• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Oct 8 2006, 08:57 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 8 2006, 08:57 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Every one, but every one, knows that it was Alexander the Great who brought arts and sciences and mathematics and logic and philosophy to India![right][snapback]58741[/snapback][/right]

If I remember correctly, this two-bit bandit alexander was completely dumbfounded by the austerities and fearlessness of Indian ascetics... there is nothing comparable to be found in all the so called "europe", despite all attempts at appropriation by reconstruction and wordplay.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Linguist Johanna Nichols of the University of California, Berkeley, says the key to Indo-European’s ascent was the periodic movement of ancestral tongues across central Eurasia, beginning around 7,000 years ago. <b>Every few thousand years, a new language would expand westward across the arid grasslands of central Eurasia — what Nichols calls a “spread zone.” </b>These linguistic expansions, unaccompanied by any large population migration, altered the way people communicated across much of the continent.

Reconstructed family trees of various branches of Indo-European show that these ancestral tongues split immediately into a dozen or more “daughter” languages, the Berkeley researcher says. This trait signals the rapid formation of regional dialects from an original form of speech and is a hallmark of spread zones.

Linguistic evidence — much of it derived from reconstructions of extinct tongues — points to the spread across central Eurasia of a language family ancestral to proto-Indo-European, Nichols contends. <b>Four successive spreads of Indo-European language families followed: proto- Indo-European around 5,500 years ago, Iranian about 4,000 years ago, Turkic nearly 2,000 years ago, and Mongolian between 1,500 and 1,000 years ago.
Nichols places the proto-Indo-European homeland about 2,000 miles southeast of the home-land Anthony proposes. <b>Various regional branchings of Indo-European accompanied the four major spreads, which began at different eastern points in central Eurasia, </b>Nichols maintains.

Eurasian peoples living to the east and toward the center of the continent inhabited sparse, dry landscapes that promoted nomadic animal herding and clan-based societies, she notes. Clans were dispersed clusters of people belonging to kinship groups presided over by a hierar-chy of male rulers. Clan members were not necessarily biologically related, but they claimed a link to an ancient, often mythical ancestor.

<b>Clans on the eastern edge of the spread zone had a military or economic edge on their neighbors, </b>who spoke different languages, and these eastern clans fomented the major linguis-tic diffusions, Nichols argues. <b>Historical accounts, such as those describing the shift from Turkic to Mongol, indicate that these clan rulers often arranged alliances with their counterparts to the west. </b>These agree-ments included a voluntary embrace by western rulers of the spreading language, she con-tends. A mixture of economic opportunism and military intimidation probably motivated clan leaders to accept an advancing language and its speakers’ culture, Nichols suggests.

Thus, the original Indo-Europeans may have made their linguistic mark without any of the cultural innovations often ascribed to them.

“They did not bring agriculture to Europe, tame the horse, invent patriarchy and warrior cults, or initiate the Bronze Age,” Nichols asserts. “They likely had a small competitive edge on other steppe societies, but the main reason why their language spread was that they happened to be in the right place at the right time.”

Her scenario should be put to the test in the recently established states of central Eurasia, where archaeological research has expanded greatly in the past decade. For instance, Harvard University researchers are collaborating with archaeologists from Russia and Turkmenistan in excavating Bronze Age settlements belonging to the <b>Oxus civilization, which thrived on the southeastern rim of central Eurasia about 4,000 years ago. </b>Speakers of Indo-Iranian languages may have originated in that ancient culture, according to Harvard’s Fredrik T. Hiebert.

Hiebert and his coworkers make no claims that the first Indo-European speakers spawned the Oxus civilization, although it existed within the area cited by Nichols as the most likely Indo-European homeland. link<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Smt. Sandhya Jain inaugurated the Sarasvati Dars'an Exhibition on 17 November 2006. The theme of the Exhibition which will now be taken to reach every village, every school in Bharatam is this: Sarasvati is neither a myth, nor a legend, but a scientifically proven fact.


Saraswati: Pumpkin under a grain of rice

By Sandhya Jain

A famous Tamil saying avers: you cannot hide a pumpkin under a grain of rice. <b>It was precisely such a preposterous attempt—the denial of the very existence of the mighty river Saraswati by motivated Western and Indian Marxist scholars—that was powerfully overturned at the recent Saraswati Colloquium at Kurukshetra, Haryana (November 17 to 20, 2006)</b>.

Organised under the aegis of the Akhil Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Yojana and the Saraswati Nadi Shodh Prakalp, the colloquium distinguished itself with a fascinating exhibition highlighting the material, scientific and administrative evidence of the existence of the river that nourished and inspired the country's ancient Vedic civilization. <b>A nation-wide dissemination of the exhibition would soon put the political-academic detractors of the river to flight and diminish those who continue to deny the Vedic roots of the Harappan (Indus-Saraswati) civilization. </b>

The exhibition featured Survey of India maps published in 1969 and 1970, which trace the route of the vanished Saraswati and its adjacent waters in the Haryana districts of Kurukshetra, Jind, Ambala, Karnal, Rohtak and Sonipat. There are detailed satellite images of its palaeo-channels and present-day drainages in Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, undertaken by ISRO's Regional Remote Sensing Service Centre at Jodhpur.

But the most clinching evidence of official administrative acknowledgement of the Vedic river and its northern Indian trajectory comes in the form of the small revenue maps traditionally maintained by village patwaris. These are historical government records, and the organisers of the exhibition have imaginatively culled out and joined the revenue maps of the villages of Yamuna Nagar and Kurukshetra districts, which clearly depict the course of the now invisible Saraswati.

At least 38 villages are covered by the maps, including Khera Kalan; Khera Khurd; Sabalpur; Muftabad (renamed Saraswati Nagar); Mali Mazra; Uncha Chandna; Gundana; Shahaberpura; Gajlana; Ram Nagar; Gog Mazra; Gura Singhal; Sultanpur; Kali Rona (Baban Khelna); Kandhauli; Bhaini; Gohan; Ishargarh; Bohti; Mukarpur; Pipli (Khetra Ratgal); Amargarh Majhada, Kurukshetra Jail ke peeche, Ratgal Shetra; North of Kurukshetra, front of Sector 13; Dera Khurd; Thanesar; Sheikh Chilli Maqbara Shetra; Gaon Bahri Kurukshetra, NE Shetra; Jogna Khera; Narkatari; Gulabgarh; SYL - Bhakra-Pehowa Road; Jyotisar (birthplace of Bhagvad Gita); Gaon Garhi Rojhan; Gaon Chailo; Murtzapur Bibipur lake; Sehda Unthsal Derhaja Bangdi; and Bodla Gaon.

This is incontrovertible evidence that the Saraswati's course has been known to cartographers from the time the river flowed powerfully from the mountains to the ocean, to the time it disappeared following tectonic movements in the earth's crust. Since the river did not dry up overnight, but continued to flow in lesser water systems, its course was remembered by succeeding generations. Interestingly, the Rig Vedic river is still known as Saraswati in its upper reaches in Haryana; it then joins the Ghaggar and later dries up near Sirsa. It is known as Ghaggar in Rajasthan, Hakra in Cholistan (Pakistan) and Nara in Sindh. Its final destination was the Rann of Kutch, east of the present-day Indus.

The Rig Veda envisages the Saraswati as having descended from the heavens. It is interesting that this river, which is the fountainhead of Indian culture, originates in the Tibetan Himalayas, as does the Brahmaputra, also associated with the creator-god Brahma. These two rivers thus embrace and irrigate the eastern and western extremities of India. Given the legendary fertility of the Saraswati, the states of Haryana, Gujarat, and Rajasthan have taken the initiative to link rivers to provide drinking water and irrigation facilities to farmers and with this raised the possibility of reviving the great river Saraswati.

The route of the vanished river was first established by the late Dr. Haribhau Wakankar, through satellite imagery and archaeological sites along its route. The Saraswati project was scrutinised by eminent archaeologists and geologists, and an earnest search for the lost river was launched in 1982, when Dr. Wakankar created a team of 49 scholars. Many events synergized thereafter. In 1995, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) found water in the Rajasthan desert at depths of merely 50 to 60 metres, making agriculture possible even in extreme summer. The Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI), Jodhpur, mapped the defunct course of a river through satellite and aerial photographs and field studies.

Satellite imagery suggests the river originated in Kailash Mansarovar and emerged on the plains from the Siwalik Hills at the foothills of the Himalayas in Himachal Pradesh, flowed through the Ghaggar valley in Haryana and the Rajasthan desert, on to Hakra in the Cholistan desert (Sindh, Pakistan), before reaching the Rann of Kutch through the Nara Valley and falling off into the Arabian Sea. This river is obviously the Saraswati, as it is the only river in Indian literature and tradition that vanished. Scientific studies suggest it dried up around 2000 BC, which makes it a contemporary of the Indus Valley civilization and gives the Rig Veda a greater antiquity than previously suspected, as the Saraswati was a powerful river when the seers composed the Vedic shlokas.

Interestingly, after Pokharan 1998, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) tested the underground water for tritium (radio-active fallout), and found potable waters in the desert. These, derived from Himalayan glaciers, were 8000 to 14000 years old, and were being slowly recharged through aquifers from somewhere in the north despite the semi-arid region having scanty rainfall. BARC thus confirmed ISRO findings about the river.

In 2003-04, archaeologists from Shimla Circle established Adi Badri as the site where the river entered the plains, descending from the Rupin-Supin glaciers north of Paonta Saheb, where a Yamuna tear caused by plate tectonics caused a lateral shift of the Shiwalik ranges. This caused the eastward migration of the Yamuna, a tributary of Saraswati, taking the Saraswati waters to join the Ganga at Prayag and create the Triveni Sangam. This tectonic diversion of the Yamuna waters is recorded in our cultural memory through the story of Balaram, brother of Krishna, dragging the river Yamuna towards Mathura.

Reputed scholars now hold that the Saraswati-Indus and Vedic civilization are one and the same. They say it is impossible that the so-called Aryans left a massive literary corpus (Vedas) but not a shred of material culture as evidence of their presence in the region. At the same time, a rich material culture has been found in the same place at the same time, with evidence of writing found on seals. There is no evidence of invasion, or even substantial inward migration, but a population shift following the loss of a major water source. Dr. R.S. Bisht, former director, ASI, who excavated Dholavira (Gujarat) and supervised the search for the Saraswati in 2001, stressed: "The overwhelming archeological evidence of ancient settlements along the course of what was once the Saraswati River proves that our earliest civilizations were not confined to the Indus river alone. Those who wrote the Vedas on the banks of the Saraswati were the same as the Indus Valley people."
Might be good idea to start a separate thread on Saraswati Civilization.
<img src='http://www.edgarlowen.com/b3564.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
B3564. AN INDUS VALLEY HEAD OF A HORSE, ca. 3rd–2nd millennium BC. With pressed and incised details, a hole through the muzzle for a bridle. 1.75 x 2 inches. Scarce. $150 estimate.
Public TV just showed a piece about Human Migrations (Europeans migrating to Tamir Valley somewhere in Mongolia, looks like) which showed a photo of the Sir Jones read out his quote (cut pasted from Husky's post, previous page):

"The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists."

...and so concluded with the magic "Indo-European languages". They showed mummified remains of a person from this Mongolia or whatever. They said this mummified body showed white skin and light hair, though you could hardly make out anything on that skull, it all looked like it was covered with chalk powder. <!--emo&Rolleyes--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I've a very basic question to you. Apart from western theory, how many of you feel that Indian language is related to European language? I did not feel much practical relation between English and other Indian languages I know.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I did not feel much practical relation between English and other Indian languages I know.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've heard chaste Hindi. And I've heard my father and uncle as well as swamigal reciting Vedas in proper Samskritam. I've heard Sentamizh (proper Tamil).

German, Dutch, English, French - none of them sound like Samskritam or Hindi, or for that matter Tamil. (But knowing Tamil really helps with pronouncing the nasal sounds in French which many other European students can't initially get their head around. Don't know why this is, but French sounds are quite unique among the European languages in some ways.)
I've heard a lot of Italian and Russian and neither sound like Hindi or Samskritam. Don't know about Greek and Latin, will ask my sister. Only ever heard music in Irish Gaelic and from what I thought I heard, it doesn't sound like any of these Indian languages.

But of all the odd things in the world, there are words in Japanese that sound like they are related to Tamil, Samskritam and Kannada. Maybe this is merely because Japanese is a syllabic language too? But sometimes the similarities seem more than coincidence. Sometimes I wonder if it is Buddhist influence. Don't know.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jan 18 2007, 03:19 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 18 2007, 03:19 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I did not feel much practical relation between English and other Indian languages I know.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've heard chaste Hindi. And I've heard my father and uncle as well as swamigal reciting Vedas in proper Samskritam. I've heard Sentamizh (proper Tamil).

German, Dutch, English, French - none of them sound like Samskritam or Hindi, or for that matter Tamil. (But knowing Tamil really helps with pronouncing the nasal sounds in French which many other European students can't initially get their head around. Don't know why this is, but French sounds are quite unique among the European languages in some ways.)
I've heard a lot of Italian and Russian and neither sound like Hindi or Samskritam. Don't know about Greek and Latin, will ask my sister. Only ever heard music in Irish Gaelic and from what I thought I heard, it doesn't sound like any of these Indian languages.

But of all the odd things in the world, there are words in Japanese that sound like they are related to Tamil, Samskritam and Kannada. Maybe this is merely because Japanese is a syllabic language too? But sometimes the similarities seem more than coincidence. Sometimes I wonder if it is Buddhist influence. Don't know.
NOne of this language IE sub-families resemble whit each other.I dont know if IE family as a whole have a practical role .But is a practical role of sub-families as you can learn easy a language from the same sub-family.For exemple an italian can learn spanish very easy as is in the same latin sub-family.

Latin and greek also dont resemble whit any other IE sub-family.
I dont know how many root-words are cognate in IE languages(i didnt find this information though is important to know,seems that is a secret of the linguists <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).May be are 4000-5000 words whit IE root in almost every IE language,but im not sure.
IE family have over 12 sub-families,i dont know if any language group has so many sub-families.
First when i had hear hindi,sound like a kind of japanese for me so i confirm your observation.In fact i was to say same thing abt japanese before i read your post.Whit long sylable as japanese not short ones like chinese.I dont know how sanscrite sound but the words are longer then hindi ones.
Even is the most studied language family ,The evolution of IE remain a mistery.
Even the gods have diferent names,though the general tri-functional pattern(like 3 gunas,3 plans like heaven-athmosfere-earth etc)of IE remain.

Indus Research Centre inaugurated

Staff Reporter

A valuable corpus of information on the ancient civilisation

<img src='http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/26/images/2007012617730901.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

DISCUSSING A POINT: Iravatham Mahadevan (right) with educationist V.C. Kulandaisamy at the inauguration of The Indus Research Centre in Chennai on Thursday. — PHOTO: K.V.SRINIVASAN

CHENNAI: The city now has a centre that will help historians and others passionately pursuing research on the Harappan or Indus Civilisation to further their studies.

The Indus Research Centre, inaugurated on Thursday, is a unit of the Roja Muthiah Research Library Trust. Thanks to the computerised data files and photographic card catalogues gifted by noted researcher Iravatham Mahadevan and other books, monographs and research papers diligently collected by trustees, the centre can now boast of a valuable corpus of information on the ancient civilisation.

"Claims defeatist"

Inaugurating the centre, Mr. Mahadevan said recent claims made by some historians about the Indus Script being merely pictures and not writing were defeatist. "The concordance I have published reveals linguistic features."

"Scientific analysis of the script, preferably computer-aided, is required. Matching elements of the script to linguistic models should happen later," he said. An ideology-based approach with pre-conceived notions would render the attempt futile, he remarked.

He said he was happy that Professor Rani Siromoney, wife of the late professor Gift Siromoney, donated her husband's valuable research material on the Indus Script to the centre. It would encourage young scholars to pursue inter-disciplinary research as research material was available in an accessible and computerised form.

Genuine advancements

N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu , said the centre was an institute of great integrity and independence, avoiding entanglements with government funds. Amidst all the antiquity-frenzy and compulsion to establish pedigree, the centre would facilitate genuine advancements in the field, he said.

Historian S. Muthiah, trustee of the Roja Muthiah Research Library Trust, was present. For further details, call: 22542551 or 22542552.

Can somebody call them up and inquire
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->German Indologist claims to have decoded Indus scripts

Panaji, Feb 07: Renowned German Indologist and scientist of religion, Egbert Richter Ushanas today claimed that he has unravelled the mystery of Indus Valley scripts by decoding major seals and tablets found during various archaeological excavations.

"Already 1,000-odd seals are decoded and of them, 300-odd are printed in monography -- the message of Indus seals and tablets," stated Richter, who has also decoded tablets from Easter Island in Pacific Ocean and disc of Phaistos on Island of Crete in Meditarrenean Sea.

"All the seals are based on Vedas -- Rig Veda and Atharva Veda," Richter told a news agency here.

He is here to attend the International Indology Conference, beginning from February 7.

Richter, who began decoding the mysteries behind the seals way back in 1988, feels that after decoding 1,000-odd seals, there is no need to decode the rest.

"You need not eat all apples of world to understand the apple. Few apples are enough," he quipped.

The path-breaking decoding by Richter is based on the Sumerian and Brahmi script wherein he has detected the lost meaning of the seals which can be traced to Vedic era.

A Vedic scholar himself, Richter during the course of unravelling the Indus Valley mysteries, has translated all the important Vedic hymns and is a Sanskrit exponent too.

Bureau Report

<!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> I think Richter will now be labelled as Hindutva fascist too.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Feb 20 2007, 07:41 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Feb 20 2007, 07:41 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.as...60&sid=FTP<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--emo&:D--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> I think Richter will now be labelled as Hindutva fascist too.[right][snapback]64692[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're absolutely right. Richter is obviously a Hindootvadi. My pronouncement is based firmly on my having read WienerSchnitzel's celebrated book 'You're either for us or you're against us' (founded on and inspired by the famous biblical statement) which is unforgiving of any views that don't fit in with the WienerSchnitzel and the rest of Indology.

But perhaps you are only familiar with the book under its alternative title (as published in India by RedHistoriansPress and in North America by HarvardHatesHindus, and set to be a textbook in Californian schools soon): 'You are either an Oryan like us or a Hamitic Dravidoid like them'.
Related to post 91 (Viren):

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>BRITISH-IRISH BROTHERHOOD
A United Kingdom? Maybe</b>
By Nicholas Wade

Most of history aside, DNA evidence suggests that the British and the Irish have much more in common than they once thought.

Britain and Ireland are so thoroughly divided in their histories that there is no single word to refer to the inhabitants of both islands. Historians teach that they are mostly descended from different peoples: the Irish from the Celts and the English from the Anglo-Saxons who invaded from northern Europe and drove the Celts to the country's western and northern fringes.

[Photo caption:] The Irish and the English have their own flags, but the differences may be mainly superficial: Researchers say they share the same DNA.

But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans. The implication that the Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh have a great deal in common with each other, at least from the geneticist's point of view, seems likely to please no one. The genetic evidence is still under development, however, and because only very rough dates can be derived from it, it is hard to weave evidence from DNA, archaeology, history and linguistics into a coherent picture of British and Irish origins.

That has not stopped the attempt. Stephen Oppenheimer, a medical geneticist at the University of Oxford, says the historians' account is wrong in almost every detail. In Dr. Oppenheimer's reconstruction of events, the principal ancestors of today's British and Irish populations arrived from Spain about 16,000 years ago, speaking a language related to Basque.

The British Isles were unpopulated then, wiped clean of people by glaciers that had smothered northern Europe for about 4,000 years and forced the former inhabitants into southern refuges in Spain and Italy. When the climate warmed and the glaciers retreated, people moved back north. The new arrivals in the British Isles would have found an empty territory, which they could have reached just by walking along the Atlantic coastline, since the English Channel and the Irish Sea were still land.

This new population, who lived by hunting and gathering, survived a sharp cold spell called the Younger Dryas that lasted from 12,300 to 11,000 years ago. Much later, some 6,000 years ago, agriculture finally reached the British Isles from its birthplace in the Near East. Agriculture may have been introduced by people speaking Celtic, in Dr. Oppenheimer's view. Although the Celtic immigrants may have been few in number, they spread their farming techniques and their language throughout Ireland and the western coast of Britain. Later immigrants arrived from northern Europe had more influence on the eastern and southern coasts. They too spread their language, a branch of German, but these invaders' numbers were also small compared with the local population.

In all, about three-quarters of the ancestors of today's British and Irish populations arrived between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, when rising sea levels split Britain and Ireland from the Continent and from each other, Dr. Oppenheimer calculates in a new book, "The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story" (Carroll & Graf, 2006).

Ireland received the fewest of the subsequent invaders; their DNA makes up about 12 percent of the Irish gene pool, Dr. Oppenheimer estimates. DNA from invaders accounts for 20 percent of the gene pool in Wales, 30 percent in Scotland, and about a third in eastern and southern England.

But no single group of invaders is responsible for more than 5 percent of the current gene pool, Dr. Oppenheimer says on the basis of genetic data. He cites figures from the archaeologist Heinrich Haerke that the Anglo-Saxon invasions that began in the fourth century A.D. added about 250,000 people to a British population of one to two million, an estimate that Dr. Oppenheimer notes is larger than his but considerably less than the substantial replacement of the English population assumed by others. The Norman invasion of 1066 brought not many more than 10,000 people, according to Dr. Haerke.

Other geneticists say Dr. Oppenheimer's reconstruction is plausible, though some disagree with details. Several said genetic methods did not give precise enough dates to be confident of certain aspects, like when the first settlers arrived.

"Once you have an established population, it is quite difficult to change it very radically," said Daniel G. Bradley, a geneticist at Trinity College, Dublin. But he said he was "quite agnostic" as to whether the original population became established in Britain and Ireland immediately after the glaciers retreated 16,000 years ago, as Dr. Oppenheimer argues, or more recently, in the Neolithic Age, which began 10,000 years ago.

Bryan Sykes, another Oxford geneticist, said he agreed with Dr. Oppenheimer that the ancestors of "by far the majority of people" were present in the British Isles before the Roman conquest of A.D. 43. "The Saxons, Vikings and Normans had a minor effect, and much less than some of the medieval historical texts would indicate," he said. His conclusions, based on his own genetic survey and information in his genealogical testing service, Oxford Ancestors, are reported in his new book, "Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland."

A different view of the Anglo-Saxon invasions has been developed by Mark Thomas of University College, London. Dr. Thomas and colleagues say the invaders wiped out substantial numbers of the indigenous population, replacing 50 percent to 100 percent of those in central England. Their argument is that the Y chromosomes of English men seem identical to those of people in Norway and the Friesland area of the Netherlands, two regions from which the invaders may have originated.
(Some feel UK must have Oryan ancestry, else it's no fun anymore)

<b>Dr. Oppenheimer disputes this, saying the similarity between the English and northern European Y chromosomes arises because both regions were repopulated by people from the Iberian refuges after the glaciers retreated.</b>
(What? Oppenheimer says quite a few males of Norway and Friesland in NL are Iberian....!! Norway: the very origin of 'Nordic'.... Is nothing sacred anymore? UK and German possibilities had already gone the way of the Dodo. Now Norway and NL. And Norway seeded Denmark and Sweden... Finland is Saami/Finno-Ugric + Swedish people. Where are the pure, unsullied Oryan populations. Where oh where? The Germans might have to look east to Russia for their hope, the ones they slighted and murdered in WWII for being 'untermenschen ohne arisches blut...' [subhumans without Oryan blood]
Herr Commandant WitSSel has spoken: 'Ve musst not give up on ze Arischen drrrream. Neverrrrr.')

Dr. Sykes said he agreed with Dr. Oppenheimer on this point, but another geneticist, Christopher Tyler-Smith of the Sanger Centre near Cambridge, said the jury was still out. "There is not yet a consensus view among geneticists, so the genetic story may well change," he said. As to the identity of the first postglacial settlers, Dr. Tyler-Smith said he "would favor a Neolithic origin for the Y chromosomes, although the evidence is still quite sketchy."
(Yes. Let's all hold out for an Oryan UK. Stanley Wolpert's a miracle man - he may still be able to <i>fix</i> it so that the Oryan standard flies high over UK once more.)

Dr. Oppenheimer's population history of the British Isles relies not only on genetic data but also on the dating of language changes by methods developed by geneticists. These are not generally accepted by historical linguists, who long ago developed but largely rejected a dating method known as glottochronology. Geneticists have recently plunged into the field, arguing that linguists have been too pessimistic and that advanced statistical methods developed for dating genes can also be applied to languages.

Dr. Oppenheimer has relied on work by Peter Forster, a geneticist at Anglia Ruskin University, to argue that Celtic is a much more ancient language than supposed, and that Celtic speakers could have brought knowledge of agriculture to Ireland, where it first appeared. He also adopts Dr. Forster's argument, based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic language tree, and was spoken in England before the Roman invasion.
(Actually, there are words in English which seem related to Dutch not German; and in other cases, some are related to German not Dutch... So it's a possibility that English descended from an older Germanic language, who knows. On the other hand, it may still prove to be as unoriginal as it's thought to have been thus far.)

English is usually assumed to have developed in England, from the language of the Angles and Saxons, about 1,500 years ago. But Dr. Forster argues that the Angles and the Saxons were both really Viking peoples who began raiding Britain ahead of the accepted historical schedule. They did not bring their language to England because English, in his view, was already spoken there, probably introduced before the arrival of the Romans by tribes such as the Belgae, whom Caesar describes as being present on both sides of the Channel.

The Belgae perhaps introduced some socially transforming technique, such as iron-working, which led to their language replacing that of the indigenous inhabitants, but Dr. Forster said he had not yet identified any specific innovation from the archaeological record.

Germanic is usually assumed to have split into three branches: West Germanic, which includes German and Dutch; East Germanic, the language of the Goths and Vandals; and North Germanic, consisting of the Scandinavian languages. Dr. Forster's analysis shows English is not an offshoot of West Germanic, as usually assumed, but is a branch independent of the other three, which also implies a greater antiquity. Germanic split into its four branches some 2,000 to 6,000 years ago, Dr. Forster estimates.
(Ah. Linguists never agree.)

Historians have usually assumed that Celtic was spoken throughout Britain when the Romans arrived. But Dr. Oppenheimer argues that the absence of Celtic place names in England - words for places are particularly durable - makes this unlikely.

If the people of the British Isles hold most of their genetic heritage in common, with their differences consisting only of a regional flavoring of Celtic in the west and of northern European in the east, might that perception draw them together? Geneticists see little prospect that their findings will reduce cultural and political differences. The Celtic cultural myth "is very entrenched and has a lot to do with the Scottish, Welsh and Irish identity; their main identifying feature is that they are not English," said Dr. Sykes, an Englishman who has traced his Y chromosome and surname to an ancestor who lived in the village of Flockton in Yorkshire in 1286.
(Even if they were all Basques, the English murdered, subordinated, brainwashed, converted and reconverted the Scottish, Welsh and Irish; and until recently, banned their languages from being spoken in their own schools too.)

Dr. Oppenheimer said genes "have no bearing on cultural history." There is no significant genetic difference between the people of Northern Ireland, yet they have been fighting with each other for 400 years, he said.

As for his thesis that the British and Irish are genetically much alike, "It would be wonderful if it improved relations, but I somehow think it won't."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/s...2028814,00.html (excerpt)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Norway's Aryan children go to court over years of prejudice</b>
Associated Press in Strasbourg
Thursday March 8, 2007
The Guardian

They claim they were locked up in mental homes and denied education, the victims of a monstrous Nazi scheme and decades of public prejudice.

Now a group of Norwegian "war children", born as part of a German plan to create a genetically pure race, are taking their case to the European court of human rights, demanding compensation and recognition of their suffering from the government in Oslo.

Up to 12,000 children with a Norwegian mother and a German father were born in Norway during the second world war under the Lebensborn - Fountain of Life - scheme, first introduced by <b>SS chief Heinrich Himmler in 1935 to propagate Aryan children. Outside Germany, Norway was the jewel of the programme</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The mistreated kids are another result of evil Oryan lies.
WitSSel and Schutz-Abteilung Farmer, however, want to continue their christo Fuehrer's program of lies and misery.
Must watch
Scientific Verification of Vedic Knowledge
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>First Evidence of Cotton at Neolithic Mehrgarh, Pakistan: Analysis of Mineralized Fibres from a Copper Bead</b>

The metallurgical analysis of a copper bead from a Neolithic burial<b> (6th millennium bc ) at Mehrgarh, Pakistan, </b>allowed the recovery of several threads, preserved by mineralization. They were characterized according to new procedure, combining the use of a reflected-light microscope and a scanning electron microscope, and identified as cotton (Gossypium sp.). <b>The Mehrgarh fibres constitute the earliest known example of cotton in the Old World and put the date of the first use of this textile plant back by more than a millennium. </b>Even though it is not possible to ascertain that the fibres came from an already domesticated species, the evidence suggests an early origin, possibly in the Kachi Plain, of one of the Old World cottons.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Unearthing 10,000 Years of Indian Culture </b>
Written by David Frawley
Friday, 16 March 2007

"Hidden Horizons - Unearthing 10,000 Years of Indian Culture" explores the recent research in archaeology, geology, ecology, linguistics, science, marine archaeology and other relevant fields which throw light on the real history of India. Scholars worldwide agree that this new evidence dispels all the old myths and opens the horizons for a new era of understanding - an era which restores India's true place in world history as a nation with a rich ancient tradition and a civilization that has existed for over 10,000 years.


1. Natural history of tropical Asia shows that the origins of Indian civilization go back to the end of the last Ice Age, more than 10,000 years ago.

2. Archaeologically, India has the most extensive and continuous record of all ancient civilizations, much more than Egypt, Sumeria or Mesopotamia of the same time periods. Yet its role as a source of civilization has largely been ignored by the historical biases of the West.

3. The Vedic literature is the ancient world's largest, with its many thousands of pages dwarfing what little the rest of the world has been able to preserve. This literature reflects profound spiritual concepts, skill in mathematics, astronomy and medicine, special knowledge of language and grammar, and other hallmarks of a great civilization. It cannot be attributed to nomads and barbarians or to the short space of a few centuries.

4. The ancient Indian literature, the world's largest, and ancient Indian archaeology, also the ancient world's largest, must be connected. We can no longer accept the idea of Ancient India without a literature and Vedic literature reflecting no real culture or civilization. Vedic literature and its symbolizm is clearly reflected in Harappan archaeology and its artifacts.

5. Greater India, which included South India, was the home of most human populations which migrated after the end of the Ice Age when the water released by melting glaciers flooded the region around ten thousand years ago. Greater India, not the Middle East, is the likely cradle, not only of populations, but culture and agriculture as well.

6. The Sarasvati River, the dominant river in India in the post-Ice Age era, after 8000 BCE (10,000 BP), and the main site of urban ruins in ancient India, is well described in Vedic texts. It ceased to flow around 1900 BCE (3900 BP), making the Vedic culture older than this date. All stages of the development and drying up of the Sarasvati can be found in Vedic texts down to the Mahabharat, showing that the Vedic people were flourishing along the river at all phases.

7. There is no scientific or archaeological basis for any Aryan or Dravidian race, which are now discredited concepts. No skeletal remains of the so-called Aryans have ever been found in India. Whatever remains have been found are similar to the existing populations in the country going back to prehistoric times. There is no archaeological evidence of any Aryan invasion or migration into India but only the continuity of the same populations in the region and their cultural changes. This requires that we give up these old ideas and look at the data afresh apart from them.

8.<b> Connections between Indian languages and those of Europe and Central Asia, which can be found relative to both Sanskritic and Dravidian languages, are more likely traceable to a northwest movement out of India after the end of the Ice Age. </b>The late ancient Aryan and Dravidian migrations, postulated to have taken place c. 1500 BCE (3500 BP), into India from Central Asia of Western linguistic theories occur too late, after populations and cultures were already formed, to result in the great changes attributed to them. Besides no records of such proposed invasions or migrations have yet been found. Archaeology, literature and science, including genetics, all contradict it.

9. Vedic spirituality of rituals, mantras, yoga and meditation, based on an understanding of the dharmic nature of all life, created the foundation for the great spiritual traditions of India. It emphasized individual experience of the Divine and spiritual practice over outer dogmas and beliefs. <b>Such a spiritual ethos is the fruit of a great and mature ancient civilization.
10. The Hindu view of time, through the Hindu Yuga theory, connects human history with natural history of tens of thousands of years marked by periodic cataclysms and makes sense in the light of new scientific discoveries relating to natural history through genetics and climate changes So the Hindu Yuga theory may be seen as a way of describing the renewal of habitation on earth in phase with the climate cycles.

11. This ancient, eternal Vedic culture is still relevant to the world today and lives on in the great ashrams, mandirs, and spiritual practices of India. Reclaiming this ancient spiritual heritage of India and spreading it throughout the world is one of the greatest needs of the coming planetary age, in which we must go beyond the boundaries of creed and materialistic values.

Available at Aksharadham, New Delhi (www.akshardham.com)
Unending Aryan immigration debate
By R. Narayanan

Asterisk in Bharopiyasthan: Minor Writings on the Aryan Invasion Debate: Koenraad Elst; Voice of India; pp 207; Rs. 325.00

On June 24, 2006, The Hindu reported that the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) has appealed to the Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University to encourage research through genetics on the subject of Aryan Invasion theory, after Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) tests of blood samples from people in the Indian subcontinent confirmed that the people in North and South India as belonging to one gene pool, and not different ethnic groups such as Aryans and Dravidians; and the human race had its origins in Africa and not Europe or Central Asia as claimed by a few historians. The ICHR Chairman, D.N. Tripathy claimed, “The conclusion of some historians that Aryans came here 15,000 years before Christ does not hold water.” This might be one of the first genetics based study, but among academicians and scholars, the debate on Aryan invasion has been going on for the last six decades based on archaeological facts, evidences, myths and conjectures as well as based on linguistic studies equating Aryan race with Aryan language.

According to conventional “Aryan Invasion Theory” Aryan migrated to South Asia, or to put in historical analysis, invaded South Asia. Among other evidences, the most prominent one supporting the theory is the close relationship of Sanskrit to languages widely spoken in Iran and Europe.

While for academicians and researchers, the issue may be merely of scoring points over one another, the theory has always been subject to political interpretation. The theory has widely been used to unite as well as to divide people. As early as in 1935, Winston Churchill used Aryan invasion to justify the British conquest in the following words, “We have as much right to be in India as anyone there, except perhaps for the Depressed Classes, who are the native stock.” The terms such as dalits and panchamas (for subdued lower castes), adivasis (aboriginals), dasas (Dravidians) owe their existence to this theory, and these are the terms that have become very prominent in political vocabulary for mobilising people for political agenda.

It is in this context that the book, under review, is very significant. The author, Koenraad Elst, is among the researchers, who have been contributing to the discourse for the last two decades, arguing that “the theory of an Aryan invasion of India has not been proven by prevalent standards and that all relevant facts can just as well be explained with alternative models”.

The book has seven chapters. The first two are book reviews of two interesting books by J. Bronkhorst and M.M.Deshpande, and Rajesh Kochhar respectively. Chapters three, four, five and seven are reproduction of papers/articles already published by the author in other journals/newspapers. The chapter six collates a series of response by the author to academic attacks by Prof. Michael Witzel on the Aryan invasion theory.

The Chapter one is aimed at taking the AIT theorists head on. It takes into consideration all the pro-invasion arguments and attempts a critique on them. The interesting part of the chapter is the distinction between invasion and immigration, in respect of Aryans, racist interpretation of Aryan invasion and the horse evidence. The author cites later excavation by archaeologists that prove the presence of “horse”like figures/images in Harappan sites. The author fairly succeeds in providing counterpoints to each of the evidences given in support of Aryan invasion theory. Incidentally, the review was excellent enough to enthuse the readers to read the original book by Bronkhorst et al. Similarly, the second chapter is also an excellent critique through a book review of pro-AIT book by astro-phycist Prof Rajesh Kochhar. This chapter will not be understood unless the original chapter is read. The author has taken the arguments head-on.

Most of the readers who come under the definition of Amartya Sen’s “argumentative Indian” will look forward to read the chapter three. It is the most interesting of all for it explores the real implication of the Aryan invasion debate. The article provides how the Aryan invasion debate has influenced the political movements such as Dravidian movement, Dalit neo Ambedkarism, Tribal separatism, Christian Mission, Indian Islam, Indo Anglian snobbery, Indian Marxism and Hindu Nationalism.

In respect of chapter four on the Harappan Script Controversy, I must admit, the author has taken a lot of pains and efforts not only to bring together multiple evidences and viewpoints on deciphering Indus scripts. It details all the hypotheses that link Indus scripts to Dravidian language, the Munda script, the Easter island connection, and also the hypothesis of the illiterate Harappans.

Nevertheless, the book will be a useful document for many students and scholars conducting work on this issue; and also for the common people who despite being silent participant in the discourse, and who despite having ‘conditioned’ opinion on the issue do not have time and opportunity to look into diverse resources available on the issue.

(Voice of India, 2/18, Ansari Road, New Delhi-110 002.)

What is wrong with this

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Indo_Aryan was a tribe that lived near central asia and moved out of its origin many thousands of years ago(probably 10,000 to 15,000 yrs ago). They may have lived next to the Aral or the Black Sea, when their home land was flooded due to the end of the ice age and submerged their city, they scattered through out the world in desperation. This could have well been Atlantis. Although Atlantis could be a myth the dispersion of the Aryan tribe is not.

Sanskrit is one of the Indo-Aryan language's and considered the most oldest and complex of the older Indo-Aryan language's. All Indo-Aryan Languages still have words that are remarkably close.

"Navagathe" in Sanskrit is "Navigation" in English

"Martho" in Sanskrit is "Marbar" in Persian and "Murder" in English..

"Nam" in Sanskrit is "Name" in English..

"Thu" in Sanskrit is "You" in English

"May" in Sanskrit is "Me" in English.

As we see the language is well documented to be of common source. So if the language where Common why cant the faith and God also have been common? If man knew how to talk then he also knew how to worship.

Original names of Yahweh, the original name of Yahweh the god of Jews is spell as following before the Christians miss spelt it, this is from a Jewish web site.

"Shem ha-Meforash," = "Shiva" in Sanskrit
"Shem ha-Meyuḥad

"I am that" = "Aham Brahma" in Sanskrit( the word "Aham" is "Iam", just like me is may in sanskrit.)
" Abraham" = "Hay Brahma"

If Aryans had a similar sounding language then why not a similar sounding God? Was this God really a God or a man pointing to the self? To my understanding he should have been someone like the Buddha, enlightened man. The sentence I am that I am is only a pointer to the self that showing truth is in you or "though are that."

If a single language and a single people could become so disconnected and diffrent over the years then their God also shared the same fate. In the end a simple thing as showing the self has taken a long turn to become something else.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sanskrit is one of the Languages of the Aryans, Proto-Aryan language could have been a mix of Persian, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin. No one knows what that language was, just like in the South we have Tamil, Kannada,Telugu and Malayalam which all have evolved from the same source, many people claim it originated from Tamil but Kannadigas say Kannad came first, so there is no way to verify from which what came. Same with the case of Aryan languages. Yes it could be that Indus Valley was much colder during the Ice Age and could have been on of the choices of location. One more added factor is that the Sarasvathi river dried up which could have been one of the reasons for migration or who know even the Dravidian's may have invaded the Aryans and they ran away to diffrent localities!!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You asked a valid question. As for "<b>why it cant be in the reverse direction</b>", my simple answer is 1) India doesn't allow for light skin pigmentation even during the Ice ages as the Dravidians have dark pigmentation even after the ice age and modern Indian History is only 8,000 yrs old but humans have achieved some sort of civilizations since the last 40,000 yrs. So the pigmentation must me a far longer process. 2) Central Asia is closer to Europe and India, matter of fact in between both, so distance wise for migration this should have been the probable spot for equal distribution as a central location form Spain to India and Russia to Africa. More over I don't think you also have proof for Sarasvathi valley being the cradle. Mine is based to geographical distribution and environmental cause, while the other theory geographical distribution as India in centre puts travel and distribution pretty far apart and also doesn't tackle the skin pigmentation.

Proof of what? How can anyone say where they are from? You can claim sarasvati to support some idealogical or political reason but thats no proof either.</b>

Aryans could have been from Sarasvathi but their equal distribution from Europe to India only points a central location that could have been more distribution friendly. Moreover to have less pigmentation in the Skin they must have lived in colder places longer than in warmer places like India.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is all nice Karthik, but lets face it what your sugesting so far is a mere theory, I mean you can choose to belive it but what your suggesting is no way proven conclusively. I dont think genetics has proven yet that there was an Aryan invasion as they say it and the Aryan theory was mainly born in the mid 1800's to state that Hindus were not sons of the soil....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)