic+(agriculture)+and+Indo-European+languages+arose+in+India+and+from+there,+spread+to+Europe&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
Toomas Kivisild, Siiri Rootsi, Mait Metspalu, Ene Metspalu,
Juri Parik, Katrin Kaldma, Esien Usanga, Sarabjit Mastana,
Surinder S. Papiha & Richard Villems
Here, however, the clock is just a secondary problem -- the first being 'the Indian reference sample' used. Indeed, the Indians included in this study consisted of a (limited) sample from Gujurat -- one of the western maritime provinces of India. When extending the sample with collections from different states, a quite different, even opposite, picture emerges (Table 17.3). Indians appear to display the higher diversity both in haplogroups 3 and 9 -- even if a pooled sample of eastern and southern European populations was considered. If we were to use the same arithmetic and logic (sensu haplogroup 9 is neolithic) to give an interpretation of this table, then the straight-forward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe. We would also have to add that inconsistencies with the archaeological evidence would appear and disappear as we change rate estimates (Table 17.3).

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2000.pdf
Toomas Kivisild, Surinder S. Papiha, Siiri Rootsi, Jüri Parik,
Katrin Kaldma, Maere Reidla, Sirle Laos, Mait Metspalu,
Gerli Pielberg, Maa rja Adojaan, Ene Metspalu, Sarabjit S. Mastana,
Yiming Wang, Mukaddes Golge, Halil Demirtas,
Eckart Schnakenberg, Gian Franco de Stefano, Tarekegn Geberhiwot,
Mireille Claustres & Richard Villems
A recent African origin of modern humans, although still disputed, is supported now by a majority of genetic studies. To address the question when and where very early diversification(s) of modern humans outside of Africa occurred, we concentrated on the investigation of maternal and paternal lineages of the extant populations of India, southern China, Caucasus, Anatolia and Europe. Through the analyses of about 1000 mtDNA genomes and 400 Y chromosomesfrom various locations in India we reached the following conclusions, relevant to the peopling of Europe in particular and of the Old World in general. First, we found that the node of the phylogenetic tree of mtDNA, ancestral to more than 90 per cent of the present-day typically European maternal lineages, is present in India at a relatively high frequency. Inferred coalescence time of this ancestral node is slightly above 50,000 BP. Second, we found that haplogroup U is the second most abundant mtDNA variety in India as it is in Europe. Summing up, we believe that there are now enough reasons not only to question a 'recent Indo-Aryan invasion' into India some 4000 BP, but alternatively to consider India as a part of the common gene pool ancestral to the diversity of human maternal lineages in Europe. Our results on Y-chromosomal diversity of various Indian populations support an early split between Indian and east of Indian paternal lineages, while on a surface, Indian (Sanskrit as well as Dravidic speakers) and European Y-chromosomal lineages are much closer than the corresponding mtDNA variants.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild1999b.pdf
Toomas Kivisild, Katrin Kaldma, Mait Metspalu, Jüri Parik, Surinder Papiha, Richard Villems
Both western and eastern Eurasian-specific mtDNA haplogroups can be found in India together with strictly Indian-specific ones. However, in India the structure of the haplogroups shared either with western or eastern Eurasian populations is profoundly different. This indicates a local independent development over a very long time period. Minor overlaps with lineages described in other Eurasian populations clearly demonstrate that recent immigrations have had very little impact on the innate structure of the maternal gene pool of Indians. Despite the variations found within India, these populations stem from a limited number of founder lineages. These lineages were most likely introduced to the Indian subcontinent during the Middle Palaeolithic, before the peopling of Europe and perhaps the Old World in general. Our demographic analysis reveals at least two major expansion phases that have influenced the wide assortment of the Indian mtDNA lineages. The more recent phase, which according to our estimation started around 20,000-30,000 years ago, seems to correspond to the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. The first expansion phase may reflect a demographic burst immediately after the initial peopling of India around 50 - 60 thousand years ago. This wave of expansion brought forward also those maternal lineages that can rightfully claim the name of Eurasian Eves.

and

More than ten per cent of the Indian mtDNA sequences do not belong to any of the continent-specific mtDNA haplogroups characterised so far (Tables 1, 2). Nevertheless, the position of these lineages in the world-wide mtDNA phylogeny (Fig. 1) is not difficult to reveal: they all stem out of a node that occupies a crucial position in the human mtDNA phylogenetic tree (Kivisild et al., manuscript in preparation). It coincides with a hypothetical branching point connecting a large number of distinct, well-characterised mtDNA haplogroups. Theoretically, the existence of such a node was obvious already earlier and in one of the schemes it has been defined as R* (Macaulay et al. 1999). However, thus far it has existed as an “empty node”. Defining it as the founder of a super-haplogroup of mtDNA lineages allows one to say that it is an ancestral state of all western Eurasian sequences belonging to haplogroups H, V, J, T, U and K and has the same position relative to eastern Eurasian and Amerind sequences belonging to haplogroups F and B (Fig. 1). The western Eurasian haplogroups listed above constitute about 90% of mtDNA variation in Europe, whereas an Asian-specific haplogroup B is close to fixation in some Polynesian populations (Lum et al. 1998; Sykes et al. 1995) and, together with haplogroup F, makes up a large portion of the mtDNA varieties found in southeastern Asian populations (Ballinger et al. 1992).

http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Kivisild_1999.pdf
T. Kivisild*, M.J. Bamshad†, K. Kaldma*, M. Metspalu*, E. Metspalu*,
M. Reidla*, S. Laos*, J. Parik*, W.S. Watkins†, M.E. Dixon†, S.S. Papiha‡,
S.S. Mastana§, M.R. Mir¶, V. Ferak¥ and R. Villems*
About a fifth of the human gene pool belongs largely either to Indo-European or Dravidic speaking people inhabiting the Indian peninsula. The 'Caucasoid share' in their gene pool is thought to be related predominantly to the Indo-European speakers. A commonly held hypothesis, albeit not the only one, suggests a massive Indo-Aryan invasion to India some 4,000 years ago [1]. Recent limited analysis of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of Indian populations has been interpreted as supporting this concept [2] [3]. Here, this interpretation is questioned. We found an extensive deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe. Only a small fraction of the 'Caucasoid-specific' mtDNA lineages found in Indian populations can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture.

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v72_p313-332.pdf
T. Kivisild,1,7 S. Rootsi,1 M. Metspalu,1 S. Mastana,2 K. Kaldma,1 J. Parik,1 E. Metspalu,1
M. Adojaan,1 H.-V. Tolk,1 V. Stepanov,3 M. Go¨lge,4 E. Usanga,5 S. S. Papiha,6 C. Cinniog˘lu,7
R. King,7 L. Cavalli-Sforza,7 P. A. Underhill,7 and R. Villems1
Two tribal groups from southern India—the Chenchus and Koyas—were analyzed for variation in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the Y chromosome, and one autosomal locus and were compared with six caste groups from different parts of India, as well as with western and central Asians. In mtDNA phylogenetic analyses, the Chenchus and Koyas coalesce at Indian-specific branches of haplogroups M and N that cover populations of different social rank from all over the subcontinent. Coalescence times suggest early late Pleistocene settlement of southern Asia and suggest that there has not been total replacement of these settlers by later migrations. H, L, and R2 are the major Indian Y-chromosomal haplogroups that occur both in castes and in tribal populations and are rarely found outside the subcontinent. Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe. This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup. Haplotype frequencies of the MX1 locus of chromosome 21 distinguish Koyas and Chenchus, along with Indian caste groups, from European and eastern Asian populations. Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. The phylogeography of the primal mtDNA and Y-chromosome founders suggests that these southern Asian Pleistocene coastal settlers from Africa would have provided the inocula for the subsequent differentiation of the distinctive eastern and western Eurasian gene pools.

and

Our low STR diversity estimate of haplogroup R1a in central Asians is also consistent with the low diversities found by Zerjal et al. (2002) and suggests a recent founder effect or drift being the reason for the high frequency of M17 in southeastern central Asia. In Pakistan, except for the Hazara, who are supposedly recent immigrants in the region, the frequency of M17 was similarly high in the upper and lower courses of the Indus River valley (Qamar et al. 2002). The frequency of R1a drops from ∼30% in eastern provinces to 10% in the western parts of Iran (Quintana-Murci et al. 2001). Both Pakistanis and Iranians showed STR variances as high as those of Indians, when compared with the lower values in European and central Asian populations. Unexpectedly, both southern Indian tribal groups examined in this study carried M17. The presence of different STR haplotypes and the relatively high frequency of R1a in Dravidian-speaking Chenchus (26%) make M17 less likely to be the marker associated with male “Indo-Aryan” intruders in the area. More- over, in two previous studies involving southern Indian tribal groups such as the Valmiki from Andhra Pradesh (Ramana et al. 2001) and the Kallar from Tamil and Nadu (Wells et al. 2001), the presence of M17 was also observed, suggesting that M17 is widespread in tribal southern Indians. Given the geographic spread and STR diversities of sister clades R1 and R2, the latter of which is restricted to India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern central Asia, it is possible that southern and western Asia were the source for R1 and R1a differentiation.

Olson, Steve (2002), "Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past
Through Our Genes," Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. (p. 160-161)
"Consider the people of India. Physical anthropologists traditionally
have classfiedIndians as "Caucasians," a term invented in the
eighteenth century to describe people with a particular set of facial
features. But this classification has never sat particularly well with
some Europeans, who were offended by being lumped with the
dark-skinned people of the (Indian)subcontinent. Gradually a kind of
folk explanation emerged, which held that several thousand years ago
(1500 B.C.)India was overrun by invaders from Europe.
These light skinnned warriors interbred with the existing dark-skinned populations that the Indians acqired European features.

Recent studeis of mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome have revealed
a different picture. Incursions of people from Europe into India have
certainly occurred, but they have been less extensive than supposed,
and genes have flowed in the opposite direction as well. The physical
resemblance of Europeans to Indians appears instead to have resulted
largely from their common descent from the modern humans who left
Afica for Eurasia."


http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2005/09/dna-genetics-population.html
For presentation to a mostly non-biologist audience at the Human Empowerment Conference (HEC), Houston, Texas, USA; Sept 16 – 18, 2005 (Session Chair: Koenraad Elst, Moderator: Srinivasan Kalyanaraman):

DNA, GENETICS & POPULATION DYNAMICS:
Summary: The so-called Aryan invasion, an idea designed to divide the Hindus of Northern and Southern Bharat, was never supported by any concrete evidence and yet was elevated to the stature of a theory. It has been pushed in secondary school textbooks as a dogma. Science now conclusively rejects any notion of any Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent.
..
II. North & South Bharatiyas Share mtDNA, Which Is Distinct From That of Europeans

Extensive sequencing and statistical analysis of a part of mtDNA which has sustained mutations (the mitochondrial hypervariable region I, HVR I), from reasonable sample sizes, has shown that certain sequences dominant in Europe are uncommon in India, and when found, are almost equally divided amongst the North and South Indians. Conversely, there are sequences common to both the North and South Indians which are uncommon in Europe (4). These data have been used to estimate the time of diversion of the peoples of Europe and Asia in the Pleistocenic era (4), emphasizing that these are phylogenically different peoples (5).

III. North & South Bharatiyas Share Tissue Antigens, Distinct From Those of Europeans

All diploid human cells express a set of proteins on their surfaces, HLA-A, B and C, which are unique to an individual. They are coded for in the major histocompatibility complex of genes (MHC class I) on chromosome 6. These are the proteins which are recognized as non-self by the immune system in transplant rejection, and are variously called transplant antigens, phynotypic markers, cell-surface markers, etc. All of these proteins in all persons have identical structures and functions, yet can be distinguished from others. Not all 6 class I antigens (3 each from paternal and maternal copies of chromosomes 6) may be unique to an individual; some are identical or similar. MHC class II proteins (DP, DQ, DR) are expressed by some immune system cells only, but may be even more polymorphic.

Analysis of the DNA sequences coding for the different forms of these proteins (alleles) demonstrate that while populations which are closely related, geographically or through known migrations, show similarities in their class I and II MHC antigens, the Asians and the Europeans are distinct, separate but equal, peoples.

Conclusion: The stark lack of similarities in the gene pools of the Indian subcontinent and Europe, vividly evident in the mtDNA and the MHC complex, destroys any ‘Aryan invasion’ notions, and confirms the genetic uniformity of peoples of the Indian subcontinent.

Chandrakant Pansé, Professor of Biotechnology
Newton, Massachusetts, DrCP@rcn.com

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/nov/14aryan.htm
David Frawley
Indian history revisited
A recent academic paper argues that there is an indigenous development of civilisation in India going back to at least 6000 BCE (Mehrgarh). It proposes that the great Harappan or Indus Valley urban culture (2600-1900 BCE), centred on the Saraswati river of Vedic fame, had much in common with Vedic literary accounts. It states that the Harappan culture came to an end not because of outside invaders but owing to environmental changes, most important of which was the drying up of the Saraswati. It argues further that the movement of populations away from the Saraswati to the Ganges, after the Saraswati dried up (c 1900 BCE), was reflected in the literature with Vedic Saraswati based literature giving way to Puranic texts extolling the Ganga. Perhaps more shockingly, the paper states that the Aryan invasion theory reflects colonialism and Eurocentrism and is quite out of date. Note the conclusion:

"That the archaeological record and ancient oral and literate traditions of south Asia are now converging has significant implications for regional cultural history. A few scholars have proposed that there is nothing in the 'literature' firmly placing the Indo-Aryans outside of south Asia, and now the archaeological record is confirming this.

"We reject most strongly the simplistic historical interpretations, which date back to the eighteenth century, that continue to be imposed on south Asian culture history. These still prevailing interpretations are significantly diminished by European ethnocentrism, colonialism, racism, and anti-semitism. Surely, as south Asian studies approach the twenty-first century, it is time to describe emerging data objectively rather than perpetuate interpretations without regard to the data archaeologists have worked so hard to reveal."

Is this the statement of a Hindutva fanatic? No, it is by a noted Western archaeologist specialising in ancient India, James Schaffer of Case Western University as part of his new article, 'Migration, Philology and South Asian Archaeology', soon to appear in Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia: Evidence, Interpretation and History, edited by Bronkhorst and Deshpande, University of Michigan Press.

The Aryan invasion theory, as Schaffer notes, arose from a Eurocentric view that was hostile to an Indic basis for Western civilisation or peoples. The discovery of close affinities between the Indo-European languages in the eighteenth century required an explanation. By placing the original Aryans in Europe, who later migrated to India where they got absorbed by the indigenous population, it took away any need to connect the ancient Europeans with India, which was not pleasing to the colonial mindset. The theory eventually developed an anti-semetic tone. It was used to trace Western culture not to the Jews and their Biblical accounts but to a proposed European homeland dominated by Nordic peoples. Thus the invasion theory became one of the pillars for Nazi historians, yet strangely the Communists in India have become strong supporters of the theory and accuse those who question it of being fascists!.

Archaeologist Mark Kenoyer of the University of Wisconsin, who is in charge of the Indus Valley display that is touring American museums, has similar views as related in an article on the 'Indus Valley: Secrets of a Civilisation in Wisconsin Fall 1998':

"If previous scholars were wrong about the origin of the Indus people, they also missed the boat when it came to explaining their downfall, which they attributed to an invasion by Indo-Aryan speaking Vedic tribes from the northwest." This theory has now been ruled out by the lack of archaeological evidence. Instead, says Kenoyer, "it's likely that the rivers dried up and shifted their courses, altering trade routes and undermining the economy."

Kenoyer is also now arguing that the Indus script can be traced to 3300 BCE, making it as old as an Sumerian records of writing.

The skeletal record confirms that same data as archaeology as Kenneth Kennedy notes in 'Have Aryans Been Identified in the Prehistoric Skeletal Record from South Asia' appearing in The Indo-Aryans of South Asia (Walter de Gruyter 1995). No such Aryan skeletons have ever been found as different from indigenous ethnic groups.

"All prehistoric human remains recovered from the Indian subcontinent are phenotypically identifiable as south Asians. Furthermore their biological continuity with living peoples of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the border regions is well established across time and space. Assumptions that blondism, blue-grey eyes and light skin pigmentation are physical hallmarks of either ancient Aryans or of members of brahmin and other social groups in modern south Asia, find their origins in the improper marriage of excerpts from Vedic texts with nineteenth century Germanic nationalistic writings."

Most archaeologists in India like B B Lal, S P Gupta or S R Rao have argued similar points for several years. At a recent conference in Los Angeles in August, sponsored by the World Association for Vedic Studies (WAVES), Lal argued convincingly the same points in an excellent paper called the 'Myth of the Aryan Invasion: Some Reflections on the Authorship of the Harappan Culture'. Unfortunately, Indian Leftists called B B Lal's recent book The Oldest Civilisation in South Asia as "academically weak and unscholarly," though he is only relating the implications of the latest archaeology. How many of these people ever read Lal's book or the related archaeological studies is debatable.

Yet even a Communist historian in India like Romila Thapar, who previously endorsed the invasion theory has been forced to backtrack and no longer emphasises it. She recently notes in a Frontline interview:

"Introducing archaeological data into historical studies also forces historians to think along interdisciplinary lines. The decline of the Indus cities is attributed to a range of causes, of which ecological change is among the major ones."

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/aid/keaitlin1.html
Linguistic aspects of the Aryan non-invasion theory
Dr. Koenraad ELST

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2006_v78_p202-221.pdf#search=%22Polarity%20and%20Temporality%20of%20High-Resolution%20Y-Chromosome%20Distributions%22
Sanghamitra Sengupta,1 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,2 Roy King,3 S. Q. Mehdi,4
Christopher A. Edmonds,3 Cheryl-Emiliane T. Chow,3 Alice A. Lin,3 Mitashree Mitra,5
Samir K. Sil,6 A. Ramesh,7 M. V. Usha Rani,8 Chitra M. Thakur,9 L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza,3
Partha P. Majumder,1 and Peter A. Underhill3

We found that
the influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. The ages of accumulated microsatellite
variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000–15,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of
regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input
from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups indicate
demographic complexity that is inconsistent with a recent single history. Associated microsatellite analyses of the
high-frequency R1a1 haplogroup chromosomes indicate independent recent histories of the Indus Valley and the
peninsular Indian region. Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than
a source with proximity to the Indus and with significant genetic input resulting from demic diffusion associated
with agriculture. Our results underscore the importance of marker ascertainment for distinguishing phylogenetic
terminal branches from basal nodes when attributing ancestral composition and temporality to either indigenous
or exogenous sources. Our reappraisal indicates that pre-Holocene and Holocene-era—not Indo-European—expansions
have shaped the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/103/4/843
Published online before print January 13, 2006, 10.1073/pnas.0507714103
PNAS | January 24, 2006 | vol. 103 | no. 4 | 843-848
ANTHROPOLOGY
A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios

Sanghamitra Sahoo, Anamika Singh, G. Himabindu , Jheelam Banerjee , T. Sitalaximi , Sonali Gaikwad, R. Trivedi, Phillip Endicott, Toomas Kivisild §, Mait Metspalu §, Richard Villems §, and V. K. Kashyap, ¶, ||
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.

and

Several studies have argued that, in contrast to the relative uniformity of mtDNA, the Y chromosomes of Indian populations display relatively small genetic distances to those of West Eurasians (17), linking this finding to hypothetical migrations by Indo-Aryan speakers. Wells et al. (18) highlighted M17 (R1a) as a potential marker for one such event, as it demonstrates decreasing frequencies from Central Asia toward South India.

Departing from the ˜one haplogroup equals one migration " scenario, Cordaux et al. (19) defined, heuristically, a package of haplogroups (J2, R1a, R2, and L) to be associated with the migration of IE people and the introduction of the caste system to India, again from Central Asia, because they had been observed at significantly lower proportions in South Indian tribal groups, with the high frequency of R1a among Chenchus of Andhra Pradesh (6) considered as an aberrant phenomenon (19). Conversely, haplogroups H, F*, and O2a, which were observed at significantly higher proportions among tribal groups of South India, led the same authors to single them out as having an indigenous Indian origin. Only O3e was envisaged as originating (recently) east of India (20), substantiating a linguistic correlation with the TB speakers of Southeast Asia...."

"In other words, if the source of R1a variation in India comes from Central Asia, as claimed by Wells et al. (18) and Cordaux et al. (19), then, under a recent gene flow scenario, one would expect to find the other Central Asian-derived NRY haplogroups (C3, DE, J*, I, G, N, O) in Northwest India at similarly elevated frequencies, but that is not the case. Alternatively, although the simple admixture scenario does not hold, one could nevertheless argue that the other haplogroups were lost during a hypothetical bottleneck (lineage sorting among the early Indo-Aryans arriving to India). But in line with this scenario, one should expect to observe dramatically lower genetic variation among Indian R1a lineages. In fact, the opposite is true"

"Indo-Aryan migration scenario advocated in ref. 19 rested on the suggestion that all Indian caste groups are similar to each other while being significantly different from the tribes. Using a much more representative data set, numerically, geographically, and definitively, it was not possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations between the caste and tribal pools. Although differences could be found to occur within particular regions, between particular caste and tribal groups, consistent and statistically significant variations at the subcontinental scale were not detected."

"It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny"

I attended a lecture by James Mallory a number of years ago, which he opened by saying, "The good news is, the home of the Indo-Europeans has been found." He then put up a slide of the world from Scandinavia to South Africa and from Gibraltar to Bangla Desh and said, "And here it is."

You had to be there but it was funny.

That was funny.

Swami Vivekananda said this on Aryan Invasion Theory about a hundred years back.

Our archaeologists' dreams of India being full of dark-eyed aborigines, and the bright Aryans came from - the Lord knows where. According to some, they came from Central Tibet; others will have it that they came from Central Asia. There are patriotic Englishmen who think that the Aryans were all red haired. Others, according to their idea, think that they were all black-haired. If the writer happens to be a black-haired man, the Aryans were all black-haired. Of late, there was an attempt made to prove that the Aryans lived on Swiss lake. I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole. Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for as the truth of these theories, there is notone word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends...

The Indo-Europeans didn't exist, is that what you say? Or do you just dispute the "invading Aryans"?

I dispute that "Aryan" is a race. The Vedas, which holds proprietership rights on the word, does not classify it so.

I also dispute the "Aryan Invasion theory" too.

The genetic linkages of the so-called Indo-Europeans is mainly due to the peopling of Europe from South Asia and not the other way around- as asserted by Steven Oppenheimer.

The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) was never proved. It was just accepted as truth due to the academic power that British colonial system had.

So we are now seeing an ironical case where we (Indians) are expected to prove against a case (that "Aryans" invaded us) which was never proved in the first place.

David Frawley's Paradox

The Harappans of the Indus Valley have left profuse archaeological records over a vast region - from the borders of Iran and beyond Afghanistan to eastern UP and Tapti valley, and must have supported over 30 million people and believed to be living an advanced civilization. And yet these people have left absolutely no literary records. Sounds incredible! The Vedic Aryans and their successors on the other hand have left us a literature that is probably the largest and most profound in the world. But according to the AIT there is absolutely no archaeological record that they ever existed. Either on the Indian soil or outside its boundaries. So we have concrete history and archeology of a vast civilization of 'Dravidians' lasting thousands of years that left no literature, and a huge literature by the Vedic Aryans who left no history and no archaeological records. The situation gets more absurd when we consider that there is profuse archaeological and literary records indicating a substantial movement of Indian Aryans out of India into Iran and West Asia around 2000 BC.

So, how can all these obvious anomalies and serious flaws be reconciled? By accepting the truth that the so-called Aryans were the original people habitants of the townships along the Indus, Ravi, Saraswati and other rivers of the vast northern region of the Indian subcontinent. And no invasion by nomadic hordes from outside India ever occurred and the civilization was not destroyed but the population simply moved to other areas, and developed a new syncretic civilization and culture by mutual interaction and exchange of ideas.

The BBC. Page moved, I could get only a cache...

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ltTOpnjRQLwJ:www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml
The Aryan Invasion Theory
One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu 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.

The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of Hinduism, not only in the West but in India.

But many people argue that there is now evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong.

Others, however, believe that the case against the Aryan invation theory is far from conclusive.

The matter remains very controversial and highly politicised. The article below sets out the case made by those who believe that the Aryan invasion theory is seriously flawed.

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

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

Some 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.

The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism.

Dangers of the theory
Opponents of the Aryan invasion theory claim that it denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, and gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere.

They say that it even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.

The theory was not just wrong, some say, but included unacceptably racist ideas:

* it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures
* it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism
* it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences
* it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders
* it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith
* it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes
* it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system
* it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj
* it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier
* it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture

Max Mueller's quotes

http://www.sabha.info/books/LifeLetters1/DukeOfArgyll4Feb1875Vol1Pg509.html
I look upon the account of creation as given in Genesis as simply historical, as showing the highest _expression that could be given by the Jews at that early time to the conception of the beginning of the world. We have learnt, certainly since Kant, that the knowledge of beginnings is denied to us, that all we can do is to grope back a little way, and then to trust. I think I have a right to accept a special beginning of man, because I cannot account for what he is, if I look upon him as the product of anything else, known to me.

http://www.sabha.info/books/MMAutobiography/ChristianityHistoryPg300.html
My idea, on the contrary, was that Christianity was a true historical event, prepared by many events that had gone before and alone made it possible and real.

http://www.sabha.info/books/LifeLetters1/DukeArgyll16Dec1868Vol1Pg377.html
India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again, and that second conquest must be a conquest by education. . . . As to religion, that will take care of itself. The missionaries have done far more than they themselves seem to be aware of, nay much of the work which is theirs they would probably disclaim. The Christianity of our nineteenth century will hardly be the Christianity of India. But the ancient religion of India is doomed – and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?


http://www.sabha.info/books/LifeLetters1/Uproot9Dec1866Pg346.html
It[vedas] is the root of their religion, and to show them what that root is, is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3000 years

I'm not sure exactly where to start, or if to start. ;) You've obviously studied the subject far more intensely than I have.

I hadn't realized that invoking the "Aryan Invasion Theory" would provoke such a passionate response, not that I was suggesting it as a denigration of Indian culture and peoples, mind you, but simply as part of the theory of the spread of Indo-European languages. I will have to read up on the theory you propose, that Indo-European languages and, indeed, agriculture itself, developed in and spread from India to the Middle East and then Europe. Oppenheimer certainly has an interesting web site and provides food for thought. The article on the genetics of language and farming in India was a bit technical for me, though I think the point was, again, that IE arose in South Asia and spread, perhaps in conjunction with agriculture, to the west.

Again, I'll have to think on all this, and thanks for the excuse to buy even more books! :D

Max Mueller's quotes

http://www.sabha.info/books/LifeLetters1/DukeOfArgyll4Feb1875Vol1Pg509.html


http://www.sabha.info/books/MMAutobiography/ChristianityHistoryPg300.html


http://www.sabha.info/books/LifeLetters1/DukeArgyll16Dec1868Vol1Pg377.html


http://www.sabha.info/books/LifeLetters1/Uproot9Dec1866Pg346.html

I concede the point of Max Mueller being a racist. Mentioning the Bible many posts back was not my attempt to defend him or make the same argument.

I'm not sure exactly where to start, or if to start. ;) You've obviously studied the subject far more intensely than I have.

Well, after all it is a question of my identity and not a curiousity, as it is for you.;)

Again, I'll have to think on all this, and thanks for the excuse to buy even more books! :D

I would strongly recommend all of Oppenheimer's books.

I concede the point of Max Mueller being a racist. Mentioning the Bible many posts back was not my attempt to defend him or make the same argument.

No problem. I was not thinking that you intended to be denigrating or anything.