• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Unmasking AIT
<!--QuoteBegin-HareKrishna+Jun 12 2009, 09:19 PM-->QUOTE(HareKrishna @ Jun 12 2009, 09:19 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> 
There are 2 ways that a language can spread <b>
1- A tribe have many children which make also many childrens which lead to language spread.

2-by power of some kind-military,economic or even spiritual power,or a combination of all.

By military-the winners become kings and the choosen language is promoted.Usualy this process take about 500 years and few millitary elites stay that long in power.Only 1 out of 10 ocupations can change the native language.

By economy-some language become lingua franca among the trade rutes like aramaic in the middle east.This is an unlikely procees, leading more to borowings but not language change . </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Lot of these are unsubstantiated without any solid evidence or any real evidence of the mechanism for language transfer.
There should be evidence of the final destination and also some evidence of the same language at the source region. None of them show any evidence of the same language in the source region. Nobody sees that it is odd.

Occupation by an outside tribe does not chnage the language much unless the tribe becomes part of the local population and merges genetically with the local population which might take atleast 1000+ years. We are talking about the most populated region of the HUMAN world in those times.

Africa, Coastal region of the Asian landmass including middle east and the ancient civilizations such as Indus valley, Babylon, Egypt, Greek/Roman regions were the most populated by HUMAN population. There is no way that some outside language can come and overpower another local language.
There could be influence of one language at the periphery of the region and that seems logical. Deep cultural roots, traditions and social order cannot be displaced by some outside tribes who are trying to survive in a nomadic region with no signs of civilization memory.
<b>
ADDED LATER:
Few people who are familiar with gentic and genetic anthropology have commented that any gene pool to get assimilated deep inside another large population it will take years in the range of 50000 years i.e. Fifty thousand years.

There is no way that some tribe has penetrated another human habiation and assimilated genetically in less than 5000 years.</b>

  Reply
If Anglo-Saxon Culture Was Native to Britain Perhaps Aryan Culture is
Native to India?
================================================== ====================

Teeth unravel Anglo-Saxon legacy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3514756.stm?
headline=Teeth~unravel~Anglo-Saxon~legacy
By Paul Rincon
BBC News Online science staff



History books say Anglo-Saxons replaced the Britons in England
New scientific research adds to growing evidence that the Anglo-
Saxons did not replace the native population in England as history
books suggest.
The data indicates at least some areas of eastern England absorbed
very few Anglo-Saxon invaders, contrary to the view in many
historical accounts.

Chemical analysis of human teeth from a Medieval cemetery in
Yorkshire found few individuals of continental origin.

Details of the work are described in the scholarly journal Antiquity.

There are practices that are being adopted from continental Europe.
To what extent is that a movement of people (into Britain)? Probably
not that much

Dr Paul Budd, University of Durham
Researchers from the University of Durham and the British Geological
Survey looked at different types of the elements strontium and oxygen
in the teeth of 24 skeletons from an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at
West Heslerton, North Yorkshire that spans the fifth to the seventh
centuries AD.

These types, or isotopes, of oxygen in local drinking water vary
across Europe and locally within the British Isles.

The differences are influenced by latitude, altitude, distance from
the sea and, to a lesser extent, mean annual temperature.

Invasion of ideas

This characteristic isotope composition gets set in people's teeth
before they are 12 years of age, and can therefore be used by
scientists to pinpoint a person's geographical origin.

Of the 24 individuals sampled, a possible four had oxygen isotope
values outside the range for the British Isles. Following
improvements in calibration, the group now believes only one
individual was from continental Europe.

The results support the view of other researchers that the
introduction of Anglo-Saxon culture and language into Britain did not
occur through large-scale replacement of native populations by
invading tribes.


The isotopic composition of teeth can pinpoint geographical origin
It seems more likely that there was a small-scale immigration from
continental Europe and that the existing British population adopted
the customs of these outsiders as their own.

"There are practices that are being adopted from continental Europe.
To what extent is that a movement of people (into Britain)? Probably
not that much," Dr Paul Budd of the University of Durham told BBC
News Online.

But the team did find evidence for migration into the area from other
parts of Britain during the period. While the isotopic composition of
Bronze Age remains from West Heslerton matched local drinking water
isotope compositions, the early Medieval group were more varied.

Of the 20 locals, 13 had oxygen isotope signals consistent with an
origin west of the Pennines. Dr Budd puts this down to upheaval
amongst the British population after the Romans withdrew their armies
and administrators from the country in the fifth century AD.

"At the end of the Roman period there was a huge collapse of a
centuries-long organisation, in government and in how the landscape
was used. The population moves off elsewhere to exploit the landscape
for agriculture."

The Anglo-Saxons supposedly began migrating into Britain en masse
from the fifth century. Their culture and language has long formed
the basis for English national identity.

Genetic support

The findings broadly agree with a large genetic survey of the British
Isles published in 2003. The study, led by Professor David Goldstein
of University College London, found that the genetic stamp of the
Anglo-Saxons on the British Isles was weaker than expected.


Patterns of oxygen isotopes vary greatly within UK drinking water


Enlarge Image

Professor Goldstein attributes less than half of the paternal input
in England to Anglo-Saxon migration.

"I don't think there ever was evidence for a massive population
replacement. From the genetics, it's pretty clear there was not
complete replacement on the paternal side in England," Professor
Goldstein told BBC News Online.

"Studies like this suggest that the number of individuals that came
over is small and even in burial sites that are Anglo-Saxon
culturally, they're actually natives."

However, Dr Neal Bradman, also of University College London,
suggested that, since the teeth of immigrants' descendents would take
on the isotopic composition of the local area, it was impossible to
know whether the burials were of Britons or not without conducting
genetic analysis.
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Jun 13 2009, 09:10 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Jun 13 2009, 09:10 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky,
I have one small request,
Can you reduce your posts.[right][snapback]98717[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sorry you're right, it was entirely off-topic. Done (deleted old #350, #352, #354, #360, #362)
But have left in what's now become #353 since it was short and on the topic of Samskritam.
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Jun 14 2009, 04:17 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Jun 14 2009, 04:17 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->

Lot of these are unsubstantiated without any solid evidence or any real evidence of the mechanism for language transfer.
There should be evidence of the final destination and also some evidence of the same language at the source region. None of them show any evidence of the same language in the source region. Nobody sees that it is odd.

Occupation by an outside tribe does not chnage the language much unless the tribe becomes part of the local population and merges genetically with the local population which might take atleast 1000+ years. We are talking about the most populated region of the HUMAN world in those times.

Africa, Coastal region of the Asian landmass including middle east and the ancient civilizations such as Indus valley, Babylon, Egypt, Greek/Roman regions were the most populated by HUMAN population. There is no way that some outside language can come and overpower another local language. 
There could be influence of one language at the periphery of the region and that seems logical.  Deep cultural roots, traditions and social order cannot be displaced by some outside tribes who are trying to survive in a nomadic region with no signs of civilization memory.
<b>
ADDED LATER:
Few people who are familiar with gentic and genetic anthropology have commented that any gene pool to get assimilated deep inside another large population it will take years in the range of 50000 years i.e.  Fifty thousand years.

There is no way that some tribe has penetrated another human habiation and assimilated genetically in less than 5000 years.</b>
[right][snapback]98725[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Not exactly,
The language of Babylon was sumerian then become semitic(akadian invasion) ,today is arab.
In Egypt coptic was spoken ,today is arab;
In Turkey ,anatolian languages (like hittite) was replaced by greek and iranian,and again replaced by turkish 1000 years ago.
3 regions heavely populated ,whit deep ancestral cultures ,whit langauges replaced by more primitive nomads.In all this areas ,the genetic impact of nomads was minimal(no more then 5-10%).
In all this regions no singnificant change in culture or population is visible.
Geneticaly yes,it takes 50000 years for genes to mutate but phisicaly alot can change in thi speriod.On african male maried an asian women-the child is asimilated an least by half.

2500 years ago ,the population of Sri Lanka was about 1 milion.About 5000 people from north India came and they change the language ( i refer to sinhala).This north-indians formed 0,5% of population.The population is largely pre-IE but the language is mainly IE.The migration is mentioned in legends and documents.
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-HareKrishna+Jun 15 2009, 11:50 PM-->QUOTE(HareKrishna @ Jun 15 2009, 11:50 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Not exactly,
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does not cut it. Please study Indian history and scripts of Sinhala, Malayalam, Tamil and find out the common thing between them.

  Reply
We need to move this discussion to Aryan invasion debate thread
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-HareKrishna+Jun 15 2009, 11:50 PM-->QUOTE(HareKrishna @ Jun 15 2009, 11:50 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> 


Not exactly,
The language of Babylon was sumerian then become semitic(akadian invasion) ,today is arab.
In Egypt coptic was spoken ,today is arab;
In Turkey ,anatolian languages (like hittite) was replaced by greek and iranian,and again replaced by turkish 1000 years ago.
3 regions heavely populated ,whit deep ancestral cultures ,whit langauges replaced by more primitive nomads.In all this areas ,the genetic impact of nomads was minimal(no more then 5-10%).
In all this regions no singnificant change in culture or population is visible.
Geneticaly yes,it takes 50000 years for genes to mutate but phisicaly alot can change in thi speriod.On african male maried an asian women-the child is asimilated an least by half.

2500 years ago ,the population of Sri Lanka was about 1 milion.About 5000 people from north India came and they change the language ( i refer to sinhala).This north-indians formed 0,5% of population.The population is largely pre-IE but the language is mainly IE.The migration is mentioned in legends and documents.
[right][snapback]98821[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Here is the real reply

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12134167/protovedic


  Reply
World color skin map
http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/images/map_...istribution.gif
we see that India fit the normal distribution of color acording to latitude.
here color skin map for India whit borders.
http://img217.imageshack.us/i/43878102.jpg/

<img src='http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7044/43878102.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />


we see 2 "anomalies"
-a black spot in southern Bihar(jharkhand )
-a white limb on the western coast up to Tamil
The black spot has 2 posibile explications
-migration from south India
-local development in isolation from the rest
The white limb can be explained by the wave of agriculturalist from the Indus in 3500 bc(see archeology findings and J2 gene concentration there) ,a new wave at the end of Indus-Saraswati and later smaller waves by land and sea.

Other observation
1-India is too black(even more then north africa) for being subjected of an white invasion and replacement from the north-west unleast if the natives were extremly black(unlikely).

2-Indo-european sri lankans are as black as non-IE locals(tamils for ex.) making an white invasion very unlikely.
  Reply
<img src='http://maps.grida.no/library/files/skin-colour-map-indigenous-people_003.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
  Reply
This is another map with different layout.

There is no anamoly. When you say there is migration of people from south India to Bihar it is laughable.
Do you know how many kingdoms of the ancient India was centered around Bihar and South India.

Bihar kings ruled upto the south and the south Indian Kings Pandyas ruled Bihar too.

So you knowledge of Indian history is low but still you are learning. That is a good thing.

There is no anamoly in Indian skin character. Same family has many skin hues and extended families have deep roots.

  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-HareKrishna+Jul 1 2009, 10:13 PM-->QUOTE(HareKrishna @ Jul 1 2009, 10:13 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
The white limb can be explained by the wave of agriculturalist from the Indus in 3500 bc(see archeology findings and J2 gene concentration there) ,a new wave at the end of Indus-Saraswati and later smaller waves by land and sea.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does not make any sense.


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Other observation
1-India is too black(even more then north africa) for being subjected of an white invasion and replacement  from the north-west unleast if the natives were extremly black(unlikely).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Contradiction.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2-Indo-european sri lankans are as black as non-IE locals(tamils for ex.) making an white invasion very unlikely.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remove the color of the invasion in your though process and everything makes sense.
You have to know the recorded history of people of India too to understand the different regions of India. Other wise your mind is always colored by the invasion theory.



  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Jul 2 2009, 09:20 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Jul 2 2009, 09:20 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is another map with different layout.

There is no anamoly. When you say there is migration of people from south India to Bihar it is laughable.
Do you know how many kingdoms of the ancient India was centered around Bihar and South India.

Bihar kings ruled upto the south and the south Indian Kings Pandyas ruled Bihar too.

So you knowledge of Indian history is low but still you are learning. That is a good thing.

There is no anamoly in Indian skin character. Same family has many skin hues and extended families have deep roots.
[right][snapback]99384[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Surely its a joke.
Im talk here about paleolithic and neolithic stuff not about Pandyas and Cholas.
The map you post it is not the real map of skin color of real people.Is the predicted map of what skin color should be.
This map above predict a thing that i already know-that europeans are more white then normaly should be.
Were you see contradictions and non-sense will make a much more pro-India sense if you read it 3 times and meditate half a day at it.
  Reply
So Now Bihar colonized MP and Maharashtra colonized Bengal, and Bengal colonized Sri Lanka!!! Now that AIT is gone, this is the new argument.
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jul 3 2009, 02:09 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jul 3 2009, 02:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So Now Bihar colonized MP and Maharashtra colonized Bengal, and Bengal colonized Sri Lanka!!!  Now that AIT is gone, this is the new argument.
[right][snapback]99390[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No,
more likely migration of farmers from Gujarat to Maharashtra and a posibile migration from Andhra Pradesh to Bihar(if the black spot is not a local development).I dont see any AIT migration on that map.
You also claim it that people from Indus migrated on to Gange valley.You can proove it?
  Reply
First of all, there is no white limb down western coast of India. This is only in imagination of the map maker. South Asia including and up to Iran generated much genetic diversity, this diversity is not due to discrete elements coming together like elsewhere. This is a consequence of southern route and long incubation period.
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-HareKrishna+Jul 2 2009, 05:06 AM-->QUOTE(HareKrishna @ Jul 2 2009, 05:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Were you see contradictions and non-sense will make a much more pro-India sense if you read it 3 times and meditate half a day at it.
[right][snapback]99388[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have been meditating from childhood. SO no need for your advice here. LOL

When did you start your meditation
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jul 2 2009, 07:09 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jul 2 2009, 07:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->First of all, there is no white limb down western coast of India.  This is only in imagination of the map maker.  South Asia including and up to Iran generated much genetic diversity, this diversity is not due to discrete elements coming together like elsewhere.  This is a consequence of southern route and long incubation period.
[right][snapback]99403[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That map is from a Paki website.
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"It is impossible that there should be inhabitants on the opposite side of the Earth, since no such race is recorded by Scripture among the descendants of Adam."    — St. Augustine.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So only Hamites, Japhetites and Semites - the mythical spawn of the mythical Noah - are allowed, and all populations must be *made* to derive from them.
And that's how Dubois' involved his imaginary friend Magog as well. See Sabha.info.

Here. Christoterrorist missionary madman Abbe Dubois in his "Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies", early 1800s:
http://www.sabha.info/books/HinduManners/H...casusPg100.html
http://www.sabha.info/books/HinduManners/H...phethPg102.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is practically admitted that India was inhabited very soon after the Deluge.... The fact that it was so close to the plains of Sennaar, where Noah's descendants remained stationary so long, as well as its good climate and the fertility of the country, soon led to its settlement.
[...]
I do not trace the origin of the Brahmins either to Egypt or to Arabia, and <b>I believe</b> them to be the descendants not of Shem, as many argue, but of Japheth. <b>According to my theory</b> they reached India from the morth, and <b>I should place</b> the first abode of their ancestors in the neighbourhood of the Caucasus.
[...]
<b>Surely</b> these seven Hindu Penitents, or philosophers, <b>must be</b> the seven sons of Japheth, who, with their father at their head, led one-third of the human race towards the West, when men began to disperse after the Flood. They did not all reach Europe. Some of them on their way there turned northwards, under the guidance of Magog, second son of Japheth, and penetrated into Tartary as far as the Caucasian Range,
[...]
Any one <b>believing</b> in the connexion between names and facts will be struck with the <b>similarity</b> existing between Magog's name and Gautama's, commonly called Gotama. Ma, or Maha, signifies great, so that Gotama <b>must mean</b> the Great Gog or Magog.
(Oh the striking similarity! The christolevel intellectualism on display by Darth Dubious - I mean Dubois - is beyond comprehension. In <i>so</i> many ways.)
[...]
a son of Noah was able to pass himself off as a god; but <b>it is quite possible</b> that his descendants deified him, when the spirit of idolatry began to reign on earth. It was Magog who settled in Tartary with all those who elected to follow him, having decided to separate from Japheth's other children. From thence he or his descendants spread over India and other countries, which had rightly fallen to Shem's lot. This verified Noah's prophecy that Japheth's dominion would be far-reaching, and that his posterity would dwell in the tents of Shem (Gen. ix. 27).

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The great christian unscience, inspired by their non-existent gawd.
  Reply
Xpost from 'Misc' thread in Indian Culture:

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Jul 15 2009, 09:59 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 15 2009, 09:59 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hitler and Occult

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_the_Occult

What they are saying is that there was a movement in Europe to create a new Christianity based on a non-Hebrew, non-Roman basis and Hitler seized the opportunity. By calling the movements "occult" they are trying to suppress the gaze and curiouity as to how and why the Hitler and Nazi movement grew. The AIT and PIE etc are closely enmeshed in this new Christianity movement.

AIT provides a non Bibilcal origin of peoples. PIE gives an independent on Hebrew source for their languages.

So if they give up the AIT and locate PIE in Indian sub-continent they have given up on their re-engineering project.
[right][snapback]99695[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The great christian unscience, inspired by their non-existent gawd. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Philology (theology in disguise) emanated out of such unscience. With Philology any <i>ad hoc </i>conclusion is possible. Prahalada was a monotheist battling the polytheist Rakshasas. Buddhism as reaction to Brahmanism. The scions of Sramanism battling against the votaries of Brahmanism. Rishis as nudist colonies. Monotheist Akhenaten. Trivial heathen vandalism as ideological iconoclasm. These are all convoluted ways to decontextualize the traditions and impose a secondary (marxist, normative) narrative upon these traditions, all under the pretense of 'social science' and historical linguistics (and then they also expect the traditions to conform to their philological 'conclusions').

An entire interpretative edifice is built around something as innocuous as 'sound changes'. It is simply a way to extend their precious 'normative ethics' into the past and obliterate all traces of the non-normative origin and truth. The problematic normative framework thus become problem-free.
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 16 Guest(s)