Forums
Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2 - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian History & Culture (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Indian History (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2 (/showthread.php?tid=567)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2 - dhu - 07-25-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-Honsol+Jul 25 2007, 10:41 AM-->QUOTE(Honsol @ Jul 25 2007, 10:41 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We can see that in today Eurasia are 4 big cultures -indic(Indus-Gange),middle east(Egipt-Sumer),sinic(Yellow river),european(no river here).
[right][snapback]71512[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

We are not talking about any derivative cultures here, only primary neolithic centers. Europe does not qualify as one, anymore than northeastern Siberia. This is common knowledge.


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Guest - 07-25-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jul 25 2007, 11:55 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jul 25 2007, 11:55 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Honsol+Jul 25 2007, 10:41 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Honsol @ Jul 25 2007, 10:41 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We can see that in today Eurasia are 4 big cultures -indic(Indus-Gange),middle east(Egipt-Sumer),sinic(Yellow river),european(no river here).
[right][snapback]71512[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

We are not talking about any derivative cultures here, only primary neolithic centers. Europe does not qualify as one, anymore than northeastern Siberia. This is common knowledge.
[right][snapback]71514[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Primal neolithic centers?then see Catal Huyuk in Turkey and Jericho in Israel.The Egipt and Sumer are later arivals comparative whit the 2 from up stairs.As far as i know ,from Kurdistan-Syria-Israel start the expansion of neolithic to Iran,Arabia, Europe and probably Egipt 8000 years ago.I dont know about India.

The 4 cultures you mention(Egipt,Indus,Yellow river) are in fact bronze age centers not neolithic ones.The Danube culture develop only coperr age,not bronze age.

The european bronze age is a derivate from the anatolian(Turkey) and caucasian one.


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 07-25-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-Honsol+Jul 25 2007, 01:00 PM-->QUOTE(Honsol @ Jul 25 2007, 01:00 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The 4 cultures you mention(Egipt,Indus,Yellow river) are in fact bronze age centers not neolithic ones.The Danube culture develop only coperr age,not bronze age.
[right][snapback]71515[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So it's north iraq versus south iraq? West Bank versus Egypt? upstairs mideast versus downstairs mideast? This sounds like Saraswati versus Indus routine common among indologists.

I don't know if you are familiar with something called fertile crescent. It's is a blanket term for the formative civilizations in the mideast. In this area, Neolithic to metal age transitions as well as every other index of civilization precedes the same in europe. Thus europe is generally agreed to be derivative. The great River Valley civilzations each had their beginnings in neolithic era and do roughly correspond with the original neolithic centers.

elementary school textbook here:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rivers are the basis for four great early civilizations to grow. Around rivers man could build farms and large cities.

The Fertile Crescent is the area in the Middle East that runs from what is now Turkey through Syria and Iraq.

The Tigris and Euphrates rivers run through this area. The plain that runs between these two rivers is known as Mesopotamia ( Greek for land between two rivers)

These rivers would flood and the silt left over would be so fertile that the farmers could raise surpluses of wheat and barley. Which allowed the area to develop villages.

People known as Sumerians populated this area known as Mesopotamia. The good soil attracted the Sumerians to the area but there were a few disadvantages of the area.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 07-26-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Earlier-dated finds (ca. 8000 BC) of charcoal in some Lahuradewa sites provide indications of slash and burn cultivation techniques present in the area (National Seminar on the Archaeology of Ganga Plain, December 2004, Lucknow, India). <b>Further to the west but still within the Ganges valley some studies of deposits at sites such as Sanai Tal lake have reported cereal pollens dated to ca. 13000 BC, indicating that this region may have exhibited some of the earliest-known Neolithic traits (National Seminar on the Archaeology of the Ganga Plain, December 2004, Lucknow, India).  </b>the individualist<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Guest - 07-26-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jul 25 2007, 02:22 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jul 25 2007, 02:22 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Honsol+Jul 25 2007, 01:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Honsol @ Jul 25 2007, 01:00 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The 4 cultures you mention(Egipt,Indus,Yellow river) are in fact bronze age centers not neolithic ones.The Danube culture develop only coperr age,not bronze age.
[right][snapback]71515[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So it's north iraq versus south iraq? West Bank versus Egypt? upstairs mideast versus downstairs mideast? This sounds like Saraswati versus Indus routine common among indologists.

I don't know if you are familiar with something called fertile crescent. It's is a blanket term for the formative civilizations in the mideast. In this area, Neolithic to metal age transitions as well as every other index of civilization precedes the same in europe. Thus europe is generally agreed to be derivative. The great River Valley civilzations each had their beginnings in neolithic era and do roughly correspond with the original neolithic centers.

elementary school textbook here:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rivers are the basis for four great early civilizations to grow. Around rivers man could build farms and large cities.

The Fertile Crescent is the area in the Middle East that runs from what is now Turkey through Syria and Iraq.

The Tigris and Euphrates rivers run through this area. The plain that runs between these two rivers is known as Mesopotamia ( Greek for land between two rivers)

These rivers would flood and the silt left over would be so fertile that the farmers could raise surpluses of wheat and barley. Which allowed the area to develop villages.

People known as Sumerians populated this area known as Mesopotamia. The good soil attracted the Sumerians to the area but there were a few disadvantages of the area.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]71516[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im well aware wht fertile crescent is.But the first was the hill agriculture.On the hills of Kurdistan,Syria,Israel we see the first neolithic centers.Megarh is also on the hills.After some time,the valley agriculture become more succesfull.
Your map doesnt represent the whole fertile crescent,ignore Indochina,Turkey and central America.


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 07-28-2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Firstly it appears that the Neolithic in Africa did not develop as a result of immigrants from the Middle East speaking a new Afroasiatic language.<b> Rather it developed out of a deep tradition of Egyptian Epi-Paleolithic cultures undergoing a long-process of Neolithicisation, </b>with a full Neolithic tradition emerging with the Badarian (and possibly Tasian), about 5,000 - 4,500 BCE.  wiki on afro-asiatic<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 07-31-2007

There can be no talk of Aryans, the word Aryan itself comes from a hypothetical group of people linguistically who wpoke PIE assumed by Western Scholars, there has been NO proof that peoples who spoke the so called PIE existed archelogically and genetically.

There are only two authenticate words Arya and Airya.
There can be no talk of Aryans in India unless one understand the very balant racism behind the whole idea of the same unfortunately the social engineering is being done for over centuries and is deeprooted, the word Aryan itself comes from a hypothetical group of people linguistically who spoke PIE assumed by Western Scholars, there has been NO proof that peoples who spoke the so called PIE existed archelogically and genetically.

There are only two authenticate words Arya and Airya, should not be mixed with the modern word coined in west aka Aryan.




Arya just means noble, like the English word Sir. India was called Aryavrat -- the land of gentiles. The name of Iran is a corruption of the word Aryan. When Indus valley dried up and people dispersed, they went in both directions -- to India and to Iran. THat is how the Indian and European languages became linked.

THe people who migrated to Europe founded the pagan (Celtic) civilisations there. The Brahmins became Druids (from sanskrti word Dravid -- druv -- liquid, vidya -- knowledge, thus "immersed in knowledge.") That is why Druidic rituals are similar to Hindus, like worshipping sacred groves and sun and ritual bathing in the river.

However, to admit this would mean that foundations of European civlisation have Indian origins. So all this drama about shoving this theory down our throats that it is actually Europeans (allegded Aryans) who came to India and taught us how to read and write. This is the 19th-century politics behind AIT. Now that AIT has been discarded, it is not long before it is accepted that the migration was from INdia to Europe, otherwise there is no explanation for similar languages or why Iliad and Odyssey have similar plots to Ramayan and Mahabharata.

These White historians are just trying to fudge the issue by canards and delay the inevitable.


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 07-31-2007

Unless and until Indians study/understand the Indus Valley Civilization we are forever going to be doomed to the interpretations of the West and their theories. I congratulated Mike Patel for his brilliant naming of TIE (the Indus Entrepreneurs) because in essence we Indians are descendents from Indus Valley. Understanding Indus valley is key to unlocking the Indian existence. Deep within the civilization are gems of city existence, governing principles of democracy, language, culture, economics, yoga, and a whole host of civilization experiences from which modern day man’s existence can be traced.


Also, tell American and Brit "researchers" to keep off our history. They are just white-supremacy propagandists. Remember the howls of outrage that greeted Shekhar Kapoor's Elizabeth to the effect that "he is distorting British history." This is when the Whites got a taste of their own medicine.

Ideally, propagation or mention of aryan invasion theory should be banned in India. It is nothing but racism -- Indians are made up of two races, one in north, other in south.

AIT has been decisively debunked everywhere except in Marxist/Whites circles. I read somewhere that it has been removed from the syllabus of most American universities citing lack of evidence.

Other thing is that unfortunately, there is no Indian Institute of Hinduism Studies, that can bring out rival publicaitons and debunk these weird ideas of Whites. Currently, because of Nehruvian secualrism, there is no research or scholarship of ancient history of India in our own country.

This leaves the field wide open and the White historians and religious professors step in to fill the vaccuum. No wonder, it is becoming fashionable among Indian scholars to go to an American univ. to take a degree in Sanskrit or Hindu religious studies!

We have to reclaim our history and culture studies from the Whites.




Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 08-01-2007



Arya just means noble, like the English word Sir. India was called Aryavrat -- the land of gentiles. The name of Iran is a corruption of the word Aryan. When Indus valley dried up and people dispersed, they went in both directions -- to India and to Iran. THat is how the Indian and European languages became linked.

THe people who migrated to Europe founded the pagan (Celtic) civilisations there. The Brahmins became Druids (from sanskrti word Dravid -- druv -- liquid, vidya -- knowledge, thus "immersed in knowledge.") That is why Druidic rituals are similar to Hindus, like worshipping sacred groves and sun and ritual bathing in the river.

However, to admit this would mean that foundations of European civlisation have Indian origins. So all this drama about shoving this theory down our throats that it is actually Europeans (allegded Aryans) who came to India and taught us how to read and write. This is the 19th-century politics behind AIT. Now that AIT has been discarded, it is not long before it is accepted that the migration was from INdia to Europe, otherwise there is no explanation for similar languages or why Iliad and Odyssey have similar plots to Ramayan and Mahabharata.

These White historians are just trying to fudge the issue by canards and delay the inevitable.


I know Arya means noble, I said there can be only two words, Arya and Airya in the context of Sanatana Dharma and Zoroastrianism. The word Aryan itself is a misnomer to begin with because it was a name given to the hypothetical group of peoples assumed to speak PIE.

The word Aryan itself in its absolute sense was created to create the Racial profiling and link the world with Noah et al.

AIT is so dis-regarded that it is being replaced by AMT, the Western indologists are trying very hard to prove AMT, while AMT did happened it was not from the Central Asian steppes rather a climatic shift causing back and forth movement. Simply put It is impossible to prove/imagine that Bronze age was spread in India through the IE peoples.


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 08-03-2007

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr1.htm


MARCH OF THE TITANS -

A HISTORY OF THE WHITE RACE

Chapter 1 : Important Issues

This book tells the story of White people as a racial group and not primarily of any specific geographic area. Hence the backdrop to this story jumps continents, ages and civilizations, linked only by the commonality of a genetic inheritance. Crucial to the understanding of the theme of this book is an understanding of the concepts of race, ethnicity and culture.

RACE, ETHNICITY AND CULTURE

A race is defined as a group of individuals sharing common genetic attributes which determine that group's physical appearance and, more controversially, their cognitive abilities. Ethnicity is defined as the creation of groupings by individuals (most often within racial groups but also possible across racial divides) of certain common traditions, languages, art forms, attitudes and other means of expression.

A culture is the name given to the physical manifestations created by ethnic groupings - the actual language, art forms, religion and social order and achievements of a particular ethnic group. In practical terms then, it is possible to talk of a White race; of a Scottish ethnicity and a Scottish culture. The last two - ethnicity and culture - are directly dependent upon each other, and in fact flow from each other in a symbiotic relationship. This book deals then primarily with White racial history, and flowing from that, White ethnic groupings and cultures.

THE WHITE RACE - THREE SUBGROUPINGS

What exactly is meant by the White race? Essentially there are three main subgroupings to the White race, with two further divisions of note. The three major subgroupings are known to academics as Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean.

Although these names have come about mainly as a result of the geographic areas these subgroupings have been associated with in the Christian era (Nordics in northern Europe, Alpines in central Europe and Mediterraneans in southern Europe) it is incorrect to believe that these groupings always occupied these regions. These three main subgroupings have played a role in events in almost every geographical region where the White race as a group has appeared.

Of these three original groupings, only two are existent in any large numbers today: the Nordics and the Alpines. The original Mediterraneans of ancient history are not to be confused with those people loosely termed "Mediterranean" today - the present day inhabitants of the Mediterranean region are largely mixtures of several races, with the original White Mediterranean component for the greatest part having long since been submerged amongst invasions first of the Nordic and Alpine White sub-groupings, and then under non-White Arabic, Turkish and other Middle Eastern and North African racial groupings.

To illustrate the concept of these three main subgroupings: although there is a broadly termed "Black race" in existence, there are major sub-groupings amongst that racial grouping: the Congo basin Pygmy and the ultra tall Masai tribesmen of Kenya are two good examples of subgroupings within the Black racial group.

A sub grouping is therefore a branch of a particular race which exhibits slightly different physical characteristics but still shares enough of a common genetic inheritance with other sub-groupings to be included in a broad racial category.




Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 08-03-2007

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr5.htm

<img src='http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr5_files/flood4.jpeg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr5c.htm

THE ARYANS AND INDIA

Another branch of the Aryans penetrated as far east as India, where they also settled and built a civilization. Although the Aryans established a powerful White civilization in Northern India, it would be incorrect to think that the native Indians had not created anything of their own. Mixed with original White Mediterraneans, the Indus civilization created by the Harappans was already in existence by the time the Aryans invaded. The invading Aryans were however more advanced and referred to the conquered Indians as "Dasyu" - the "dark ones" or slaves.

Indo-Aryan poetry (the Vedas) are full of stories of war against the Dasyu, and reflected the stark racial divisions between the conquering Aryans and the conquered Indians.

THE RIG VEDA DESCRIBES RACIAL CONFLICT

Quotes from the Rig Veda, the original Holy Book of the Aryan conquerors of India (which has now been corrupted but is still to this day in use as the main Hindu religious text) contains a great many references to the race of the conquerors and the conquered.

According to the Rig Veda, the leader of the Aryan invasion was one Indra, and his role in “slaying the Dasyus” (the Negroids in India) is prominent in the Rig Veda:

"Thou, Indra, art the destroyer of all the cities, the slayer of the Dasyus, the prosperer of man, the lord of the sky." - RgV. VIII 87.6

The Rig Veda goes on to use the word “black” in a number of instances to describe the Dasyu:

"Indra, the slayer of Vrittra, the destroyer of cities, has scattered the Dasyu (hosts) sprang from a black womb." RgV. II 20.6

THE “ARYAN COLOR” – THE RIG VEDA

The Rig Veda praises the god who "destroyed the Dasyans and protected the Aryan colour." - Rg.V. III 34.9

It then goes on to thank the god who "bestowed on his white friends the fields, bestowed the sun, bestowed the waters." - Rg.V. I 100.18

Black skin is repeatedly referred to with abhorrence in the Rig Veda: starting with a description of the "black skin" (`Krishnam Vacham') in RgV. IX 41.1, Sam. V I.491 and II.242.

For example in RgV. IX 73 it is said that “stormy gods who rush on like furious bulls and scatter the black skin", and it claims that “the black skin, the hated of Indra" will be swept out of heaven - RgV. IX 73.5

Rg.V. I 130.8 tells of how the “black skin” was conquered:

"Indra protected in battle the Aryan worshipper, he subdued the lawless for Manu, he conquered the black skin."

The Rig Veda thanks god for "scattering the slave bands of black descent", and for stamping out "the vile Dasyan colour." - Rg.V. II.20.7, II 12.4

It also contains this choice remark which sums up the Aryan’s opinion of their non-white subjects: "Black skin is impious" (‘Dasam varnam adharam’) -Sans., Rg.V. II.12.4

Other extracts from the Rig Veda further illustrate the sharp racial divisions in this time:

Indra - 1.130.8 - "Indra in battles help his Aryan worshipper, he who hath hundred helps at hand in every fray, in frays that win the light of heaven. Plaguing the lawless he gave up to Manu's seed the dusky skin; Blazing, 'twere, he burns each covetous man away, he burns, the tyrannous away."

Indra - 4.16.13 - "Thou to the son of Vidathin, Rjisvan, gavest up mighty Mrgaya and Pipru. Thou smotest down the swarthy fifty thousand, and rentest forts as age consumes a garment."

Indra - 5.29.10 - "One car-wheel of the Sun thou rolledst forward, and one thou settest free to move for Kutsa. Thou slewest noseless Dasyus with thy weapon, and in their home o'erthrewest hostile speakers." ("Noseless Dasyus" would suggest a reference to flat nosed Negroid types)

Soma Pavamana - 9.41.1 - "ACTIVE and bright have they come forth, impetuous in speed like bulls, driving the black skin far away."

Soma Pavamana - 9.73.5 - "O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the verse of praise, burning up riteless men, Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates."

RIG VEDA DESCRIBES ARYAN GODS AS BLONDS

Indra - 10.23.4 - "With him too is this rain of his that comes like herds: Indra throws drops of moisture on his yellow beard. When the sweet juice is shed he seeks the pleasant place, and stirs the worshipper as wind disturbs the wood."

Indra - 10.96.8 - "At the swift draught the Soma-drinker waxed in might, the Iron One with yellow beard and yellow hair. He, Lord of Tawny Coursers, Lord of fleet-foot Mares, will bear his Bay Steeds safely over all distress."

Indra - 1.9.3 - "O Lord of all men, fair of cheek, rejoice thee in the gladdening lauds, Present at these drink-offerings."

INDRA’S WEAPON: THOR’S LIGHTENING BOLT?

In what could easily be another indicator of the common cultural origins between the Rig Veda and the Indo-European gods, Indra’s greatest weapon is said, in the Rig Veda, to be a lightening bolt – identical to the weapon of Thor, the Northern European God:

Indra - 1.100.18 - "He, much invoked, hath slain Dasyus and Simyus, after his wont, and laid them low with arrows. The mighty Thunderer with his fair-complexioned friends won the land, the sunlight, and the waters."

Indra - 1.101.1 - "SING, with oblation, praise to him who maketh glad, who with Rjisvan drove the dusky brood away. Fain for help, him the strong whose right hand wields the bolt, him girt by Maruts we invoke to be our Friend."

Indra - 1.103.3 - "Armed with his bolt and trusting in his prowess he wandered shattering the forts of Dasas. Cast thy dart, knowing, Thunderer, at the Dasyu; increase the Arya's might and glory, Indra.

4 "For him who thus hath taught these human races, Maghavan, bearing a fame-worthy title, Thunderer, drawing nigh to slay the Dasyus, hath given himself the name of Son for glory."

(The full text of the Rig Veda can be found online at www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm )

ARYAN ORIGIN OF CASTE SYSTEM

At the time of the writing of the main religious books of the Aryans - the Rigvedas - a distinction was drawn between the two types of people in the Indus river valley: the "fair" conquering immigrants and the "dark" native people.

Above: From a Hindu temple in India: In Hindu mythology, the White goddess Durga slays the Negroid demon Mahishasura. In Hindu mythology, most of the gods have white skins and European like features, while the demons are distinctly Negroid.

Within three hundred years however, physical mixing had proceeded to the point where these two racial classes had been subdivided further, with membership in each class being determined solely on the basis of how light or how dark an individual's skin color was.

These divisions led to a color based class system being developed, known today as the caste system. The word caste was only given to the system by Portuguese travelers many centuries later, coming from the Latin word castus, meaning pure. The original Sanskrit for the caste system was "varna", which means color.

As assimilation and integration between the Aryans and the Dasyu increased, the caste system became more and more complex, till four major divisions were created, with membership in each group dependent upon the coloring of the individual.

This four tier system still exists in India today, with the highest caste, the Brahmans (or "priests") being the lightest in color, and the Sudas or "untouchables" being the darkest.

Within a few hundred years the original Aryans had become so assimilated that their contribution to Indian civilization can be considered to be at an end. Their legacy lives on in the language, religion and poetry of India - and of course the caste system.

THE LAST OF THE ARYANS

The last of the Aryans can be found today in certain segments of Indian society, and most notably in that country's film industry, known as Bollywood. Below left, a picture of the famous Indian actress, Preity Zinta, who, although from modern India, clearly shows the eye color, features and skin color of the ancient Indo-Europeans. Her features contrast strongly with those of a more typical Indian, right.





Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 08-10-2007

Discovery of Middle Asia Cities Recasts Ancient History

Ben Mauk
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience.com Thu Aug 9, 11:05 AM ET

New discoveries at dig sites in Middle Asia are rocking the archeological world and redefining the origins of modern civilization.

Numerous sites in modern-day Iran and the surrounding region suggest that a vast network of societies together constituted the first cities, whose residents traded goods across hundreds of miles and forged parallel but strikingly independent cultures.

Archaeologists have thought that modern civilization began in Mesopotamia, where the large Tigris and Euphrates rivers bounded a fertile valley that nurtured an increasingly complex society.

The social structures, wealth and technologies of this society slowly spread along the Nile and then the Indus rivers in the 3rd millennium B.C.

The findings at the new sites may have shaken conventional ancient history to its very foundations, reporter Andrew Lawler told LiveScience.

"People didn't think you could have large settlements this early without large rivers emptying into an ocean. No one knew of these sites," said Lawler, who reported in the Aug. 3 issue of Science magazine on the key findings, which were discussed at a recent archaeological conference in Ravenna, Italy.

One site proved particularly important for convincing some scientists of the error of the accepted history. Locals had been digging up artifacts in an ancient cemetery just south of Jiroft and flooding the art market with pottery and other goods. Researchers tracked these curiously unique pieces back to their source, where, Lawler said, they found "a vast moonscape of craters made by looters."

But further exploration of two nearby mounds found evidence of a large city, one that may have rivaled contemporary Ur in Mesopotamia. "These people were trading with the Indus, with Mesopotamia, to the north and south," Lawler said.

According to Carl Lamberg-Karlovsky of Harvard University, the site dates back to 4000 B.C., signifying that the Jiroft site and its environs were once home to a long-lived culture, not a brief response to Mesopotamian wealth.

The entire area of interest spreads roughly from the eastern border of Iran to the Pakistani-Iranian border, and from the Russian steppes southward through the Persian Gulf area and onto the Arabian Peninsula.

Over a period of centuries in the mid- to late-3rd century B.C., a cultural awakening occurred in many cities in this area, evidenced by the elite's showcasing of valued materials gathered across large distances and fashioned by artists.

"People throughout this area highly valued lapis lazuli, which came from the mines of Afghanistan, copper from Pakistan, silver and gold," Lawler said. "They traded to get these raw materials which artisans then worked into their own particular style."

Lawler added that these differences in style testify to the individuality of each society, comparable to the city-states of ancient Greece. In neither case were the settlements mere satellite colonies of a larger city.

"They were in communication, but creating their own vibrant cultures," Lawler said, "developing their own pottery styles, art, and possibly their own writing system."

The potential discovery of a new writing system was perhaps the largest controversy of the many discussed at the conference. Three tablets, the first discovered by a local farmer and the others subsequently unearthed by professional archaeologists, appear to contain a unique iconography.

Skepticism about the significance of the complex symbols abounds, accompanied by more general doubts about the age and significance of the sites in general. Some even question the authenticity of the tablets.

However, the young site will see much more excavation in coming years, and further discoveries there could justify what for many is the precious new jewel in a crown of archaeological achievements in Middle Asia.




Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Guest - 08-10-2007

Post 192 is more important.

This one's on 191. Not been tracking IF for some days, hence picking this up late.

Those kreaturs on st*rmfr*nt are clearly way more hopeless than I gave them credit for.

(1) So they are silly enough to use the Rg Vedam 'to prove' that Dasas and Dasyus were black *of skin colour*? Oh, the hysteria!
Apparently they don't know that even their WitSSel has admitted to what Indians had long been pointing out and which other indologists had already acknowledged: Dasas and Dasyus were Iranians. That much is now established fact.
According to the hopefuls on strmfrnt though, Iranians (who, according to the myth of IE, are part of the Oryan clique) are black in colour. Oh, ok.
Then, going by their interpretation (that the Dasas, who were Iranians, were black), the fictional Oryans definitely came in 'black'. But <i>did the Oryans come in 'white' too</i>?
Hey, no fair. It don't say! The racist methods of Senseless And Unfounded Literalism and Twisting Others' Literature To Vindicate Oryan-Existence And Supremacy cannot confirm... Schade.

(2) Needless to say, the desperate strmfrnters haven't yet proved that references to 'black' amongst ancient people referred to skin. But what else can one expect given that racists always think in black-and-white? For them every mention of colour has to be read as referring to SKIN colour. They just can't go beyond it. So even were I to say they're "black-hearted villains" (a common phrase, that), they'll probably think I am calling them African instead, just because I used the word 'black' in there.
Like I said: them racists can't think beyond monochrome.
I have yet to come across any ancient writings that used the modern concept of 'black and white' - that is, using them as consistent and implacable markers for skin colour. According to people I've read, the invention and use of this dichotomatic colour-system as depicting some irrevocable population demarcation was entirely a late christo thing. Just 'cause racists can't think other than in terms of skin colour today does not mean ancient people used the words 'black' and 'white' with the same connotations, implications or even referred to the same idea(s) with those terms as the christoised world has been doing.


(3) What translation of the Vedas are they referencing anyways? No refs given. Need to have refs to confirm all that 'yellow bearded Gods' stuff. I mean, if it turned out to be one of those lame early translations of the Rg Veda - you know, the ones by those inept indologists who managed to do such things as turn the actual mention of <i>an-asa</i> "mouthless" Dasyus (meaning uncouth) into a racist <i>a-nasa</i> "noseless" Dasyus instead.... - if the refs were to translations by one of those kinds of indologists, then it's just another case of Ignore. Deprecated translations reading racist ideas in the Vedas are no longer used as valid sources.

Quick scan and I see the strmfrnters are in fact still referring to 'noseless Dasyus'. That means they are using a bad (discredited) translation source, and hence Ignore does apply.
(Though if we were to go by their oh-so-predictable refs to incompetent translations, that means at least one definitely Iranian - Oryan! - tribe was noseless: the Dasyus. And therefore, if we had to read it such that ancient lit records the existence of Noseless Oryans, I have to ask the obvious again: are there any definite refs to the nosey kind as well?
Tally: so far their pathetic racist literalism has produced 'black noseless' Oryans and little else. Way to go in proving 'white Oryans'! Think I now see where WitSSel digs up his sidekicks from. )


The bit about Indian actors and actresses is an even greater hoot. Indian stars are supposedly due to some Oryan remains in the Indian gene pool? Mwahahahahahaha. Oh that's good! Real good! <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> Must remember to submit that to an online joke-bank. Hope they don't ask for the source (won't look good saying it was from some forum where racist herds gather).
Proof for Oryan existence: some Indian actors are thought to be decent-looking enough so 'they must have some European ancestry', therefore the AIT must have happened, therefore there must have been Oryans! Woohoo. That would make a great thesis! I'm on a winner here! Just need to put in the impeccable references to strmfrnt - where all those racist geniuses have found the clinching evidence: pointing out how Indian actors are apparently 'a bit too pretty to be completely Indian' - and I'll get crowned with Superspecial Honours and be on every journal roll. Not going to happen? How sad. So much for *that* angle in attempting to prove The Grand Theory.
And what a 'compliment' - the typical racist argument: everything that's pretty anywhere else is due to some European residue. Can't prove some European ancestry? (Don't know anything about Preity, so not commenting) Then resort to <i>argumentum ad Oryanum</i> ('the Oryans did it'). That means the rest of India must be more 'Oryan' than the Cinestars then, 'cause there are way many people wandering around in India in real life who are way more lovely than anyone I've clapped my eye on on TV. Oh wait. Many of them are dark or very dark and therefore don't qualify for Oryan status, so scratch that.

Seems I overestimated the loose canons at that loser gathering - now wondering whether the *collective* IQ of the strmfrnt desperados even crawls up to a 100. Umm, nah - just shy of the magic centum.
That would (at least partly) explain why everyone everywhere avoids racists. Not only are they bunch of haters (a turn-off by itself), but next to that they're also incapable of seeking out facts, applying logic or using reason, seeing as how they're particularly challenged qua intelligence, social capabilities and sense.
They were good for a laugh this once, but not because of any intention on their end.



Shouldn't have to do this, as this is IF and everyone knows this already (and yeah, sorry about the bandwidth). But there may be lurkers who don't know better. For those who don't yet know, then -
Stuff on Dasas and Dasyus being Iranian, alleged 'racism' in the Vedas, use of black, meaning of Varna, actual an-asa vs wrong a-nasa:
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/reviews/hock.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Trautmann goes over the historical record of early Indology to show how the race theories of the 19th century forced racial interpretations on text fragments which had never been read in that sense before, e.g. how the <i>single</i> reference to the enemies as an-asa, "mouthless" (i.e. "of defective speech", meaning "not groomed in Vedic culture", Sayana's reading consistent with the traditional cultural interpretation) was read as a-nasa, "noseless",
i.e. "flat-nosed" by Max M? then cited by anthropometrist H.H. Risley as a racialdescription which the Vedic Aryans <i>often</i> made, and finally adopted in that version by most textbooks. (p.287-288)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hans Hock ("Through a glass darkly: modern 'racial' interpretations vs. textual and general prehistoric evidence on ⲹa and dⳡ/dasyu in Vedic society") also points to the genesis of the racial interpretation in the context of the "scramble of the European powers to divide up the non-European world", in which "the British take-over of India seemed to provide a perfect parallel to the assumed take-over of prehistoric India by the invading 'Aryans'" (p.168). He argues that "such notions as 'race', defined in terms of skin color, are an invention of (early) modern European colonialism and imperialism and thus inappropriate for the prehistoric contact between ⲹa and dⳡ/dasyu", citing as example the absence of racial considerations in the Roman empire. (p.159) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I think the words that are blocked out with ? are a=Arya and d=Dasa.<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Prof. Hock provides a detailed survey of the Vedic verses which have been cited as proof of a racial antagonism between the Vedic people and their enemies (verses containing terms like asikni and krshna, "black"), and concludes that the racial interpretation "must be considered dubious". (p.154)</b> He points out that "early Sanskrit literature offers no conclusive evidence for preoccupation with skin color. More than that, some of the greatest Epic heroes and heroines such as Krshna, Draupadi, Arjuna, Nakula and (...) Damayanti are characterized as dark-skinned. Similarly, the famous cave-paintings of Ajanta depict a vast range of skin colors. But in none of these contexts do we find that darker skin color disqualifies a person from being considered good, beautiful, or heroic." (p.154-155)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/article.../davidduke.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a very recent book, Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia (edited by Johannes Bronkhorst and Madhav M. Deshpande, Harvard 1999) <b>Hans Heinrich Hock and Thomas Trautmann have, so to speak, replicated the Hindu nationalist questioning of the racial interpretation of certain Vedic allusions to ethnic conflict. Both conclude, after surveying all the passages formerly quoted in support of the racial interpretation, that there is little reason to interpret terms like varna, ?color?, in terms of skin color, and that reference to blackness in enemies has the well-known metaphorical meaning of secrecy or evil.</b> Prof. Hock also points out that many leading Aryans are explicitly described as dark-skinned: Krishna, Draupadi, Arjuna (in spite of his name, ?pale?), Nakula and Damayanti (p.154), and he might have added Rama and some of the Vedic seers.
The struggle between Rama and Ravana was not one between a white Aryan and a black Dravidian, as Tamil separatists claim: Ravana was dark-skinned, alright, but also a descendent of the Vedic Pulastya clan and competent to perform Vedic ritual, while the Aryan Rama was equally dark-skinned. <b>Other scholars including Asko Parpola had earlier shown that the traditional enemies of the Vedic Aryans, viz. the Dasas, Dasyus and Panis, were principally the Iranian cousins of the Vedic Aryans</b> (all three ethnonyms exist in Iranian, not in the supposedly aboriginal Indian languages like Dravidian and Munda), who on average were at least as white as the latter.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Varna further treated at http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/ait/ch48.htm

Oh, this is sooo tough - who to believe: <!--emo&:unsure:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(a) strmfrnt's ignorant racists who with all their efforts in useless dabbling in Vedic literature have thus far only managed to prove that Oryans came in 'black' and/or 'noseless' variety (taking Vedic terms used to refer to the Iranian Dasas and Dasyus literally); OR
(b) indologists who've admitted to the long-held Indian/Dharmic position; and the only position verified by Hindu tradition and literature;
Gee, I don't know. It just *couldn't*, like, be (b) could it? Because that would, like, vindicate the Hindu position - and that's, like, <i>not on</i>. Maybe I should resort to throwing dice in order to make an 'educated' guess as to who could be right, (a) or (b)?


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 08-17-2007

http://soc.world-journal.net/SAsia.html


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Reformed Aryans, in East and West
At Nuremberg, twenty men were tried and eleven were executed for their active involvement in the brutal mechanism of the Third Reich.

Reformed Aryans, in East and West: Seek Mason, Will Travel
By the mid-19th century Freemasonry was permeating Bombay's intellectual atmosphere with its ideas of a "religion" underlying all religions, and individual and societal perfectibility.

Reformed Aryans, in East and West: Polynesian Aryans
British India was the site of imperial innovation and intellectual endeavour, standing at the centre of numerous imperial circuits of exchange, including the expansive and dense personal, publishing, governmental and cultural networks that transmitted Aryanism from British India into South-East Asia, the Pacific and beyond.

Reformed Aryans, in East and West: Aryan Christianity
Voltaire hoped to prove how all the principles of Christian theology that had been lost with the Veda, could still be found in the “Ezour Vedam”, thanks to its retrieval and circulation by a French ‘philosophe’. 
Reformed Aryans, in East and West: The Anti Aryan Myth
The message of The Arctic Home of the Vedas was tailor-made to appeal to the chauvinism of the orthodox community. While its pseudoscientific thesis in no way revolutionized the way historians view the Vedic period, Tilak's theory did have significant implications: The Vedic texts need not be deciphered.

Reformed Aryans, in East and West: Are you a Sikh?
In the spring of 1878, Madame  Blavatsky wrote to a follower of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati leader of the reform group the Arya Samaj: “Is our friend a Sikh? If so, the fact he should be, as you say, 'very much pleased to learn the object of our Society' is not at all strange.

Reformed Aryans, in East and West: The Orion Myth
R.C. Majumdar's view that Indians knew little of their history in the early nineteenth century, prior to the impact of Western scholarship, may seem brusque.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->



Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 09-14-2007

http://www.aulis.com/twothirds2.htm
http://www.aulis.com/twothirds3.htm
http://www.aulis.com/twothirds4.htm
http://www.aulis.com/twothirds.htm
http://www.aulis.com/twothirds5.htm
http://www.aulis.com/dreamculture.htm

<img src='http://www.aulis.com/images/art_orignis1.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://www.aulis.com/images/art_orignis2.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://www.aulis.com/images/art_orignis3.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
the complete skulls of actual Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon respectively. The lower figure shows the result of combining the lower section of the former (unchanged) and the upper section of the latter (unchanged) plus the superimposition of this new combined skull on the head of the Sphinx.




http://www.aulis.com/human_species_interbred.htm<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Our Species Mated With Other Human Species, Study Says

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
A new piece of evidence – one sure to prove controversial – has been flung into the human origins debate.

A study published March 7 in Nature presents genetic evidence that humans left Africa in at least three waves of migration. It suggests that modern humans (Homo sapiens) interbred with archaic humans (Homo erectus and Neandertals) who had migrated earlier from Africa, rather than displacing them.

In the human origins debate, which has been highly charged for at least 15 years, there is a consensus among scientists that Homo erectus, the precursor to modern humans, originated in Africa and expanded to Eurasia beginning around 1.7 million years ago.

The Neanderthal Conundrum: Just who are we really?

Andrew Collins

Stan Gooch is by far one of the top experts in the world on the nature and mythology of Neanderthal man, an extinct form of human being whose existence came to a sudden end around 30,000 years ago. For tens of thousands of years he had lived alongside Cro-Magnon man, a separate strain of humanity often accused of causing the extinction of their neighbours, whom they must have come into contact with on a regular basis.

Not only does decades of research undertaken by Gooch demonstrate categorically that Neanderthal was an advanced species, above that accepted by modern science, but there is tantalising evidence that this race did not simply disappear into oblivion. They mated with Cro-Magnon Man, causing incredible problems of identity, which have survived through to the modern day.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.aulis.com/twothirds_andrewcollins.htm




Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 09-14-2007



<img src='http://www.aulis.com/images/neanderthal.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
http://www.aulis.com/human_species_interbred.htm<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Our Species Mated With Other Human Species, Study Says

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
A new piece of evidence – one sure to prove controversial – has been flung into the human origins debate.

A study published March 7 in Nature presents genetic evidence that humans left Africa in at least three waves of migration. It suggests that modern humans (Homo sapiens) interbred with archaic humans (Homo erectus and Neandertals) who had migrated earlier from Africa, rather than displacing them.

In the human origins debate, which has been highly charged for at least 15 years, there is a consensus among scientists that Homo erectus, the precursor to modern humans, originated in Africa and expanded to Eurasia beginning around 1.7 million years ago.

The Neanderthal Conundrum: Just who are we really?

Andrew Collins

Stan Gooch is by far one of the top experts in the world on the nature and mythology of Neanderthal man, an extinct form of human being whose existence came to a sudden end around 30,000 years ago. For tens of thousands of years he had lived alongside Cro-Magnon man, a separate strain of humanity often accused of causing the extinction of their neighbours, whom they must have come into contact with on a regular basis.

Not only does decades of research undertaken by Gooch demonstrate categorically that Neanderthal was an advanced species, above that accepted by modern science, but there is tantalising evidence that this race did not simply disappear into oblivion. They mated with Cro-Magnon Man, causing incredible problems of identity, which have survived through to the modern day.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.aulis.com/twothirds_andrewcollins.htm


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 09-14-2007

I beleive AIT and neandro theory (NT) are incompatible.

From what I saw on Discovery channel, the neanderthals were pushed out of the Asian region by an expanding HS population. Then they were pushed out of the southern parts of Europe as the ice age was withdrawing. Then finally when the neanos reached the northern coasts of Europe, and could not withdraw any more, they intermixed with the HS population. That's why you will find more 'blonde hair and blue eyes' in northern Europe.

Now, where did the expanding HS population come from? Why, from India of course, Smile . Mind you India is the only region in the old world which is largely unaffected by an ice age. Twisted Evil



Well, yes, the neanderthals did have red hair. In fact, red hair is considered a strong proof of neanderthal blood by anthropologists. In fact, the northern rim of Europe is filled with the decsendants of the mixed race of neanos and homo sapiens. I guess that is why they committ so many genocides without batting an eyelid.

The teutons are supposed to have the maximum amount of such blood. And remember that the Brits are descendants of Germans.

The three most heinous crimes of WW 2 - the nuclear bombing, the holocaust and the Dresden bombing - all were carried out by this mongrel race of asuras. It is not for nothing that we called them demons.



Original red haired was Godess Danu, pro-genitor of Danavas. Her offspring are spread from Ireland to Iran and carry the red haired gene.




Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 09-14-2007

<img src='http://www.angelfire.com/folk/boutios/couplecelte.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />




Time Line of Indo-European Peoples and Cultures
(after Cyril Babaev with modifications by M.-G. Boutet and David Frawley)






Before the Ice Age ended Central Asia was colder and wetter. After the Ice Age it was wetter for a time until the heat dried up all the melting glaciers.

It seems that the heart of the original Indo-European homeland, the original Arya-Varta at the end of the Ice Age, was in the Himalayas or surrounding valleys. The Indus-Saravati region was a desert in the Ice Age period. Only after the end of the Ice Age did it become fit for agriculture.

There were several Arya-Vartas. Vedic Arya Varta was on the Sarasvati. Afghani Ariana was on the Harirud (Sarayu). Persian Arya-Bija was in the Himalayas. It also seems that we have two groups of the Aryas. A northern Danava group centered in Bactria and Sogdia, and a southern Sudanava group in the Indus-Sarasvati, with Afghanistan/Gandhara as the link region, with naturally much contact between the two.

The original homeland of the Danubian and Pontic cultures of Europe was positioned East and South of the Aral Sea in present day Turkestan between the Syr Darya and Amu Darya (Oxus) rivers and Bactria, Sogdia neighbouring the Indus culture South.

Arya Varta is also called Ila Varta, the land of Ila, the daughter of Manu, connected with Sarasvati as a Goddess of speech and learning.

Manu was said to have come from South India near the end of the Ice Age and took refuge in the Himalayas. That was his first land. This first land of Manu, Arya Varta or Ila Varta was connected to Mount Meru.

After the end of the Ice Age he returned south and founded the new Arya Varta or Ila Varta on the Sarasvati and Drishadvati Rivers of north India. This would have been around 10,000 - 8000 BCE.

As for Uttara Kuru, which was also connected to Manu, I have been able to trace it in Vedic texts to the upper Indus, Gilgit, Baltistan and Ladakh to Mount Kailas in Tibet. I have not been able to trace it further north or west, though this might be possible. It was also a famous land of Soma. Along with Kashmir, Kulu and other Himalayan valleys, it was the spiritual homeland of the Vedic people.


Around 10 000 BCE and earlier, spread of Nostratic into Eurasia from warmer climates of North India

9000 BCE - 8000 BCE domestication of animals, start of agriculture and village life

8000 BCE expansion of early Dravido-Indo-European culture from north-western Indic sub-continent into Central Asia

About 7000 BCE - 6000 BCE Proto-Indo-European unity and common language in Central Asia Individuation of Proto-Dravidic and Proto-Indo-European as separate speeches

About 6000 BCE Development of agriculture and irrigation in the Indus, Mesopotamian and Black Sea Dravidian and Indo-European cultures Early occupation of Pontic steppes and lower Danube, with horses domesticated about 6000 BCE

About 5500 BCE - 5000 BCE Proto-Indo-European culture with village life develops in the Pontic and Danubian areas

Around 5000 BCE - 3800 BCE - Danubian Vinca culture Husbandry, agriculture and horse domestication in Pontic areas

About 4000 BCE Introduction of metallurgy, agriculture and rudimentary writing (Lepensky Vir)

4500 BCE - 4000 BCE Regrouping of large villages into cities in Mesopotamia and Sarasvati|Indus valleys

About 4000 BCE - About 3500 BCE Proto-Indo-European areal dialects

About 3500 BCE Western expansion, Anatolian branch moves apart Emergence of city states: Uruk 3300 BCE, Susa 3000 BCE in Sumer; Harrapa, Mohenjo Daro 2350 BCE in Indus valley Northern Indo-European cities and hill forts: i.e.: Shortugai, on Oxus in Bactriana. India had its seven sacred cities that are mentioned in the Rig Veda at least by number
<b><span style='color:orange'>
About 3300 BCEThe Indus cities can now be traced back to 3300 BCE. The largest is Rakhigeri in the Kurukshetra region which recent excavations show is four times the size of Mohenjo Daro. These were all Vedic settlements. The Indus Civilization is entirely Vedic. This includes Harappa and Mohenjodaro. Curiously a new site, Rahkhigheri in Kurukshetra, though not well excavated was four times the size of Mohenjodaro. The Vedic Purus were the people of the Sarasvati to the sea and were responsible for the urban phase of that culture which began by 3300 BCE according to more recent evidence.</b></span>

About 3000 BCESpread of Indo-European languages into Western Europe with the Beaker cultures about 3000 BCE. -Kurgan or Pit Grave culture in the Pontic region that about 3000 BCE. -Corded Ware culture spread over the North European Plain, to southern Scandinavia and to the Baltic region and Russia (Sherrat 1994a & b)

About 2500 BCE Indo-Europeans spread on the Atlantic fringe of North-western Europe

-Bell-beaker culture, a variant of the Corded Ware beakers in the Rhine delta, spread over most of western Europe as far as Scotland, Portugal and Sicily (Sherrat 1994b).





II period: Individuation and differentiation of Indo-European identities (25th BCE - 13th BCE)

2250 BCE Proto-Hellenic Achaeans come to Greece

2100 BCE Hittites and Luwians settle in Central Asia Minor

2100 BCE Italo-Celtic tribes enter Europe

2000 BCE Proto-Italic tribes come to Italy

2000 BCE Doric Greek tribes settle in Illyria

1900 BCE Mycenae founded by Achaeans in Greece

By 1900 BCE when the Sarasvati dried up many peoples migrated mainly to the east of India but some also went west.

1750 BCE - 1250 BCE Ancient Hittite (Nesian) texts from Asia Minor

1700 BCE Rise of the Aryans of Persia and India: development of Mohenjo-Daro North India Aryan culture

1700 BCE - 1350 BCE Aryans identified as one of the nations of the Mitanni Empire

1600 BCE The Old Hittite Kingdom founded

1475 BCE Achaeans invade and conquer Eastern Crete

1450 BCE The New Hittite Kingdom founded

1450 BCE - 1050 BCE The Linear B script used in Greece

1450 BCE Assumed date for the first Veda created in India

1400 BCE Proto-Celts arrive in Spain

1400 BCE Achaeans appear on Cyprus

1400 BCE Slavs - a separate nation

1350 BCE - 750 BCE Luwian and Palaic texts in Asia Minor and North Syria

1300 BCE Illyrians spread from Pannonia to Dalmatia





III period: the Great Unrest (13th BCE - 7th BCE)

1250 BCE Phrygians come from Balkans to Asia Minor - the first Great Movement of Nations begins

1250 BCE First mentioning about Lycians

1250 BCE Baltic peoples move north and east

1230 BCE - 1150 BCE "Sea Peoples" destroy Hittite Kingdom, invade Syria, Palestine, Egypt

1230 BCE Achaeans conquer Troy

1200 BCE Achaeans start migrating to Crete, Cyprus, Asia Minor

1200 BCE Celtic cultures in Gaul (Gallia) and Germany (Germania)

1200 BCE Illyrians arrive at South Italy

1200 BCE Doric tribes invade Greece; soon they replace the Mycenaean civilisation

1100 BCE Thracian peoples come to the Balkans

1100 BCE New wave of Italics comes to Italy

1000 BCE Vedic people were in Sri Lanka by 1000 BCE, if not earlier.

900 BCE Illyro-Dravidian Etruscans in Italy from the Carian coast. Proof of a Dravidian language in Europe with I.E. invasions

800 BCE Avesta created in Iran

753 BCE Rome is founded by Italics

750 BCE - 250 CE Phrygian inscriptions

750 BCE Greeks begin their Great Colonisation effort in the Mediterranean outports

738 BCE Phrygian Kingdom founded in Asia Minor

730 BCE New wave of Proto-Celtic Cymmerians invade Europe and Asia and reach Pannonia and Lydia

720 BCE Armenian Kingdom

700 BCE Lydian Kingdom founded in Asia Minor

700 BCE Median Kingdom founded in Iran

690 BCE Cymmerians overturn the Phrygian Kingdom

675 BCE Scythians push out the main group of Cymmerians from Asia while others merge with the Tokharian Issedones and Sacians to the East

650 BCE Celts settle in Britain and Ireland





IV period: Secondary Migrations (7th BCE - 1st BCE)

650 BCE - 350 BCE Lydian and Carian inscriptions in West Asia Minor

650 BCE Scythians move into Europe filling in the void left by the Celtic western migrations

639 BCE Elam loses its independence

600 BCE First Italic inscriptions

600 BCE New Celtic invasion to Spain

600 BCE Lydians extrude Greeks from Asia

590 BCE Scythian Kingdom in Asia destroyed by Medians

559 BCE Persian Kingdom founded

550 BCE - 330 BCE Old Persian Texts and Inscriptions

550 BCE - 250 BCE Thracian inscriptions

550 BCE - 50 BCE Messapic and Venetic inscriptions

546 BCE Lydia and Asia Minor conquered by Persians

510 BCE Rome gains independence from Etruscans

495 BCE Macedonia under Greek influence

493 BCE Persians capture Miletus

483 BCE Indo-Aryan expansion into Ceylon

480 BCE Thracian Kingdom of Odrisses

474 BCE Etruscan expansion stopped in Italy

450 BCE Celtic tribes move into Italy

449 BCE Greek decisive victory over Persia

380 BCE Illyrian Kingdom founded

350 BCE - 70 BCE Restoration of Scythian Kingdom in Steppes

330 BCE - 250 BCE Greeks spread all over Asia

322 BCE - 64 BCE Armenian Kingdom

320 BCE - 187 BCE Maurya Kingdom in India

280 BCE Celts arrive to the Balkans and Asia Minor

267 BCE All of Italy conquered by Rome

250 BCE Sarmatians come to Europe

250 BCE - 135 BCE Bactrian Kingdom

247 BCE - 225 CE Parthian Kingdom

146 BCE Greece conquered by Rome

135 BCE Iranian, Tokharic, and Turkish tribes plunder Bactria

133 BC Spain conquered by Rome

100 BCE - 20 BCE Hellenic and Iranian people leave Bactria and Sogdiana

50 BCE Gaul conquered by Rome

31 BCE Thrace conquered by Rome

9 BCE Illyria and Pannonia conquered by Rome





TIME CHART FOR NORTHERN ARYANS
(The Final Expansions)
after Cyril Babaev

650 BCE Scythian expansion into Europe

As with any other ethnogenesis, it is always hard to tell what was the exact ethnic origin of the Central Asian steppes or European peoples, but one thing sure, these people were to play a very important role in the creation of European identity thus laying down the founding stone of European civilisation. Unfortunately, the picture however defined, gets more blurry as the time periods overlap.
This because of a process of contacts and assimilation which inevitably led to a mixing of peoples to the point that it makes it difficult to trace the language of this or that ethnic group. Such groups, recorded in the European history as Huns, Sarmatians, Scythians, Cymmerians, Avars, Alans, were in fact not single nations, but groupings of several peoples, frequently with different ethnic and language origins. That is, other Nostrasic groups came under the frame work of the aryanic tripartite structuralising process.

This is why, certain linguists identify Scythians with Iranians, while some others, confuse them with the Turkish group, or even of some other group. Scythians, in fact, were Indo-Europeans with Turkish, Uralic or Slavic captives, thus synthesising, at the basic level, non-Indo-European heterogeneous cultures as it was the case with other ethnic groups.

The Scythians criss-crossed the steppes from east to west and back many times. They went north to the Black Sea, rarely venturing into the forest regions north, and penetrated the Northern Balkans. There is abundant toponymic material from modern South Russia, Ukraine, Romania showing traces of the Scythians in place names of rivers and hills. This shows an occupation of the region by Scythian tribes from up to the 3rd century CE. This was before the area was overwhelmed by Huns from Asia. The Scythian language belonged to the Iranian group although showing strong influences from Slavic and Thracian. On the other hand, Slavic borrowed heavily from Scythian. This shows that both languages belonged to the same bilingual zone. Phonetic features of modern South Russian dialects and Ukrainian language betray an Iranian substratum. The names of the rivers Don, Dnepr and Dnestr are all Iranian in origin, from dn- the stem.

600 BCE Lydians push Greeks out of Asia

The century between 650 and 550 BCE was Lydia's Golden Age. Phrygia was overran by Cymmerians. In turn, Scythians took on the Cymmerians and then left Asia Minor. There were no countries around Lydia to contain it and prevent its development. Lydia, and its capital Sardis, was the important centre of Euro-Asian trade, in which the country found its prosperity.
Lydia felt it could gain supremacy in the region after Assyria started to lose power in the Middle East. In 605 BCE king Aliatt faced the resistance of the Greek polises of Asia Minor. when he decided to increase the Lydian influence in the East Mediterranean. Miletus and Smirna, which had struggled long for independence, were the strongest Greek cities. It was only in 600 BCE that Aliatt managed to capture Smirna thus forcing the Greeks out of Asia.
However, this didn't stop the Greek colonisation of the region but just suspended it for a while. Therefore, Lydia developed independently by culture and language. History was to show that it had only five decades to enjoy the independence.

590 BCE Scythian Kingdom in Asia is occupied by Medians

According to Herodotus, half a century before Medians, Lydians and Babylonians called the Scythians from the Northern Caucasus to their aid against the Cymmerians and Assyrian Empire. The Cymmerian cavaliers' nomadic power was the most powerful striking force in the region. Ironically, after the Cymmerians were eliminated, and after Assyria slowly began its decline, Scythians became the new threat of the Middle Eastern kingdoms. Scythians then established their own kingdom in Northern Iran, raiding Median lands and pillaging neighbouring towns and lands.
At that time after several wars, Media, the strongest kingdom in Iran, decisively won the victory over Scythians and made them retreat back into Central Asia. Because of the short period of the Scythian presence in Iran, made no significant impact on the languages and peoples of the country. That is, nothing that was detected by linguists and archaeologists.

550 BCE - 50 BCE Messapic and Venetic inscriptions

The history of Venetic, Illyrian, and Messapic tribes begins much earlier than the dates given here. In fact, it was around 1300 BCE that the Illyrians arrived in the Balkan peninsula. Later the Messapians crossed the Adriatic and appeared in Italy. Details about this early period of their history is gained only through archaeological material or by early Greek sources, since these peoples only started leaving inscriptions by the 6th century BCE. So, we are not sure when they started to exist and what role they played in the Indo-European scheme.

Venetic speakers are often confused with Italics, or Illyrians, but even though closely related to these groups, they evidently formed a family of their own. Venetic has closer ties with the Celtic, Germanic languages, and possibly, with Slavic. This is inferred because of the similarity of one tribal name. The Este (Ateste) culture, which was flourishing in northern Italy and Slovenia, left much epigraphic evidence (about 250 texts, mainly dedications and epitaph inscriptions). The texts were written in a local script, possibly a variety mixture of Etruscan and Greek writing, or in a modified Latin script. The Venetics were assimilated in the 1st century BCE by the Romans and took up Latin. On the Atlantic coast, Venetics were also assimilated to Celtic, to the point that when Caesar fought their navy in 56 BCE, they had totally merged with the Gauls.

The Illyrians left little written records of their existence, although Roman writers left many glosses.
There is data of onomastics and toponymy as well.

As for Messapic, nearly 350 short inscriptions were found in south-eastern Italy. Being too short, they don't tell much about the grammar or syntax of the language. But then again, they are stated proof of the existence of Messapic and Illyrian.

450 BCE Celtic tribes move into Italy

The period covered by La Tène culture follows that of the Hallstatt culture and extends from about 450 BCE to the subjugation of Gaul by Julius Caesar in 58 BCE. This was at the peak of the Celtic civilisation.
La Tène culture was initially influenced by the Etruscan and Greek civilisations but developed regional variations through the centuries as the Celts spread through most of central and western Europe, over to Britain, north to Jutland, and elsewhere.
Some common features may be noted throughout, however, such as curvilinear ornamentation (S shapes and spirals) and animal art forms. Burials were by inhumation or by covering with cairns of stones. This was the period of the beginning of urbanisation, of new industries, and of new artistic traditions.
By this time, the Celts had crossed the Alps and passed into Northern Italy, where they soon spread over the Padus (Po) valley. In the Po, they met different nations with whom they mingled and dominated. These were the Ligurians, who are believed to have been Indo-Europeanised aborigines, Etruscans, Venetic and Italic peoples. True that the Italic and Celtic languages were still close enough to be understood by one another. From then on, the Italic languages (and namely Latin) were acquiring many Celtic words and terms. The Celts themselves borrowed many features from the neighbouring languages. Gradually the Celtic of the Southern Alps region, originally a primitive Gaulish, became different from that of contemporary Gaulish Celtic into a language now called Lepontic.
In 390 BCE the Celts resume their expansion over Europe by invading Central Italy, where in 387 BCE, allied with Etruscans, they destroy the Roman army, capture and plunder Rome. Surprisingly, this incursion had very little influence on the politics and culture of Italy. Satisfied with receiving a huge tribute from Rome, the Celts retreat back to the north.

350 BCE - 70 BCE Scythian Steppes Kingdom

In 512, the Persian king Darius was defeated by the Scythian army, after having crossed the Danube and venturing too far into the steppes. After this, the Scythians consolidated their state to the point that in 350 BCE, Scythia, next to Greek Black Sea colonies, became a true kingdom. It therefore could be said that the "King Scythians", developed one of Europe's first monarchies. The kingdom, under the rule of Ateus, began to expand in the region. King Ateus managed to unify the Scythian tribes into a powerful state. Ateus also vassalised many other nations in the Black Sea region, including Crimea's Cymmerians.
Under Ateus, the Scythians invaded and occupied part of Thrace. He then conquered the shores of modern Bulgaria, and the Greek city states on the coast were also forced into accepting Scythian protection. After Ateus' death, Philip of Macedonia, by the Danube, defeated the Scythian army, thus putting an end to the Scythian expansion.
During the following two centuries, the Scythians took Crimea and assimilated Taurian tribes.
The Scythians had also close contacts with Slavs and Baltic peoples who inhabited territories north of Scythia. To a point that today's Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian languages bear the Scythic Indo-Iranian imprint, both in vocabulary and pronunciation.

320 BCE - 187 BCE Maurya Kingdom in India

In 324 BCE, not long after Alexander's death, in Greek dominated Western India, began the rebellion against the Macedonian rule. Rebels led by Chandragupta managed to gain victory over the Macedonian garrisons and drove them out of India. Chandragupta, an Indian kshatrya, first served Alexander during his struggle against the king of Magadha.

At the head of his rebel army, Chandragupta head for the Magadha capital, overthrew the king and founded his own dynasty.
Chandragupta's reign was one of a time of great expansion for India. He thus unified all of North India's states and principalities. Then, in other successful wars against the Greeks, he acquired the territories of what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Better known are his successors Bindusar and Asoka, during whose reign the kingdom's expansion was directed at South India. Thus began the assimilation process of many non-Indo-European tribes. Asoka unified India as one nation giving it Buddhism, his religion.
During this rule, the Aryans moved to the Dravidian south; where the economy flourished and great constructions were undertaken throughout the country. With Asoka's death, this great unity was lost because India was still a mosaic of conflicting tribes with different cultural levels. The country was divided in 236 between his two successors. And in 187 BCE, the last heir of the Asokan dynasty was killed by one of his commanders.

280 BCE Celts move West to the Balkans and Asia Minor

Gallo-Celtic warlords lead their tribes into the Balkan peninsula.
Great numbers of warrior bands and their people descend the Danube and cross into Illyria, Thracia and on into Macedonia. All of Macedonia's forces are engaged into the conflict against the Celts.
Macedonia falls and the country is pillaged. In 279, the Celts move on to Greece, and destroy several cities. Sparta is captured for a short period, but the Celts are defeated near Delphi and are forced to retreat out of Greece.
Following another minor defeat to the hands of Antioch I, the king of the Seleucid Kingdom, the Celts in their retreat South, cross the Bosphorus into Asia Minor, where in 278, they founded the Galatian kingdom. Anatolia, once before the centre of the Phrygian kingdom, had also been the homeland of their Cymmerian cousins. The Celts remembered that it had once been an ancestral possession. Through Classical sources, we have the names of the three main tribes of Asian Celts: the Tolistoages, Tectosages, and Trokmoi.
Galatia survived for a while under difficult conditions: wedged between the Seleucid Kingdom and Pergam, the power to the north; the Celtic district was left without access to the sea and with no possibility to develop sea trade. Weakened by its isolation, Galatia became in the 2nd century BCE, the protectorate of the Pontic kingdom, and by the next century, became a province of Rome.
The Celts of Galatia spoke a Gaulish dialect. Unfortunately, little records of their language were found, so we are left ignorant of its evolution. We can infer that they had Druid priests also because of toponomy. A place name called Drunemeton, "True or Firm Sanctuary" betrays their presence.

135 BCE Iranian, Tokharic, Turkish tribes plunder Bactria

At the time the Bactrian kingdom was losing in power and the integrity of its territory and cities became more and more threatened by nomadic tribes who moved in the Asian steppes at its border. Tribal alliances formed by Massagetian tribes from north of Bactria, were the state's main menace. The Kings of Bactria called for help to the Parthians and Seleucids, but none answered the call. Most of the surrounding states longed for the fall of Bactria.
A great number of Tokharians are believed to have settled there in great numbers since later, Bactria was renamed Tokharistan, for land of the Tokhars. The main body of Tokhars settled on the northern banks of the Amudarya river where the high king's residence was situated.
The Tokharians, had come from the Tarim basin from the Northeast. The Tokharian languages belonged to the Centum Indo-European language group. Although distantly related to Iranian and Indic, they were closer related to the Celtic and Italic languages with with they form a branch of their own.
These languages were once united at the Proto-Celtic level, that is, before Celtic.
The Tokharian state, that was very extensive, was divided into several independent principalities. The Chinese sources mention five, and the most powerful of these was the kingdom of Kuchanes.

http://www.angelfire.com/folk/boutios/timeline.html


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Guest - 09-14-2007

Post 197:
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Sep 14 2007, 06:28 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Sep 14 2007, 06:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I beleive AIT and neandro theory (NT) are incompatible.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Acharya, who is the 'I' in that post? And/or are there several?

197:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From what I saw on <b>Discovery channel</b>, the neanderthals were pushed out of the Asian region by an expanding HS population. Then they were pushed out of the southern parts of Europe as the ice age was withdrawing. Then finally when the neanos reached the northern coasts of Europe, and could not withdraw any more, they intermixed with the HS population. That's why you will find more 'blonde hair and blue eyes' in northern Europe.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->When I was studying biology many moons ago, some scientists considered interbreeding might have taken place between the two hominids whereas others thought it might not have happened. What's the state of affairs now? Any certainty?

197:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, where did the expanding HS population come from? Why, from India of course, Smile . Mind you India is the only region in the old world which is largely unaffected by an ice age. Twisted Evil<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->From docos I've watched and from school, I learnt that either HS expanded from Africa or... drat, there was some other theory as well.

Alright. Here. African origin in spread of H Sapiens is one of the two theses under consideration. The following also emanates from Discovery Channel, from one of their pages for kids:
http://school.discoveryeducation.com/lesso...ms/neanderthal/
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Explain that scientists believe that Homo sapiens (modern man) first appeared about 120,000 years ago, which means they coexisted with the Neanderthals. Scientists have two theories about the relationship between modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals:
<b>Out of Africa:</b> The theory states that Homo sapiens first lived in Africa and eventually traveled into Europe and Asia. These humans had evolutionary advantages that allowed them to outlive—and perhaps cause the extinction of—all other hominid groups (as opposed to apes) such as Neanderthal.
<b>Multiregional:</b> The theory states that modern Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthal and other hominid groups in Europe and Asia.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

197:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, yes, the neanderthals did have red hair. In fact, red hair is considered a strong proof of neanderthal blood by anthropologists. In fact, the northern rim of Europe is filled with the decsendants of the mixed race of neanos and homo sapiens. <b>I guess that is why they committ so many genocides without batting an eyelid.</b>
The teutons are supposed to have the maximum amount of such blood. And remember that the Brits are descendants of Germans.

The three most heinous crimes of WW 2 - the nuclear bombing, the holocaust and the Dresden bombing - all were carried out by this mongrel race of asuras. It is not for nothing that we called them demons.

Original red haired was Godess Danu, pro-genitor of Danavas. Her offspring are spread from Ireland to Iran and carry the red haired gene.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Garbage! <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> What arrogant nonsense. Nothing more than crappy racism; or specism, as the case may be.

What does it matter what someone's hair colour or ancestry is? That says nothing about their propensity/non-propensity towards ethical behaviour or anything else.
Loser anthropologists from christocolonial times may have thought the volume of a human's cranium and other 'measurements' to be indicative of people's savagery/civility, but now people (ought to) know better than to listen to that kind of spiel or be infected with that pattern of thinking. Hair or skin colour, pure or mixed hominid ancestry, or whatever strain of hominid ancestry does not code for any 'genocidal' trait.

For the root cause of genocidal behaviour one need look no further than memes. And memes certainly work independent of ancestry. Was it M Twain that said something like "There will always be bad people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things takes religion." (I'd replace 'religion' with 'bad ideology', since nasties like communism fit the bill just as well - else I agree with the statement by whoever it was.)
That the seat of global contagion for the first worldwide intolerant meme happened to be Europe (conditions there at the time were such that it unfortunately 'caught on'), does not mean that everyone elsewhere is immune.

Certain kinds of stupidity can infect anyone - but being wide open to infection by such strains of stupidity is unforgiveable IMO. But can such infected people please send their bacteria in some other direction, instead of coughing/writing/puking our way. The rest of the world doesn't want to catch an arduous chill, even though we've learnt to be mostly immune by now. (That was meant to whoever wrote that stuff, not to you Acharya.)

Says X to Y: "I'm better because I'm a pure Homo Sapiens."
Y retorts: "Nah. Neanderthalensis was better in every respect. So <i>I</i> am better because it's thought I have some HN ancestry."
What is this, kindergarten?

Racism, specism, whatever - people just need to drop it. Apparently there's something humans in our sad times find 'attractive' about trying to stereotype one or more populations based on some individuals' actions, and then compound their mistake by irrationally tying it back to people's 'looks' or ancestry.
The attractiveness of such loser thinking is lost on me. <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I never stood for it when Dutch people used to call some girl or other "dumb blonde". Highly offensive. How would they like it if they had been born with blonde hair instead of brown/red and they had to live with such tacky statements flung their way? (Speaking as I find, blonde people - either gender - are no less clever nor more so than people with other hair colours, so I've no clue as to how that saying cropped up or even stuck).
But I think this new racism/specism fancy is even more tasteless.


As cats no doubt think of us: all you monkeys look alike <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> 's Good enough for me.


Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Guest - 09-15-2007

question,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration

how correct is this?