Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2

[dhu]

YOU tink that europe is unified culture? until recent times east europe for exemple was very diferit from west.europe is not a continent by the way,is part of the continent eurasia.Is true that greeks have alot of learn from sumer-egipt,but they over pass this 2 cultures.One in the minoic culture which have more advance art and more liberal way of life then egiptians. Second,greeks over pass them in art(being the first culture that reach full maturity) and philosophy(egiptians never get out from the mitological thinking).

one of the charges that the christians levelled against the greeks was that their philosophy was stolen from the ancient egyptians. Evidently this was well known in the cauldron known as the ANE and was thus a polemical point for the christians. Readers should go through Thomas McEvilley, where it is also made abundantly clear that pythagorean, apollonian, and other greek "mystery" cults were specifically indic in origin. Subhash Kak further states that the greek gorgon is specificaly indic. This is besides all the Buddhist and Mithraic influences in the kindergarten school known as the "Athenian Academy". but hey, i am sure there is some obscure verse hidden in rumania that is the true origin of all the philosophy in the world, in addition to yoga. I wonder how the knowledge of yoga as well as vedas was lost in this rumanian "aryan" powerhouse.

Starting from 500bc greeks over pass their masters.India will start his artistic full maturity after 200 bc and only in the contact whit greeks.Before that ,indian sculpture for exemple was prity primitive,when you look at teracota sculptures from 400 bc.The indian arhitecture was from wood and share native elements whit assirian and persian influence.

Greeks were uniformally seen as barbarians by the cultured peoples of the mideast. At any rate they were a peripheral extension of the persians, the true mideast power brokers. their language is closer to persian, kurdish, and armenian than to the two northern dialects of italic and celtic. The contortions that the IE linguist jokers have to go through to deny this relationship and bring down greeks from the north can be seen here in joker cyril babayev's diagram, posted previously by Acharya: http://www.indhistory.com/img/aryans-01.jpg

SO i have wright ,Bengal and NE wasnt part of Indus culture but part of South china rice culture.So no MAHA-India at that time.

As regards the unity of the culture, the point is that there is no mahaeuropa while there definitely is a mahabharata. Saraswati River was still extent during mahabharata times as proven by the details of Balarama's itinerary along its course from the interior Mathura to the coastal Dwarka, as well as by the recording of its gradual disappearance at Vinasana. So the mahabharata is definitely relevant during SSVC (indus valley) times. Yes I am sure that Saraswati is hidden there in rumanian hinterlands.

YOu cant compare asia whit roman empire . the richest economy of the roman empire was also in the asiatic provinces.Anyway you can say that europe was economicaly behinde asia but from tehnological,artistic and intelectual was equal whit asia if not superior.

Ah yes Economy has nothing to do with Intellectuality and technology, i am glad you are here to point this out. The europeans were starving philosophers in the truest sense of the phrase.

WE can tanks basques for Altamira .By the way they are full europeans.About megalites i was wana show that it was tehnology and intelectuality in europe at that time ,not barbary as some say.

Actually they were definitely barbarians <i>relative </i>to the rest of the world, even in this era.

The Real Eve: <i>Sri Lanka, then a peninsula to the south of India, is extraordinary in that it turns the east--west cultural tables. Reliable evidence gives a date of 28,000 years ago for the manufacture of microliths on Sri Lanka. These tiny, specialist stone blades did not appear in Europe and the Levant until 10,000 years ago. Indeed, in a tantalizing find, one level below these microliths, another more basic microlith layer layer has been dated to between 64,000 and 74,000 years ago. If the date of this find is confirmed, then it could be the smoking gun of the trail out of Africa around 70,000 years ago.</i>

IS not 15000 bc begining of neolithic,but the begining of a proto-agriculture.The true neolithic agriculture begin in kurdistan by 9000bc and spread to pakistan by 7000bc.As i say,north india was a desert so it have a very small population.the monsoon wasnt there at that time.

Yes, North India was cooler and dryer during the Ice Age but CENTRAL ASIA AND EUROPE WERE TEN TIMES MORE SO. Everyone knows that India was a human refuge during the last ice age, which then reexpanded after the last ice age. outbound M17 was just one manifestation of that phenomenon and it most likely carried away the beginings for central asian IE language, which then went on to inundate the european cul de sac. This is not to say that were not secondary areal influence among these languages between indian and central asia, because India, unlike the european cul de sac, did maintain a cultural proximity to central asia. for example, there is constant mention of uttara-kurus, <i>rasa</i> areas, etc (pamir, turmenistan/kazakhstan) in the oldest hindu texts, indicating a common cultural zone. in contrast, there was never any symbiotic relationship between C Asia and Europe. C Asian groups eg alans/sarmatians would periodically sweep through europe in a one way affair.

Exactly,not chinese in africa ,the chinese wasnt exist at that time.From africa to india is middle east.People from africa just they jump middle east,and go directly in india? hard to belive.you sugesting that people from middle east died and remain only those from india? are genetic lines that go north and central asia directly from middle east ;this lines never reach india.Visit genographic site.Lineage N,C,D,Z,R etc never reach India but go up to north.

Rajiv Malhotra's expose of the "Mideastern prelude to the european miracle" is being taken here to ridiculous lengths, just to preempt any formative connection with India. anyway, here is an article from the genographic site:
Early Humans Settled India Before Europe, Study Suggests

The language families wasnt formed at the time when this migrations out of india happend .This is a explination of why is no finno-ugric,basque etc,in India.yes is confuse,are only 2 language family in India;surprising if you consider that all language families exept africa was formed in india.

As stated by Oppenheimer, there were multiple waves of migrations out of India over a span of many thousand years, giving enough time for differentiation of the different families. This is what happens when you are a demographic center; the trend only accelerated with the neolithic population surge. We have to go with the evidence as it is, not with endless hypotheticals of what felt "probable" to some 19th century romantic.

The most of europe population was already form ,when it supose that new population from india came.So even if genes from india came ,they was in numeric inferiority.
No,basque didnt form 80% of european gene poll but only 10%. the other 60% was gravetian ,not basque.It can be sayd that in neolithic 40% of european population was non-IE(basque,etruscan etc) ,but 60% was IE.
I didnt say that non-IE greek words are loads.At the contrary this non-IE words are from 8000-6000BC in Greece.This language was very probably from the same family whit egiptian-afro-asiatic(also name hamito-semitic).If european languages have non-IE substratum,so what ? Exept basque,all the other non-IE languages are newer in europe then IE .

There is ample evidence for a teeming non-IE substrate within europe. Basques called themselves <i>Euskadi</i> or <i>Auskadi</i>. Scandinavians called themsleves <i>Skadi</i>. Even this poster says that the formative southern european languages were contrinuted by the mideast afro-asiatics along with mideastern neolithic. The problem is compounded by the fact that the kurgan culture is most expressed as well as retained by the Uralics who straddle both sides of the urals and must be considered aboriginal. see a map of uralic distribution. The kurgan culture also typifies the Altaics, the euro IE jokers are again romanticizing a conan past for themselves, pretending to be mongoloids huns, rather than unwashed albino runts.

Better ask you self why all IE families are in Europe and only indo-iranian is in asia(exept for a small patetic tokharian).By the way a geneticist(i forgot his name)who study the DNA of tokharian mumies,say that they came from a place betwin Ukraine and Bulgaria.Guess which country is betwin Ukraine and Bulgaria.A linguistic principle say that were are gatheret the most families,or the most dialects that is the place of birth of a language or family language.So in europe we have balto-slavic,germanic,celt-italic,thracian,but in asia we have only indo-iranian.This show that IE in europe is older the IE in india,and it have more time to fragmentate him self.

Dr. K. Elst: <i> From the east, a foreign IE-speaking population intruded into Europe, soon to be diluted by genetically mixing with the natives, and totally assimilated before they, or rather their language and culture, reached Europe’s western shores. However, it stands to reason that they were still genetically distinct when their entry began. That is why the start of the Kurgan culture was accompanied by a change in the racial composition of the population of South Russia in about 4500 BC: “The Dniepr-Donets people are known to be massive Cro-Magnons, continuous from the Upper Palaeolithic; the Strednij Stog-2 men are described as more gracile, tall-statured, dolichocephalic with narrow faces.”17 And again, Maria Gimbutas writes: “The skeletal remains are dolichomesocranial, taller-statured and of a more gracile type than those of their predecessors in the substratum.”18

It is this new racial element which the Kurgan Urheimat school identifies as IE. In that case, the cultural change was effected by an incoming new ethnic group. It is fair to observe that the racial type described here as typical of the first Kurgan-making community, is similar to the tall, robust and long-headed type which you find in the Pashtu, Panjabi and Kashmiri populations of contemporary India and Pakistan, as also in the Harappan and pre-Harappan settlements.

But the two racial types coexisted for long, though still culturally distinct: “Kurgan II, ca. 4000-3500 BC. Materials from this period demonstrate continuous coexistence with the Dniepr-Donets culture: two different physical types (both of ‘Cro-Magnon C’ type, but with the Kurgan people being more gracile) and burial customs (collective burials in trenchlike pits characteristic of the Dniepr-Donets culture, and single burials of Kurgan type) were proved to be present even in the same villages.”19 This is precisely the type of coexistence which renders cultural assimilation and transmission of the IE language to pre-IE populations possible.</i>
..... ......
<i>Another aspect of geographical distribution is the allocation of larger and smaller stretches of territory to the different branches of the IE family. We find the Iranian (covering the whole of Central Asia before 1000 AD) and Indo-Aryan branches each covering a territory as large as all the European branches (at least in the pre-colonial era) combined. We also find the Indo-Aryan branch by itself having, from antiquity till today, more speakers on the Eurasian continent (now nearing 900 million) than all other branches combined. This state of affairs could help us to see the indo-Aryan branch as the centre and the other branches as wayward satellites; but so far, philologists have made exactly the opposite inference. It is said that this is the typical contrast between a homeland and its colony: a fragmented homeland where languages have small territories, and a large but linguistically more homogeneous colony (cfr. English, which shares its little home island with some Celtic languages, but has much larger stretches of land in North America and Australia all to itself, and with less dialect variation than in Britain; or cfr. Spanish, likewise).

It is also argued that Indo-Aryan must be a late-comer to India, for otherwise it would have been divided by now in several subfamilies as distinct from each other as, say, Celtic from Slavic. To this, we must remark first of all that the linguistic unity of Indo-Aryan should not be exaggerated. Native speakers of Indo-Aryan languages tell me that the difference between Bengali and Sindhi is bigger than that between, say, any two of the Romance languages. Further, to the extent that Indo-Aryan has preserved its unity, this may be attributed to the following factors, which have played to a larger extent and for longer periods in India than in Europe: a geographical unity from Sindh to Bengal (a continuous riverine plain) facilitating interaction between the regions, unlike the much more fragmented geography of Europe; long-time inclusion in common political units (e.g. Maurya, Gupta and Moghul empires); and continuous inclusion in a common cultural space with the common stabilizing influence of Sanskrit.

From the viewpoint of an Indian Urheimat hypothesis, the most important factor explaining the high fragmentation of IE in Europe as compared to its relative homogeneity in North India is the way in which an emigration from India to Europe must be imagined. Tribes left India and mixed with the non-IE-speaking tribes of their respective corners of Central Asia and Europe. This happens to be the fastest way of making two dialects of a single language grow apart and develop distinctive new characteristics: make them mingle with different foreign languages.

Thus, in the Romance family, we find little difference between Catalan, Occitan and Italian, three languages which have organically grown without much outside influence except for a short period of Germanic influence which was common to them; by contrast, Spanish and Rumanian have grown far apart (lexically, phonetically and grammatically), and this is largely due to the fact that the former has been influenced by Germanic and Arabic, while the latter was influenced by Greek and Slavic. Similarly, under the impact of languages they encountered (now mostly extinct and beyond the reach of our searchlight), and whose speakers they took over, the dialects of the IE emigrants from India differentiated much faster from each other than the dialects of Indo-Aryan.</i>

also note that Dr. Elst elsewhere states bangani as well as native tocharian represent kentum remnants in an Asia that was later palatized.. occam's razor....

We cant rely only to genetics,what some studies say that east europeans are more similar whit indians then whit west europeans is ridicoulos.
The iron age start in Turkey not in India
The rice culture start south china not in India
The grain agriculture Start in kurdistan not in India
THe full mature art start in Greece not in India
The city network start in Sumer(al ubaid) not in India
tHE writing start in Balkans not in India.
The movie start in France not in India
India almost never make great inventions but only bring to perfection what other invent.
The phoenicians invent the alphabet,but indians perfect it and bring the shape of the letters to expres the sound in a tube.
The anatolians made first iron tehnology by ,only indians make a full 6 tone iron .
The greeks made first full develop sculpture but indians bring sculpture to a enormous industry.By the way ,first Ajanta caves mimics the sculpte -caves from Lidya(Turkey) 400bc;not the fictious circ roof s of asoka or maurya palace or vedic houses. is no painting or sculpture in India to show round roof of a house or palace from maurya time only triunghiular roofs.And nowhere in India you find such a roof.
Tink,holywood exist before bolywood.If indian make the bigest number of movies ,thats not mean they invented the cinema.

this laundry list is quite interesting, but only that kenoyer and schaffer deny that Indus Neolithoc is derived from West Asia. Indeed the archaeologist see it as an independent deveopment. and indeed there has been alot posted here about this . the last post was about sanai tal at 13K.

Why central asia-russia for IE ? First invasion in Europe starts from Kurgan culture in 4000BC.they bring incineration rite in europe.In 1900 bc also apear incineration in India.So in Europe incineration rite is older(4000bc).In vedas is mention incineration so Veda cant be older then 1900bc(exept it was writen in balkans).

Still waiting for mahaeuropa in balkans and this joker has jumped onto vedas. Is there any evidence here at all or is this an argument based on the famous witzelian plausibility scenarios.

cremation: <i> Looking at the burial practices
of the people of the Harappa Culture, links to modern Hindu
practices have been noted here as well. For example, the
dead were often placed in "post-cremation urns". These urns
contained the remains of completely cremated individuals,
and according to modern Hindu practice, they were supposed
to have been thrown into a river for proper disposal
(Piggott,204).</i> -- note site

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/downl...ks/aid.htm
we even have dravidian cremations for snakes:
<i>Dravidian cremation rituals for dead snakes recall the ceremonial burial of snakes in parts of Africa. </i>

link <i>Wheeler (1968) dismissed Marshall’s suggested cremations without any real reason or contrary evidence. Cremations have also been reported at Sutkagendor, Damb Buthi, and Mehi (Rao, 1973).... The cemetery located at Kalabangan contained far to few interments to account for more than a small fraction of total deaths. Most of the individuals interred in the cemetery at Kalabangan died of abnormal causes, including: hydrocephally, fire, accident, and a copper axe. Possible explanations include: another disposal location or cremation.</i>

The mention of astral event in 4000bc in Vedas doesnt mean that Vedas is from 4000 bc.If Bible mention a guy name Iob(2600bc) doesnt mean that the Bible is from 2600bc.The first chariots apear in Hungary plain whit 2,4 and ever whit 3 wheels -4000bc and first chariots pull byy horse apear in Ural-2000 bc. While chariots from India have no more the 2700bc and are pull by bulls and donkeys.

So the Vedics plagiarized astronomical data!!! you should ask yourself why this kind of convoluted logic is needed to keep this completely nonsensical theory alive.

as for the horse, here is Paul K Manansala tarcing the antiquity of horses in india:
<i>You might ascertain from reading the works of Aryan theorists, that
paleontologists have always considered that Equus sivalensis went extinct.

In fact, is was not until well after the "horse evidence" became so
crucial to the Aryan theory, that this idea began to really take hold.

Until that time, one could say only a minority of paleontologists
thought that E. sivalensis went extinct.

In fact, most thought that E. sivalensis was the progenitor of a
number of modern breeds particularly pony-type horses and the
so-called "slender-limbed horses" with short-pillared molars.

Here are quotes from _Encyclopedia of Indian Archaeology: Volume 1:
Subjects. Volume 2: A Gazetteer of Explored and..._ (1990):

First they establish the link of Equus namadicus as a possible
descendent of Equus sivalensis:

"Stegodon insignis, Stegodonganest, Equus namadicus and possibly
Hippopotamus namadicus are survivals from the Siwaliks of n. India."
p. 308

Then they mention E. namadicus remains in the Paleolithic:

"...Cervus sp., Equus namadicus -- have for the first time been
discovered in the upper Mahanadi valley (Joshi et al. 1978) generally
associated with Middle Palaeolithic [4.3] cultures."
p. 309

"Tripathy, 1967 collected...Equus namadicus...from the Godavari and
its tributaries...in association with Lower and Middle Paleolithic tools."
p. 309

There are other Middle Paleolithic examples given on p. 309.

Although the no connection is made between namadicus and caballus, the
authors contradict themselves on pg. 4 when they suggest:

"In India the earliest evidence for the domesticated horse occurs in
c. 4500 B.C. at BAGOR. Subsequently the true horse is reported from
the Neolithic levels at Kodekal and Hallur and the late Harappan
levels at Mohenjo-daro (Sewell and Guha, 1931) and ROPAR and at
Harappa, LOTHAL and numerous other sites. UJJAIN and HASTINAPURA are
among the important Iron Age sites where there is evidnece of the
domesticated horse at an early date, and cut-marks on the bones from
HASTINAPURA (Period II) suggest the slaughter of the animal for food.
At SURKOTADA bones of Equus caballus occur from Periods I A to I
C(2100-1700 B.C.) along with those of Equus asinus and Equss hermionus
(Sharma, 1974)."
p. 4

_Encyclopedia of Indian Archaeology: Volume 1: Subjects. Volume 2: A
Gazetteer of Explored and..._ edited by A. Ghosh, Brill Academic
Publishers, Leiden, 1990.

For example of works that mention E. sivalensis traits in modern horse
breeds see:

_The Philippine Agricultural Review_, Bureau of Agriculture, Dept. of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1944, p. 477 (on Sulu Horse found
in Philippines, Borneo and Java).

Royal Society of Edinburgh _Proceedings_, 1940, pgs. 296, 302, 308.

Regards,</i>