• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

acc to the joker spencer wells and his friend bamshad, authors of a whole host of related genetic studies ushering in the "aryans", pakistan and afghanistan are considered europe. at any rate, the roots of the albino population lie in central asia.. i am sure spencer wells and his cohorts are interpreting local central asian populations as "europoid"

hemphill, mallory:

Bioarchaeology: The Lives and Lifestyles of Past People (pdf)
Clark Spencer Larsen

..Hemphill’s biodistance analysis of cranial metrics, however, provides compelling evidence that the ancestry of the Tarim Basin groups was non-European (Hemphill, 2000). Rather, his analysis reveals a biological affinity with the Indus Valley population of northern India for the earlier groups, whereas the later groups show affinity to populations of the Oxus River valley in south-central Asia...
First of all I must admit that I am a newcomer, and that though I have been interested in History since my childhood, I am no scholar.

Having read all that has been posted so far, I have noticed that most of the posts have ignored certain vital phases of Indian History.

Those being the numerous invasions by outsiders into the Indian Subcontinent. Long before the Arabs, the Turks and the Mughals, there occured a series of invasions by tribes from North and Central Asia into the Subcontinent. No, I am not referring to AIT again, but to invasions that took place much later.

The Greeks had invaded the fringes of North-Western India during the 3rd century BCE. Though Chandragupta Maurya eventually ended the Greek rule in that region, there were a large number of Greeks who adopted Budhism or Hinduism and settled down there.

Then there was reign of the Kushana dynasty. They are believed to have come from the West China - Central Asia region. Under Kanishka, their empire included large parts of modern day Pakistan, Punjab - Haryana - Himachal Pradesh region, Kashmir and even parts of Western Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal. Kanishka was renowned for his patronage of Budhism.

During the later parts of the Gupta age, another tribe - the Huns invaded Northern India. They could not penetrate deep into the country, and were assimilated within Indian society.

The people who occupy Gujarat today are belived to be the descendants of a Central Asian tribe that arrived in India sometime between the Gupta age and the rule of Harshavardhana.

Another gtoup of highly important invaders were the Scynthians or the Shakas, a tribe from Central Asia. Their descendants are the Rajputs. They adopted Hinduism, and at that an extreme form of it. A rigid Caste system, Sati and Jowhar are examples of that. Off course, within the Caste system, these invaders from Central Asia would occupy the Higher Castes. <i>Ben Ami</i> - probably that answers a few of your questions. Obviously the descendants of these Shakas, who arrived at a much later date, will have a fairer complexion than opthers in the Subcontinent.

These were a few of the invaders that I recall. The commen thing about them is that all of them were integrated within Indian Culture and Society. Hence, many of us today do not refer to them as 'invaders". Their dascendants are not considered to be "outsiders" (if that term has any significance in this case).

However, when we try to study History and talk about skin colour and gene pool, we must recognise the fact that a large part of the High Caste Hindu population of Nortern India may not be the direct descendants of those who composed the Vedas. The direct descendants of the actual originators of the ancient Hindu scriptures, the great Epics and other works of spiritual, mathematical and scientific value may, today, form only a small proportion of the North Indian High Caste population.

These facts must be taken into consideration before any scientific enquiry about the origins of the Aryans is done.
Even if some researchers may claim that certain sections of the High Caste North Indian population have genes similar to Europeans, that does not really hint that the actual Aryans had much to do with Europeans.
On the other hand studies claiming continuance of gene pools within the subcontinent may mean that Aryans originated in India and then headed west. Later, a part of the group tyhat had headed west came back to invade the subcontinent.
There can, off course, be numerous other conclusions.

Does that pose more question than it solves? <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Quote: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.

Quote: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

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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>

Quote: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.

Quote: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

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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....

Quote: 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.

Quote: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

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>

Quote: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.

Post 270 (Ben Ami):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Greeks had invaded the fringes of North-Western India during the 3rd century BCE. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->To be precise, they got to present-day Pakistan and barely touched present-day India proper.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Though Chandragupta Maurya eventually ended the Greek rule in that region, there were a large number of Greeks who adopted Budhism or Hinduism and settled down there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Even if there had been 100s of Greeks who settled down in India (there were never more than 100s posted to this region, and most of them returned to the ancient lands of the Greeks once their post was over) - this is too tiny a number to make any difference to our population phenotypically. It's barely a drop in an ocean. Besides, many of them (especially in later times) were actually of Afghan descent but were trained to become culturally Greek, making them ethnically Indian anway though they would still be indicated as 'Greek'.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Then there was reign of the Kushana dynasty. They are believed to have come from the West China - Central Asia region.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><i>If</i> they came in their millions and <i>if</i> they were like the Han Chinese (though I had read the Kushanas were Central Asian and therefore closer to Mongolian/Turkic than Chinese), they <i>might</i> have skewed the North Indian population phenotype a little bit to a fairer skin-colour (to a much smaller extent than their more profound influence in the darker-shaded South China region though). There's a lot of ifs to satisfy here.
In any case, that does not mean that Euro-centred Indologists would allow the possibly Mongolian-Turkic Kushanas into the elite central-Asian "Oryan" club anytime soon. Unless they classify the Kushanas as a non-Turkic non-Mongolian (hence Oryan) people who nevertheless roamed the Turkic and Mongolian regions of C-Asia, of course.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The people who occupy Gujarat today are belived to be the descendants of a Central Asian tribe that arrived in India sometime between the Gupta age and the rule of Harshavardhana.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't know where I read it, it was either an article on anthropology (Brian Hemphill) or one by Schaffer & Lichtenstein (archaeology mainly, with anthropology too) that said that today's people of Gujarat (as well as other regions) are directly related to the Indus Valley people of yore. So it's amazing that the Central Asian tribe that only arrived during the Gupta Age should have authored the Indus Valley which was already there millenia before.
The first footnote to http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/agarwal.html also seems to hint briefly at what I am referring to here:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[1] Archaeologists like Jim Shaffer and D. A. Lichtenstein [1999] completely reject the notion of transfer of IA languages into South Asia as a result of migrations and invasions, and speak in terms of cultural shifts and diffusion of cultural traits. They do however, acknowledge a population shift from the IVC area to East Punjab and Gujarat [1999:256]:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That the archaeological record and significant oral and literature traditions of South Asia are now converging has significant implications for regional cultural history. A few scholars have proposed that there is nothing in the "literature" firmly placing the Indo-Aryans, the generally perceived founders of the modern South Asian cultural traditions(s), outside of South Asia, and now the archaeological record is confirming this…. Within the context of cultural continuity described here, an archaeologically significant indigenously significant discontinuity was a regional population shift from the Indus valley, in the west, to locations east and southeast, a phenomenon also recorded in ancient oral traditions. As data accumulate to support cultural continuity in South Asian prehistoric and historic periods, a considerable restructuring of existing interpretative paradigms must take place. We reject most strongly the simplistic historical interpretations, which date back to the eighteenth century, that continue to be imposed in South Asian culture history. These still prevailing interpretations are significantly diminished by European ethnocentrism, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism. Surely, as South Asia studies approaches the twenty-first century, it is time to describe emerging data objectively rather than perpetuate interpretations without regard to the data archaeologists have worked so hard to reveal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now, to state that there was "a population shift from the IVC area to East Punjab and Gujarat" means that the researchers must have compared <i>present-day</i> Gujaratis and E-Punjabis with the IVC people to conclude of a population shift. Reading between the lines, we see that the researchers have determined that present-day populations of E-Punjab and Gujarat are descendants of IVC people.
So unless the IVC's moved to Central Asia and then backtracked to Gujarat during the Gupta Age, I can't see how it tallies with that "belief" mentioned in post 270 relating to "the people who occupy Gujarat today".
Also, I thought Huns were Turkic/Mongolian? (That's what all the racket was about when a Scotsman was chosen to play Attilla the Hun in the similarly titled American TV-movie). Gujaratis don't look Mongolian to me at all.
Post 270:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Another gtoup of highly important invaders were the Scynthians or the Shakas, a tribe from Central Asia. Their descendants are the Rajputs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The phrasing makes it sound like the Shakas make up all the Rajputs and no other Indian tribes (that is non-Central Asian people) are to be found among them.
- Besides the British-instituted mythology-origins for the them, what evidence is there that the Rajput population are wholly of Shaka origin?
- The Shakas were Iranian-speaking people from C-Asia, who were classed as non-Airyas by the Zoroastrian Persians and as Anaryas by the Hindus. The Shaka invasions are dated to the 1st century bce. (See the Marathas thread for more Shaka stuff)
Since the times of British Colonialism and missionaries, it was propagated widely that the Shakas were the Rajputs and that the Shakas were also possibly other martial tribes of India. Though it is possible that Shakas were absorbed into the martial castes of India (though speaking from an Indian viewpoint, they should have been absorbed into all 4 Varnas; the martial castes on their own seems unlikely) they do not make up all the Rajputs.
- Their ethnicity is unknown, and seems to be a conglomerate of C-Asian inhabitants actually. Some instances of Mongolians and Turkic people from Turkmenistan (albeit Iranian-speaking), who are also Central Asian, are to be found among those classified as Shakas by us and as Scythians by the Greeks.
A small example on the side: Buddhist Turkestan (roughly located where modern-day Turkmenistan is) has an Iranian name that ends on 'stan', yet its people were not Iranian but Turkic. The same is true for the Turkemenistan of today (still has an Iranianised name yet its people are still mostly Turkic).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Then there was reign of the Kushana dynasty. They are believed to have come from the West China - Central Asia region. Under Kanishka,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Kanishka (circa early 2nd century ce) was a Shaka, he's attributed having instituted the Shaka Era in India. Shakas already covered. The Kushanas are not a separate wave/invasion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They [the Shakas] adopted Hinduism, and at that an extreme form of it. A rigid Caste system, Sati and Jowhar are examples of that. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Jauhor, as our communist textbooks would gladly conceal from students, started after Islam. Jauhor is the term used for when women would <i>collectively</i> burn themselves to death when their city is thought lost to <i>Islamic</i> invaders and the men are losing. Islam (circa 700 ce) came after the Shaka invasions. Please give contemporary evidence that Jauhor (not Sati, note) took place in a pre-Islamic time.
Jauhor is an example of the consequences of Islamic terrorism, not a consequence of any kind of rigid caste system.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Off course, within the Caste system, these invaders from Central Asia would occupy the Higher Castes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Stated matter-of-factly, but where does it follow that invaders from Central Asia (the Shakas) who were famously classed as An-aryas (and non-Airyas by our neighbours in Persia) were to be automatically granted a position that even our hard-working and self-sacrificing non-'high caste' people weren't given without matching the required skills? Please give evidence that the Shakas had to do nothing at all to leap from Anarya status to martial or other caste. Of course, if their community/-ies at some point proved their valour in defending our homeland and were accorded martial status in recognition of it, it's another matter entirely.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However, when we try to study History and talk about skin colour and gene pool, we must recognise the fact that a large part of the High Caste Hindu population of Nortern India may not be the direct descendants of those who composed the Vedas. The direct descendants of the actual originators of the ancient Hindu scriptures, the great Epics and other works of spiritual, mathematical and scientific value may, today, form only a small proportion of the North Indian High Caste population.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're saying the exact opposite of what the genetics data says (see the DNA thread): it says C-Asian input is almost negligible (prior to 1500 bce as well as after) and that for the rest the genetic results indicate that we are the same as the ancient local population. Hence, most of us are direct descendants of the ancient Indians (some of whom composed the Vedas).
So on what basis does anyone conclude that only a small proportion of the North Indian population (caste irrelevant) is local whilst the majority are C-Asians? It beats me.
Besides, many C-Asians today are Iranian-speaking and are related to the present-day Iranians. And as DNA data has shown time and again, the West Asians (i.e. Iranian people of Persia and the Afghans who we always knew were Indians anyway) are related to Indians. The depth of this connection is found in tribal Indians whose blood flows through all our veins.
Therefore, in that alternate universe where North India's majority had C-Asian ancestry and not local ancient Indian ancestry, the ethnicity of those people would still be deeply connected with the tribal Indian genes (as opposed to the much-advertised European genes of the C-Asians).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the actual Aryans<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In Samskritam there is no 'Aryan'. The word is Arya if you're Hindu/Jain/Buddhist or Airya if you're Parsee or Zoroastrian. The Zoroastrians of Persia and Parthia, like us Hindus, used the word as something to aspire to. When deserving, the populace of both countries gave the title to their kings and teachers. Among the Persians too, only those kings who never lied would dare to refer to themselves as Airya or Arya.
Ancient Hindus used the title as a description for non-Indians from neighbouring countries (China) as well as animals. Only Europeans, and those of us whom they've brainwashed, think this <i>non-European</i> word is tied to ethnicity, language or human beings even. It's not. Arya is merely a descriptive term or title, roughly meaning 'noble'.
Post 255:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->let not be full by the fact that balkanic countries are less develop the West europeans.What is today wasn't alwais.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I am not fooled at all. Eastern Europe is highly skilled in arts and sciences - which has continued even in the economic crises of today. The economic and political difficulties in the east at present is caused by the upheavals of history, and the two WWs. In time you will do well again.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->MOstly only 2 language families,IE and tamilian.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You mean IE and Dravidian. Tamil is one of the languages classed as Dravidian. No evidence that the primal Dravidian language was Tamil; just like Hindi, Bengali,... are entirely different languages from Samskritam and even Prakritam. In that way, Tamil must be entirely different from the original southern tongue. Consider even how today's Tamil is different from the beautiful Sentamizh of just a few generations ago (though that also had Samskrit terms, it was also quite different in other respects to the Tamil of today). Today's commonly-spoken Tamil is practically a dialect of Sentamizh - in some respects the gap is even wider: knowing the former can barely help you to understand the latter.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a explination of why is no finno-ugric,basque etc,in India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There are some who say that Japanese and Finno-Ugric are linked with the Dravidian languages. I read it somewhere on this forum. From my personal experience, I'd say that Japanese and Tamil and Samskritam have definite similarities (Japanese shares bits of both, besides its obvious syllabic nature). Don't harbour a clue about about Finno-Ugric, however.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->About mongoloid speakers in india,genetic show that they came in india recently in 4000 bc.THis theory doesnt resolve the linguistic problem but put the same question as in AIT: how a small minority IE can impose his language over a much large non-IE majority?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But the majority speaks "Indo-Aryan" in India, with about 25% speaking South Indian languages and 3% speaking Munda languages. The latter did not impose Munda on the rest of us, nor us impose our languages on them.
Unless you're using Indo-European as an ethnicity in discussing the "small minority IE". I object, but will continue. In that case, speaking of subethnicities, the Munda-speakers have always been small in number. The rest of us Indians have always been large in number.
If you look up India in the ignorant CIA factbook, they treat Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Munda as racial categories (ok, fine - they've labelled them "ethnic" categories, which in American parlance boils down to races anyway). The CIA factbook states that India is 72% Indo-Aryan, 25% Dravidian and 3% Munda. So, as per the racist CIA, India is a country with an Indo-Aryan ethnic majority (not just "linguistic" majority). I can only wonder how they decided who looked Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, etc. I suppose they used their satellites to sift the "Oryans" in India from the rest.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A <i>linguistic principle</i> say that were are gatheret the most families,or the most dialects that is the place of birth of a language or family language.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Acording to <i>paleolitic linguistric theory</i>,the IE languages developed in central-asia(a few say middle east),and spread in Europe in 22000BC(the gravetian culture).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's what I don't get about linguistics: the linguistic principles and theories - are they deterministic or non-deterministic? They seem the latter, which make it a non-precise science. [Quick rundown: deterministic state automata are calculators that give the same unique answer to the same question every time the question is input. Whereas a non-deterministic one can give different answers to the same question and one can 'not determine' which answer it's going to be each time.]
Coming back, do these theories and principles always apply? In all possible cases of language dispersal in the world - both now and in the future (bound by available methods of dispersal of course), is it always true that these principles and theories will hold and apply? Can there be cases, exceptions, where they do not apply? Is there any way to accurately predict when they will or will not apply? I don't think so. In short, linguistics doesn't appear to be an exact science.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->IE languages developed in central-asia(a few say middle east),and spread in Europe in <b>22000BC</b>(the gravetian culture).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->They allow the IE language family more than 24000 years to exist, yet allow Samskritam only 3500 years (and yet most of the PIE constructs tend to be skewed seriously towards Samskrit-sounding more than even Iranian, let alone European)? Gods, that's hypocritical of the Eurocentrist Indologists.
Just looking at the following three posts:
Post 260 (romani): <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->in neolithic Bengal and Tamil Nadu cultures was dieferent the Indus civilisation. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Post 261 (dhu): <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Not bengal but the northeastern culture<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Post 265 (romani) again: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SO i have wright ,Bengal and NE wasnt part of Indus culture<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't know where the conclusion in post 265 comes from, but it seems to be opposite to what member dhu stated.
As it is, in India, archaeologists have only now started digging up other regions beyond the area of the IVC, though the government is still only grudgingly giving them leave to do so. Anyways, they're finding ancient cities in more southern parts too (central and south-central India). I don't know if these are in the same style as IVC or totally different from it.
I have no idea if Bengal's communist government would bother or be willing to dig in Bengal. In short, we don't know what was there in the East, so it's too early to make such a comment as "Bengal was not part of Indus culture".
Nevertheless, what is known is that the Bengali people are related to the rest of Indians.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The rice culture start south china not in India<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I thought it was South East Asia (say Indonesia) and not China where rice culture started?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->THe full mature art start in Greece not in India<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No doubt, with Europeans determining what is "full, mature art". Naturally, the prize won't go to any non-Europeans then.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->WE can tanks basques for Altamira .By the way they are full europeans<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Of course they are Europeans. But they are not at all "Indo-Europeans" (that strange term which is supposed to be used for languages but that all Europeans tend to use as an ethnic, even racial, indicator). The European branch of IE is what you seemed to be discussing for the most part. That seems to be why member Dhu was indicating that since Basques are not IE Europeans in the least, Altamira is a non-IE European achievement.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Please see K. Elst's discussion of this in his article Astronomical data and the Aryan question (see especially paragraph 4 and onwards). He discusses this.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In 1900 bc also apear incineration in India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There's not been significant archaeological or other research in India so far, as I already stated. Therefore, just 'cause the date for the earliest find in India is 1900bce, doesn't mean that that is the earliest incineration. Besides, how does one prove that the Ganga, or Kaveri and other holy rivers hold the ashes of billions of people - since the rivers would've swept away most of the evidence into the ocean? So how does one show that these rivers might have held (and dispersed) the ashes of many another? Are only the remains of organised incineration plants taken as signs of incineration? What about unorganised cremation, which is what ancient Indians did and most do today? And do researchers take into account cremations held in someone's backyard? For instance, deceased household pets and domesticated animals like dogs, cows, horses and buffalos have been cremated in our backyards. This is especially true of animals held in high esteem (for example - horse, cow, elephant) and could well have been more applicable in the ancient past.
<b>Genes, Ethnicity and Race</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If all non-african genom came from India,which is hard to belive<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It might be hard to believe, but this is the picture contemporary genetics research gives us. As we're dealing with facts, it is not a matter for belief - facts never are. Just 'cause millions of people from one part of the world in the Middle Ages believed the world was flat didn't make it so. It might have been hard to believe for them that the Earth was in fact round, but belief didn't affect the facts in the slightest. When it was first shown that humanity came from Africa, some Europeans didn't (want to) believe it either - but eventually, it generally became accepted the world over.
Of course, not all regarding the genetics of the human species has been uncovered yet. These results may be incomplete, and more particulars may be discovered in the future, but as it stands, India was populated after Africa and from there come the ancestors of other population groups in the world.
But it says a lot that people were able to accept the AIT with no scientific evidence whatsoever ("Oryans" invading from C-Asia - disproven, invasion or migration or influx from C-Asia - disproven, 1500bce - also disproven, IVC destroyed - disproven, IVC not N-Indian - disproven, N-Indians not indigenous - disproven), and yet find it hard to accept consistent results from genetics (which <i>is</i> a science).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The central-asians who remain in central-asia ... in <b>15000Bc they reach india</b>....They form the indo-iranian branch of IE.Are some genetics that show a split betwin slavs and indians 8000-15000 years ago.However this studies doesnt show <b>what percent of indians are from central-asia</b> nor what was the population of india prior to 15000bc.This study is incomplete from that point of view.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And yet you agree that:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is true that north and south indians are from the same genetic stock.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The fact is that there's little C-Asian input into the Indian genepool. The little that has been found might even be from as late a time as the Shaka invasions (100 bce).
Even if the few C-Asian traces in our genepool were from an earlier time, it could be explained by the fact that many C-Asians (today at least) are related to Iranians; and Iranians have always been related to Indians. Besides which, some Jat communities seemed to have taken off in the NW direction in the distant past and settled in C-Asia and beyond. Later input from C-Asians who had Jat ancestry would then also have to take into account that Jats were originally Indian anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However south indians have some admixture of australoid genes,but this admixture also have the south chinese ,malayesians,thailandese and may be even some iranian or arabs.Is a comon mistake to see australoids as africans only becose their black skinand broad noses.Australoids are as far from africans as white europeans are.Are 5 races:caucasoid(north africa,europe,midle east,india),mongoloid(china,siberia),australoid(australia,some small pokets in south east asia),afroid(subsaharian africa)amerindian(maya inca).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is no scientific support for the existence of races. At what point in time do you draw the line between races? Only when the Chinese were formed as a separate community with specific phenotypes? Only when the Europeans were formed as such? Only when the Finnish finally formed as such? And when were they "finally" formed? How does one decide? Race is not science. It makes no sense. Which is why most scientists have left this 19th century construct behind. Speak of large population groups instead. Population groups vary in number depending on the timeframe and there are generally more than 5 and they do not coincide with the 5 racial groups.
By the way, the occasional Indian look among Arabians comes from Islamic slavery of Indians.
And if Iranians have australoid genes, then so should the N-Indians in general.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The pre-cristian religions in europe was very similar whit brahmanism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sounds like a missionary. Missionaries invented the term brahmanism and talked about it as a religion separate from Hinduism (today others in India have learnt to repeat it). It is not. Just like there's no vaishyaism, shudraism and kshatriyaism, etcetera.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You cant compare Vedas whit semitic writings because only IE languageshave the natural tendency for philosophy while semitic languages have a tendency for law and morality.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Then let me compare some of the philosophical outlook in our Vedas with African traditional religion and Native American religion. I have read prayers of north American Native people and of Africans, which were previously passed down orally among them. Not a few of them share a philosophical viewpoint (that the whole of creation is one and that there should be peace amongst all things) with that stated in the Vedas. Does a natural tendency for philosophy imply a connection? If so, the Hindu Vedas and the prayers of Africans and Native Americans (among many other cultures, including the Shamanist traditions of Siberian and Turkic people) show deep connections too. There's nothing surprising about these similarities, because natural traditions which evolved over millennia and countless generations, have all had the time to come to the same/similar conclusions.
Philosophy is not limited by one's language, but by the freedom for natural mental evolution. The ancient heathen Arabians, who spoke Arabic (a Semitic language), also understood that all of humanity was one. Just because Islam is full of stringent laws does not mean Arabic is to blame for its existence.
Samskritam is full of terms that do not exist in any other language, all of which describe intricate concepts. When people have the freedom to philosophize, they will invent terms to denote complex new ideas if there are none to be found in their language.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In a clasament made by ancient greeks over the nation whit philosophy and wisdom they put the greeks on the first place,brahmans on the secons place,thracians<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Persians would have put themselves in first place, the Chinese themselves, the Indians ourselves - before duly according the others respectful places. This does not signify anything. Where philosophy leads to truth, it is useful. And there may be many philosophies that do so - none of them better than another. But how did the Greeks decide when it came to ordering philosophy? That one was more <i>true</i> than another or just based on the amount of effort put into the field of philosophy (Greece had many philosophers, such-and-such none)? Or did they decide based on the simplicity or complexity of an idea? Yet profound truths may be simple and complex ideas may be utterly unfactual however quaint (the AIT springs to mind).
As much as I respect them, why must the Greek ordering be the only acceptable one?
[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... [QUOTE]

The intercultural exchange cant be name stealing.You again make a confusion betwin philosophy and wisdom.Egiptians was wise,is true.Egiptians didnt have any interest in metaphisics and more,egiptian language didnt have any words for metaphisical concepts.Is nothing so far from a speculative philosophical mind as the egiptian mind.Philosophy was invented by IE and was in the most of historic time a IE buisnies .90% of world philosophy came from IE people and IE language is especialy suitable for speculative tinking.
Folow this:
-Vedas-non-philosophical,Contain mitical and theological elements
-Brahmanas-the pass from mitical to speculative tinking,the begining of indian philosophy
-Upanishade-philosophy in the true sense of the word.
If you want to find a external place for greek philosophy beter look at IE anatolians like hitites.I dont know if you read the hittite rituals,hymns and prayers,you can see not only a hittite mithology but also the elevate language of hitite theology;the most advance tinking and elevate language at that time.I see also stilistic similarites betwin hitite hymns,vedas and orthodox hymns.Seem that speculative tinking was moving to Greece after the fall of hitites and lydians.

BUt yes greeks came from the north,from thracian lands starting whit 1900 bc(aheans),1700bc(dorians),1200bc(ionians).They mixed whit the pre-existent cretans and pelasgians(probably non-IE).

HIndu-Kush and desert nearby are also hard to cross,while is no obsatcole betwin europe and central asia.
Egiptian or amerindian pre-columbian legends say that from their country all the world populations came.They was the origin and center of humans.why not the indians make same asertations base on legends.

Are not hard evidence that schitians-sarmatians speak IE but is posible that they speak tukish.Also Kurgan people can be turkish. Sarmatians have identical dress like ancestors of romanians;and romanian tribes getae and dakia are the ancestors of jat and dahya people from Punjab,and are still populations in Bihar that speak almost romanian.By the way Bihar (or Bihor county)exist also in Romania and by coincidence are many people there whit the name Krishan(similar whit Krishna) and Vishan(similar whit Vishnu)also the river Krish(black).

About rumanian i disagree that latin came from Italy to Romania .Is another way around.Even in Eneida- the story about origin of Rome city ,say that after the trojian war ,the thracian Enea go in Italy and building Rome.The thracian latin go and mixed whit etruscians and other native languages and formed the amaizing 1500 !! dialects of italian(more then all dialects of India) .The romans was less then 3% (and genetic show same thing)of thracian population during the roman empire.They didnt need to learn a new language from the backwards romans.All the european famly language are find in Balkan.
They say that the romanian word "apa"-water is from the italian "aqua",but more similar word we find in sanskrit "ap,apas", and persian "ab".Or the romanain word for sun-"soare" came from the italian "sol" ,while more similar word you find in sanskrit "surya" or persian"saura".The same ca be said about other 4000 words. In fact we can say that romanian vocabulary is equaly close to persian or sanskrit as to latin.

This laundry just show how many tings was develop out-side India.And i was trying to make it as small as posible.

IF the horse is so present in indus culture ,why some like Rajaram make forgery whit Harappa seals showing horses.?

I was meaning that from 1500BC to 300 bc you cant find any develope sculpture in India.I know about the sculptures from Indus culture ,but this art was lost after the fall of this civilisation.The same hapend in Greece.We have well develop art in Minoic culture,but after the fall of it,betwin 1400bc and 600 bc we find only primitive sculpture in Greece.Also you can find influence from Assiria(700bc) and Persia(500bc) to mauryan period regarding ornaments and dress.

I tink that palaces from Harappa are religios temples,like the cretan or neolithic balkan palaces which was also. Thats why you cant find any temple in Indus culture.The palace is the temple.If the sumerians have zigurates,the cretans and harappans have temple-palace.

Provide links to prove your funny facts. This is serious dicussion forum, not IER jokers club.
Thanks. [QUOTE]

Im not loosing my pretious time to make jokes. I gona try to provide links about neolithic yoga and acupuncture in english.My links sites are mostly in romanian and i didnt find cognate links in english .
This is a balkanic statue from 4500 bC in LOTUS yoga position:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->IF the horse is so present in indus culture ,why some like Rajaram make forgery whit Harappa seals showing horses.?
Now I am 100% sure you are from IER jokers club. You are talking Farmer and Witzel here. Have you checked, Witzel a linguist who can't even speak Sanskrit properly, never been to India, call himself expert in Indic studies and is challenging Rajram, now witzel himself say he does not believe in Aryan Invasion theory. I think you have missed his latest sermon.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Are not hard evidence that schitians-sarmatians speak IE but is posible that they speak tukish.Also Kurgan people can be turkish. Sarmatians have identical dress like ancestors of romanians;and romanian tribes getae and dakia are the ancestors of jat and dahya people from Punjab,and are still populations in Bihar that speak almost romanian.By the way Bihar (or Bihor county)exist also in Romania and by coincidence are many people there whit the name Krishan(similar whit Krishna) and Vishan(similar whit Vishnu)also the river Krish(black).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you serious what you are writing?
Are you suggesting it was Romanians who were so-called Aryans and invaded India and wrote Vedas in Sanskrit which is mythical in 20 years after they came on chariots crossing Hindu-Kush Mountains?
But what a tragedy mother and Dad or Ancestor of Vedic civilization have forgotten their own language Sanskrit and Vedas and adopted Viking and Roman culture, but slaves India had kept their masters language and culture.
Sanskrit is still spoken in India, tell me any place in your Romania where whole village can speak Sanskrit, your so-called your ancestor’s language.

Do you think your logic make any sense? No.

It was traders from India who took language and culture to Europe. Even now Roma have kept some ritual and Vedic practice. That is why there is small pocket of Indic culture one can find in Europe. It is not other way round.

Even 200 years of English rule and 1200 years of barbaric invasion and rule of Muslims in India failed to change Indic culture; you think any sane person will believe when communication was slow, Romanian changed whole Indic culture.

Have you been to Bihar or Punjab? Have you heard what they speak? Don’t refer to wiki, lot of idiots from IER jokers club also write nonsense in those pages.

During Europran colonial period lot of garbage was written by Europeans and none was disputed because of oppresive nature of aggressor. Now time is over, People from Indic civilization are ready to rebuttal every nonsense written. Don't get shocked when all western joker Indologist are getting exposed one by one with false theory.
If you have to repeat same content, you may not see your post.

To understand Indic/Vedic civilization and Aryan Invasion, migration, tourism theory. Read some nice articles written by scholars in our front page.

To know who founded yoga or why Indic civilization is only continuous civilization or why yoga is continuously practiced in India for centuries etc. Study front page or first read facts and use your logic to discard fiction which you keep on writing from your IER fools discussion club. If you still believe in IER fools club, I think it is better you spend more time in like minded group.

You know farmer and witzel seal issue but on other side you claim you don't know who they are. You are writing script from fools club and you are suggesting here you don't know who are these people.

FYI check this link

The year is 2006, your are beating a dead horse around here. Farmer's claims of fake seal have been called long ago, step out of IER and get some fresh air now and then. Farmer's $10,000 challenge has been called too. Too bad IER moderators don't allow free discussion of ideas that could easily debunk their claims.

If you have balls, get some of posts contrary to Farmer & Witzel stand into IER and debate it there, else I don't see a need why IF admins should let you propogate Farmer & Witzel trash here. Clearly you are abusing the courtsey they have extended to you.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Egiptians didnt have any interest in metaphisics and more,egiptian language didnt have any words for metaphisical concepts.Is nothing so far from a speculative philosophical mind as the egiptian mind.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Am I the only one who is disgusted by this statement about the egyptians.!!!

Let me get this straight... the egyptians, builders of the pyramids, luxor, tell al amarna, etc etc, all of which make the athenian acropolis look like a junkheap, were, at most, unconscious automatons- or rather they were para-unconscious, since they lacked even the potential to wake up and contemplate their actions and their universe.

i hate to become polemical like this, but this is pure racist garbage and it is rooted in the abrahamic discourse about the <i>irrational</i> theory-deprived heathen. I remember reading a story about some euro tour guide in Mexico, who after giving a long tour of the mayan pyramids stated that it's a mystery how the mayans could have built what they did since they lacked the science of architecture!!! as koenraad elst said, the english word for "telescope" is simply "see far".....
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Jul 8 2006, 10:46 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Jul 8 2006, 10:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->It was traders from India who took language and culture to Europe. Even now Roma have kept some ritual and Vedic practice. That is why there is small pocket of Indic culture one can find in Europe. It is not other way round.  [right][snapback]53295[/snapback][/right]


The Roma form 10% of the population of our dear Romanian heartland, having arrived only 1K years back. What is becoming clear is that the side effect of India's tryst with the Mideast was the indicization of Europe. I don't think anyone can doubt that the Parsi Achaemenids expanded into the mideast from the East, and they were even able to hold the fertile crescent temporarily. But even though they were not able to effect any permanent change in the developed semitic/sumerian heartland of mesopotamia, syria, eygpt, they could still easily inundate the upper courses of the mideast - present kurdistan, armenia, ajerbaijan, and into balkan greece- where the cultural strands were far more fettered and thus receptive to formative influences.

The other thing we have to remember is that if the mideast could only barely be affected, then what to say about the indus valley, which dwarfed the mideast in terms of extent and size, down to this present day .
According to Oleg Trubachov (1999), elaborating on a thesis by Kretschmer (1944), Indo-Aryan was spoken in Ukraine as late as the Hellenis­tic period, by two tribes knows as the <b>Maiotes and the Sindoi,</b> the latter also known by its Scythian/Iran­ian-derived name Indoi and <b>explicitly described by Hesychius as "an Indian people". </b>They seem to have used a word sinu, from sindhu, for "river", a general meaning which it also has in some Vedic verses.
<span style='font-family:Courier'>Joker babayev finds this all to be very "interesting"- of course no hard conclusions can be formed since it completely destroys the received albino wisdom: http://indoeuro.bizland.com/archive/article17.html
Another interesting gloss is the Hesychius's dictionary which gives the following: <b>Sindoi ethnos Indikon. </b>There were many versions of interpreting this: "Sindes - a Sindic tribe", which is a nonsense, or "Sindes - a Scythian tribe" which is too far from the text and therefore doubtful. The most natural will be the translation "Sindes - an Indic tribe" which can be true.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Am I the only one who is disgusted by this statement about the egyptians.!!!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because of Islamic invasion of Egypt, Egyptians themselves don't raise any voice against joker historians and those who make fun of their ancestors or heritage. Islam had destroyed Egypt history and Europe’s so-called arm chair cubicle historians, archeologist or linguist had free run.
But these same breed of Europeans are surprised seeing such a reaction from Indians. They had forgotten people from India are proud of their civilazation, heritage and know history, and are now correcting all type of distortion and fiction created by Europeans.
Pakistan is another example, they doing what Egyptians had done with their heritage.
boss romani, are you one of those eastern european jobless skinheads??

thats been the major contribution of eastern europe in the last decade or so - "racially concious" neo nazi skinheads. most east european capitals have more skins than india has engineers. and these people, having not known any prosperity for the last century or so, and now suddenly (post fall of ussr) finding themselves in bed with the more prosperous western europeans, have devoted their life in mugging up the so called aryan invasion theory and other canards to prove how everything started from europe, and how indian religion and culture is run down second hand europen religion and culture etc etc. yeah what better way to earn your keep and ensure that the western europeans dont treat their balkan brothers as parasites hell bent to leach the affluent ex-colonial countries.

anyway either back your canards with proof or take them to some other forum where you will meet fellow airheads.
Guy n Gals,
Time to get back to thread topic.
<!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
ben_ami:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->are you one of those eastern european jobless skinheads??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you have followed the rants of one Prof(?) Mario Tossi who's firmly entrenched in Witzel Harappan donkey camp. If I'm not mistaken, he was Itlay's ambassador to India (need to verify this one). But the racists rants he made against one of the Indian scholars last Dec or Jan would have put any of the eastern european jobless skinhead to shame. It's a pity that 'learned' people with education behave worse than skinheads.
well can we have a sample of what this tossi said?? wouldnt be surprised to learn that his rants were laced with both germanic supremism and also the usual topspin of the catlick church, out to preserve the Mosaic order.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)