What's new

Ancient Man and His First Civilizations.Proving Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth and severe lie

Status
Not open for further replies.
images

:D :yay:


I may be wrong - but am I correct to assume that there was a pre-Sanskrit root common to both Sanskrit and Avestan? Interesting... I ain't qualified to draw any conclusions :D But like I said - interesting. :angel:

The Pre-Sanskrit roots are hypothetical again (As proto-Indo-Iranian). Avestan is the oldest extant language in this grouping, closely followed by Sanskrit.
It's unfortunate that this subject has seen all kinds of wild speculation. Bal Gangadhar Tilak also proposed that Aryans were from the North Pole! And there are a few Iranians/Zoroashtrians who seem to agree with him.:woot:

The Arctic Home in the Vedas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Porus Homi Havewala: The Saga of the Aryan Race Volume I-II

Sanskrit is probably a mixture of Avestan and the local tongue of the IV people.

Probability exists. But cannot be verified so long as the language of IVC remains undeciphered.
 
The Pre-Sanskrit roots are hypothetical again (As proto-Indo-Iranian). Avestan is the oldest extant language in this grouping, closely followed by Sanskrit.
It's unfortunate that this subject has seen all kinds of wild speculation. Bal Gangadhar Tilak also proposed that Aryans were from the North Pole! And there are a few Iranians/Zoroashtrians who seem to agree with him.:woot:

The Arctic Home in the Vedas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Porus Homi Havewala: The Saga of the Aryan Race Volume I-II
True. :agree: People will agree what suits them. I used to believe I have Aryan roots (along with Europeans) - and that was a theory. :laugh: But now that the theory of a master race that came and conquered the natives is debunked - by science. Language source is still an open question - this does not necessarily determine race though. If there was a pre-Sanskrit language - perhaps the only thing that can solve it is this -
indus_script.jpg

Yup - the Indus script. Plenty of explanations given so far - but not one has been convincing and accepted. That's perhaps where the secret is hidden. :ashamed:

But Tilak was no historian. :P Not read it though - so will reserve comment. The language mix shows there has been a fair cultural interaction but nothing overly violent that leads to one replacing/dominating another. :tup: Wish there was a Time Machine.... :D
 
Probability exists. But cannot be verified so long as the language of IVC remains undeciphered.

So that's two pdf Indians who admit this, apparently many believe they have the answers even on this thread.
 
True. :agree: People will agree what suits them. I used to believe I have Aryan roots (along with Europeans) - and that was a theory. :laugh: But now that the theory of a master race that came and conquered the natives is debunked - by science. Language source is still an open question - this does not necessarily determine race though. If there was a pre-Sanskrit language - perhaps the only thing that can solve it is this -
indus_script.jpg

Yup - the Indus script. Plenty of explanations given so far - but not one has been convincing and accepted. That's perhaps where the secret is hidden. :ashamed:

But Tilak was no historian. :P Not read it though - so will reserve comment. The language mix shows there has been a fair cultural interaction but nothing overly violent that leads to one replacing/dominating another. :tup: Wish there was a Time Machine.... :D

How I wish there was a time machine too! Just to see the IVC in full bloom would make my life totally worth it.:agree:

The Indus script too has been repeatedly associated with Tamil by the people who believe in the Aryan Invasion theory. Nothing constitutes proof for AIT like Tamil being pushed to the extreme tip of the subcontinent from the Indus Valley.:lol:

Rather than the Dravidian languages, it's the Austroasiatic languages(specifically, the Munda group) which are now thought to have been related to the language of the IVC. But alas, no concrete proof has emerged yet.

So that's two pdf Indians who admit this, apparently many believe they have the answers even on this thread.

Anyone who goes by hard factual evidence, no matter how contrary the outcome is to his own preset beliefs and convictions, will come to similar conclusions. Who's the other Indian, btw? :D
 
i find it even more hilarious that people who have never been to India act like bozos and give their opinions,when it really doesn't matter is just bullshit.



what about those books which were destroyed and there is an oral tradition as opposed to a written tradition,

did u go n ask village elders of their history?

Which books were destroyed? Do you have anything concrete to cite, apart from urban legend? Can you name a single history? Furthermore, the oral tradition was not, demonstrably, orthogonal to the written. Even the holiest of the holy books was reduced to writing. How likely is it that there were works - of history, about which nothing is known,
 
NYC so if I am younger my curriculum would be more current. I am 20 so that should tell you which one of us read the more current textbooks on the subject? Maybe AIT was taught in schools your time but for me it was not.

I am shocked, but pleasantly so.

Diffusion of culture can also take place from migration, not necessarily through invasion. Linguistic clues only point to the fact that Sanskrit is an Indo-Aryan language with close similarities to Iranic languages.

Besides, what exactly is the reason for caste system prevalent everywhere in India? If the Dravidians were a ethnic community and had to retreat to the South where they had their own kingdoms and exerted political independence, why would they ever accept the caste system into their folds? More pertinently, why do the Brahmins of the South also speak Dravidian languages in addition to rudimentary knowledge of Sanskrit(in most cases)? Also, do you know that Sanskrit was NEVER the language of the common man anywhere in India, and at any time in History? Those who were proficient in Sanskrit have always been bilingual at the very least.

Immigration is not the same as invasion. Something which those linguists peddling AIT will do well to understand.

Linguists don't peddle AIT. They peddle immigration.
 
@Reashot Xigwin

"Migration" may be a more appropriate term to describe Aryans moving out of Ural region, as they don't belong to any empire, calling it an "invasion" is a little off the mark. But 3500 years ago, it was a dog-eat-dog world, wherever people ventured out, almost certainly battles of some sort were fought.

Invasion theory seems to hold more ground in the US.
California textbook controversy over Hindu history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original textbook draft: “Around 1500 B.C.E., invaders called Aryans conquered northern India.”
Ad hoc committee action: Publisher is directed to add a clarifying note that the “Aryan invasion theory” has been contradicted by scholarly evidence.
Final SBE/CDE recommendation
Prof Bajpai and Prof. Witzel

Change to, “In the second millennium B.C.E., invaders called Aryans came to northern India.”

"In a letter to the Board of Education, Vinay Lal, a history professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote:

As far as I am aware, the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation and their supporters do not number among their ranks any academic specialists in Indian history or religion other than Professor Bajpai himself. It is a remarkable fact that, in a state which has perhaps the leading public research university system in the United States, these two foundations could not find a single professor of Indian history or religion within the UC system (with its ten campuses) to support their views. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that they would be hard pressed to find a single scholar at any research university in the United States who would support their views."


@Joe Shearer are these the revisionist Brahmins you referring to?

"The HEF campaign was dismissed by critics as "one driven by the sectarian agenda of the Sangh Parivar, a term commonly used to describe the Hindu nationalist triumvirate of India's Bharatiya Janata Party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

No, I was referring to a group constituted of Ramachandra, Frawley, Taligere, Elst, Malhotra and a couple of others. Excepting Elst, not one is a serious academician. Most of the Indians happen to be Brahmins. In my view, the revisionists and the Brahmin advocates of a return to a pre-Macaulayite system of acquiring knowledge are overlapping sets of people, not the identical set.

Your report is excellent, btw.

images

:D :yay:


I may be wrong - but am I correct to assume that there was a pre-Sanskrit root common to both Sanskrit and Avestan? Interesting... I ain't qualified to draw any conclusions :D But like I said - interesting. :angel:

Incredible - Ramayan porhe Sita kar baap.

What was the whole discussion about then? About the breakaway of Indo-Iranian from the parent stalk of Proto-Indo-European? About the subsequent division between Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian? About the formation of Sanskrit from a tightly codified Indo-Aryan (Indo-Aryan being the language in which the Vedas, especially the Rg Veda was composed)? About Avestan being part of a group of dialects, four in number, which emerged from Indo-Iranian? About the ability of people who speak or read Avestan to speak or read Vedic language, and vice versa?
 
Last edited:
South Asians are mixture of 2 populations, ANI who are related to central asia, europe, middle east. And ASI who are distant cousins of Adamense, and they were pretty much subcontinent exclusive. Every South Asian have ANI-ASI mixture.

Admixture dating between these two groups is between 1900-4200 years old. Pakistani population and north Indian brahmins for admixture date is around 1900-2300 years old. While in South you find older admixture datinf back 4200 years. It tells us first there was wave of ANI who intermarried 4200 years old, and second wave of ANI starred intermixing with ASI population around 2500 years ago in North.

And thanks to harappadna.org we know brahmins in Bengal, South India and Maharashtra show considerable higher ANI ancestry then others around them. The difference is pretty clear between brahmins and other genetically speaking. Though that difference is non existant in North West subcontinent brahmins when you compare them with locals.
 
First of all I think we need to call them Western Migrants instead of Aryans because the term Aryan came into play later during the vedic civilization and it denoted a nobility that developed and not race. The Europeans have screwed up the meaning of this term for their own nefarious design and so we should use a different term for the people who do not understand this difference.

perhaps this will be of some help

Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions: DNb

(8-15.) I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.
 
perhaps this will be of some help

Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions: DNb

(8-15.) I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.

Nothing contradictory there. The Persians used the word in the same sense, a nobleman, and they obviously inherited the word from their predecessor language, Indo-Iranian; that would explain how the word got into Indo-Aryan as well, and in the same sense. It is more or less accurate to say that the chieftains, the leading warriors and the priests called themselves Arya.

The others in the tribe, the herdsmen, the butchers, the weavers, the carpenters, the dairymen, the grooms, the common soldiery, the scouts were all the rest of the tribe. When they began to settle down, farmers joined their number; presumably, some kind of storekeepers as well. One could go on from any list of occupations from any wandering tribes in human history.

Nothing contradictory between this and the hypothesis that Indians are not Aryans. Indians (=south Asians) are not; as @shan points out, an Indian, any Indian is constituted of two different genetic stems, the ANI and the ASI, at least from the last five thousand years; earlier, the population was even more homogeneous, especially after a wave of emigration around 40,000 years ago.

Much of the mysterious Indian genetic material to be found elsewhere, much earlier than they had a right to be, must have come from that earlier wave outwards. What was it due to? A change in climate?

These migrations just around the time of the decline of the IVC and towards the dates of the Vedas, are testified to only by genetic studies and by linguistic records. There is not a single archaeological record, unfortunately, until we come to the 8th century phase of Sanskritisation in Tamilakam, which has been researched so brilliantly by a set of historians from India and abroad (post-colonial, one might add; some leftist, many not, one might add). There the sequence that has been established is of tribal society, of meagre surpluses, and of an injection of Brahmins from 'elsewhere', who converted tribes to castes, radically altered the pantheon, introduced the Vedic (strictly, the post-Puranic) pantheon, introduced agamic worship, insisted on the kingdom as the only acceptable political model, and led to the rise of the kingdoms of the deep south. They also re-organised the agrarian system.

These events are well recorded by epigraphs, and the work done on them is exemplary. They offer us a tempting parallel to what might have happened two millennia earlier, around 1500 BC and earlier, in north India. The gap between the two blocs of time, it is tempting to speculate, might have been filled in by the Sanskritisation of the Deccan; of what is today Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

It is notable that where the common folk, the non-Arya component of the migrants were the least, from the earliest books on the subject, the tribes adopted into the caste system were the most, for instance in Bengal and east, in south India, meaning the Deccan, and in Maharashtra. As a result, in north India, the genetic difference between Brahmin and other is minimal; in these parts, it is maximal.

But there is no proof, no concrete evidence, no archaeological or historical record, so we are forced to leave these speculations to proto-history and to pre-history.
 
I don't believe in invasion, also rig veda was written after supposed migration and is a religious text so why would it talk of a historical event in the past? Also the authors may not have deemed it important because by that time the migrants were living amongst the locals and considered themselves apart of the same land, Aryavarta. Not only that but the Rig veda itself is not written by one person so you cannot ascertain the motives behind the writers all you can say is they never wrote about invasion because it probably never happened, if it had it probably would have been written down based on the atrocities alone.

If they wrote Rigveda after aryans diluted in Indian society then there is a possibility of casteism is nurtured by aryans.
RigVeda dont mention anything about Aryans influence.
 
I am travelling again from this noon, and will be out of communication for some weeks.
 
In my view, the revisionists and the Brahmin advocates of a return to a pre-Macaulayite system of acquiring
What was the whole discussion about then? About the breakaway of Indo-Iranian from the parent stalk of Proto-Indo-European? About the subsequent division between Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian? About the formation of Sanskrit from a tightly codified Indo-Aryan (Indo-Aryan being the language in which the Vedas, especially the Rg Veda was composed)? About Avestan being part of a group of dialects, four in number, which emerged from Indo-Iranian? About the ability of people who speak or read Avestan to speak or read Vedic language, and vice versa?
Please don't quote me... :) In my view you are not worth debating. :coffee: You may be a great scholar - good for you. Next time there is a backlash against Pandits in the valley burn a few remaining houses. Guess what - they are Brahmins too :laugh:
 
Nothing contradictory there. The Persians used the word in the same sense, a nobleman, and they obviously inherited the word from their predecessor language, Indo-Iranian; that would explain how the word got into Indo-Aryan as well, and in the same sense. It is more or less accurate to say that the chieftains, the leading warriors and the priests called themselves Arya.

Aryan may mean "one who does noble deeds; a noble one" in Sanskrit but initially it was used to designate the worshippers of the Vedic God, Indra , who followed the Vedic culture (performance of fire sacrifice.)

However, in the Zoroastrian Avesta , airyo/airya is an ethnic group,

airyāfi; daiŋˊhāvō " Iranian lands, peoples",
airyō.šayanəm "land inhabited by Iranians",

Avesta and Vedas , mentions Aryan migration out of Airyana Vaeja/ Arya Vrata (Aryan Homeland), thus increasing the lands occupation of the Aryans

1. Worship with oblation Yama the King, son of Vivasvat,
the assembler of people,
who departed from the deep to the heights,
and explored the road for many

2. Yama was the first who found for us the route.
This home is not to be taken from us.
Those who are now born,
(go) by their own routes
to the place whereunto our ancient forefathers emigrated.


(Rig and Atharva Veda)

memories of earlier homelands notions were fading in the RV.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom