BBC accepts that AIT is flawed

[Joe Shearer]

Joe sir, have you heard of the Indo-Greek king Dimetrius his coins contains wearing elephant skulls as symbol of the conquest of parts of India. There were many Indo-Greek who ruled over Punjab.

Have come across the name. And the imagery.

W. W. Tarn
The Greeks in Bactria & India.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938. (3rd, revised ed. Chicago Ridge, IL: Ares Publishers, 1997 (hardcover, ISBN 0-89005-524-6)).

 

[truthseer]

??

They aren't.

Even for an obvious troll, this is pathetic.

Denial again. The white race has contributed more to science, have better reseach, armies, etc

And ruled us for so many years and then let us inferior people free

 

[Joe Shearer]

Nonsense.

Taking the slice of time from the seventeenth century onwards and proclaiming it to be representative of the whole of human civilisation is extremely meat-headed.

The current state of research and of armies is in flux, and the direction of improvement is clearly visible.

It was another set of people ruling others and then setting them free in other, earlier centuries.

For most of human history, China and south Asia were leading regions in the world, economically and culturally. What happened during the Age of Colonialism, if I might use a newspaper-headline kind of flourish, seems to be an aberration, from current accounts.

 

[SHAMK9]

How is stating truth being obsessed?

Really? How come one of these stupid threads pop on PDF every other month with OP trying to 'prove' that he/his nation/ his people etc are aryans?

 

[Random Boy]

I think i posted enough evidence to challenge the aryan Migration/Invasion Theory. I dont get why a Indian would Support that. It is very racist against Indians and there is enough evidence to challenge it.

Really? How come one of these stupid threads pop on PDF every other month with OP trying to 'prove' that he/his nation/ his people etc are aryans?

i think you have a wrong Picture of "aryans". hitler made that word popular as light skinned, fair super men. i dont Claim that Indians are light skinned and fair super men and "aryans" i Claim the oppossite. i Claim Indian culture, Religion and civilisation is native to dark skinned People of southasia. if you dont get the Point then you are sad case.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think i posted enough evidence to challenge the aryan Migration/Invasion Theory. I dont get why a Indian would Support that. It is very racist against Indians and there is enough evidence to challenge it.



i think you have a wrong Picture of "aryans". hitler made that word popular as light skinned, fair super men. i dont Claim that Indians are light skinned and fair super men and "aryans" i Claim the oppossite. i Claim Indian culture, Religion and civilisation is native to dark skinned People of southasia. if you dont get the Point then you are sad case.

There is no doubt, none whatsoever, that the original Aryan Invasion Theory is no longer credible. As far as historians are concerned, it is a non-issue; it comes within the purview of proto-history, history about which there are no direct sources, only indirect ones, typically in the annals and records of others, or in forms that cannot be examined to yield sufficiently convincing and verifiable data. As far as Indologists in general are concerned, there has not been much by way of archaeological evidence, which greatly aids analysis and conclusion.

The rest of this discussion is from an Indological point of view.

Some of the major objections to the AIT are that there is no Aryan race as such; Aryan was originally an honorific, but later was the name given to a group of languages, born from Proto-Indo-European.

We think.

We believe that these languages were spoken by the inhabitants of steppe-based settlements.

Nothing is available to prove or disprove. No material power.

Going on, it is not clear how the Aryan-speakers came across, in ones and twos, in small family groups, in tribes or in a big rush, all together. There is no evidence about this aspect, the

And so on.

 

[Random Boy]

There is no doubt, none whatsoever, that the original Aryan Invasion Theory is no longer credible. As far as historians are concerned, it is a non-issue; it comes within the purview of proto-history, history about which there are no direct sources, only indirect ones, typically in the annals and records of others, or in forms that cannot be examined to yield sufficiently convincing and verifiable data. As far as Indologists in general are concerned, there has not been much by way of archaeological evidence, which greatly aids analysis and conclusion.

The rest of this discussion is from an Indological point of view.

Some of the major objections to the AIT are that there is no Aryan race as such; Aryan was originally an honorific, but later was the name given to a group of languages, born from Proto-Indo-European.

We think.

We believe that these languages were spoken by the inhabitants of steppe-based settlements.

Nothing is available to prove or disprove. No material power.

Going on, it is not clear how the Aryan-speakers came across, in ones and twos, in small family groups, in tribes or in a big rush, all together. There is no evidence about this aspect, the

And so on.

seems like a fair Point. but id like to add that much of the old ait was revised exactly because it was challenged. if we had the brits still in india nothing of that old ideology would have changed. it is because White supremacism got challenged since Indian indepence and indepence of former colonies around the world. also because White People are not the only scientists anymore and the world is more transparent to scientific evidence etc.
also you said Indians have a rich history and were important in olden times, you said because you objected to White men being superior to dark skinned Indians. exactly the same Point i make, Indians have a rich history and it is native to southasia and to dark skinned native southasians. it is not because White fair supermen brought them civilisation and enslaved the Browns with caste System and mixed with them so all Indians are now Brown etc. and Indians never could have progressed or invented civilisation and culture without White influence etc.

 

[Srinivas]

No.

That is NOT the real point.

The real point is that history should be done by historians, not by wise guys forming mutual admiration societies in Internet fora.

Most of the criticism of historical writing and historical analysis comes from utterly ignorant people who have no idea of what is being said by historians today, as distinct from someone might have said nearly a century ago. Such criticism is always based on ignorance, and is sometimes based on politically-infected thinking as well.

Anything else?

BTW, the quote is probably right; our views of the AIT have changed radically over the decades, but to some of us, it still remains the most credible account to say that Indo-European languages were not native, but were introduced from outside, from the regions where the other variants seem to have radiated out, wherever that is, and whatever the way in which these/this was introduced, through invasion (unlikely), through migration, followed by the formation of tribal groupings, through trade and commercial relations and consequent familiarisation of the language. or any other.

No.....I don't see anything new you have added to the point I have quoted in the article.

The article also points to the fact that the credible evidence needs to be established and AIT is also a theory used for propaganda purpose.

Regarding Languages, The basic structure of Language is unique but the words from one language jump to another due to various reasons that do not mean they originate from a single language. So to say indo - european languages originated from one single language is a absolutely wrong...!!!!

 

[Koovie]

Yellows aren't superior to us, but yes, Whites are. Their race is the Chosen one

You believe this BS ?

Hitler would be proud if you......

 

[Joe Shearer]

seems like a fair Point. but id like to add that

(1) much of the old ait was revised exactly because it was challenged.


(2) if we had the brits still in india nothing of that old ideology would have changed.


(3) it is because White supremacism got challenged since Indian indepence and indepence of former colonies around the world.


(4) also because White People are not the only scientists anymore and the world is more transparent to scientific evidence etc.



(5) also you said Indians have a rich history and were important in olden times, you said because you objected to White men being superior to dark skinned Indians.

exactly the same Point i make,

(6) Indians have a rich history and it is native to southasia and to dark skinned native southasians.

(7) it is not because White fair supermen brought them civilisation and enslaved the Browns with caste System and mixed with them so all Indians are now Brown etc. and Indians never could have progressed or invented civilisation and culture without White influence etc.

Let's take this one by one.

(1) Yes, much of the old AIT was revised exactly because it was challenged. And what else should it be? Is that not how most existing theories are either amended or altered, through repeated challenges and probing of the premises and of the evidence?

(2) Why so? Significant portions of Indian history, proper history, not pre-history, not proto-history, have been challenged and revised, by scholars and researchers working on the subject who come from all over the world. Even if the British had continued in India, those historians would have challenged the accepted wisdom. So why should that not hold true of this subject as well?

(3) I doubt that the progress of science or of history is either retarded or expedited by white supremacism. Such supremacism did not stop historians like R. C. Majumdar from wiriting their works, and it is difficult to see why any historian of integrity would not write what he did because the white man had continued in power.

(4)a. White people were never the only scientists. At no time. It is an illusion that other skin pigmentations are playing a role in science, and that they had not played such a role before. It might be true that there are more of other than white skin pigmentation playing responsible research roles, but then we have a problem. Even if there are more non-white scientists progressively, for that fact to be important, the marginal number of new players would have to have a disproportionate impact on scientific progress. That is non-white supremacist.
(4)b. We seem to be discussing science and history as if they are similar or identical. They are emphatically not similar or identical.

(5) That is a complete misreading of my point. Whether or not Indians, or Persians, or Chinese, or Egyptians, or Babylonians had culture, had arts and crafts, and had made early progress in scientific theory has nothing to do with their skin pigmentation. It had nothing to do with their race either. Further, the Aryan Invasion Theory has nothing to do, as it stands today, with culture progression or with culture being brought into India by white pigmented people. Instead, it deals exclusively with the question of where languages now spoken in north India originated. The available evidence indicates that originally Austric languages were spoken. Over an unknown period of time, and starting at an unknown point of time, these languages were overlaid by Dravidian languages, not the ones spoken today, but the Proto-Dravidian that was the precursor and fore-runner of these present. It is possible that one of the reasons for this supersession of one language by another was the greater efficiency and expressive power of the superseding language, over the superseded language. That is precisely what is thought to have happened in the case of the supersession of Dravidian languages in the north of India by the newly intruding Indo-Aryan languages.

(6) Sure, Indians have a rich history and were important in older times. So what? That has nothing to do with the AIT, unless in your view, that theory necessary demands that along with the new language, all culture that marks Indian civilisation came in along with it. Is that what you think the AIT is all about?

(7) The AIT was never thought, except in some very old interpretations, to have represented white supermen bringing civilisation with them, and enslaving brown men with the caste system and so on. This is a very warped version that we seem to be discussing. The most acceptable view today is that the Indo-Aryan language was introduced into India from outside; that the religion represented by the Vedas was introduced into India from outside, that that religion forms a significant portion, if not the bulk of current religious practice among Hindus.
To interpret the Aryan Invasion Theory as a justification for the colonising and conquering role of a white race is quite outmoded today. Even the transition from the Vedic hymnals to the aranyakas and the upanishads is a significant change. It cannot be said that these cultural expressions came in from outside; they are native to India and grew here. So, too, with almost every expression of culture in the sub-continent. While it is possible to find traces of Vedic roots in practially every subsequent cultural expression, it means nothing in terms of white men enslaving brown men, largely because today, all south Asians have the identical DNA composition while they have a thousand different shades of skin colour.

I strongly recommend discarding the view that the Aryan Invasion Theory is about white supremacism.

 

[Random Boy]

Let's take this one by one.

(1) Yes, much of the old AIT was revised exactly because it was challenged. And what else should it be? Is that not how most existing theories are either amended or altered, through repeated challenges and probing of the premises and of the evidence?
(2) Why so? Significant portions of Indian history, proper history, not pre-history, not proto-history, have been challenged and revised, by scholars and researchers working on the subject who come from all over the world. Even if the British had continued in India, those historians would have challenged the accepted wisdom. So why should that not hold true of this subject as well?
(3) I doubt that the progress of science or of history is either retarded or expedited by white supremacism. Such supremacism did not stop historians like R. C. Majumdar from wiriting their works, and it is difficult to see why any historian of integrity would not write what he did because the white man had continued in power.
(4)a. White people were never the only scientists. At no time. It is an illusion that other skin pigmentations are playing a role in science, and that they had not played such a role before. It might be true that there are more of other than white skin pigmentation playing responsible research roles, but then we have a problem. Even if there are more non-white scientists progressively, for that fact to be important, the marginal number of new players would have to have a disproportionate impact on scientific progress. That is non-white supremacist.
(4)b. We seem to be discussing science and history as if they are similar or identical. They are emphatically not similar or identical.
(5) That is a complete misreading of my point. Whether or not Indians, or Persians, or Chinese, or Egyptians, or Babylonians had culture, had arts and crafts, and had made early progress in scientific theory has nothing to do with their skin pigmentation. It had nothing to do with their race either. Further, the Aryan Invasion Theory has nothing to do, as it stands today, with culture progression or with culture being brought into India by white pigmented people. Instead, it deals exclusively with the question of where languages now spoken in north India originated. The available evidence indicates that originally Austric languages were spoken. Over an unknown period of time, and starting at an unknown point of time, these languages were overlaid by Dravidian languages, not the ones spoken today, but the Proto-Dravidian that was the precursor and fore-runner of these present. It is possible that one of the reasons for this supersession of one language by another was the greater efficiency and expressive power of the superseding language, over the superseded language. That is precisely what is thought to have happened in the case of the supersession of Dravidian languages in the north of India by the newly intruding Indo-Aryan languages.
(6) Sure, Indians have a rich history and were important in older times. So what? That has nothing to do with the AIT, unless in your view, that theory necessary demands that along with the new language, all culture that marks Indian civilisation came in along with it. Is that what you think the AIT is all about?
(7) The AIT was never thought, except in some very old interpretations, to have represented white supermen bringing civilisation with them, and enslaving brown men with the caste system and so on. This is a very warped version that we seem to be discussing. The most acceptable view today is that the Indo-Aryan language was introduced into India from outside; that the religion represented by the Vedas was introduced into India from outside, that that religion forms a significant portion, if not the bulk of current religious practice among Hindus.
To interpret the Aryan Invasion Theory as a justification for the colonising and conquering role of a white race is quite outmoded today. Even the transition from the Vedic hymnals to the aranyakas and the upanishads is a significant change. It cannot be said that these cultural expressions came in from outside; they are native to India and grew here. So, too, with almost every expression of culture in the sub-continent. While it is possible to find traces of Vedic roots in practially every subsequent cultural expression, it means nothing in terms of white men enslaving brown men, largely because today, all south Asians have the identical DNA composition while they have a thousand different shades of skin colour.

I strongly recommend discarding the view that the Aryan Invasion Theory is about white supremacism.

you are naive if you believe that. you seperate languages from races. but proto-indo europeans who suppossedly invented india are said to have been light eyed and light haired. like the examined skelettons from andronovo culture who are by some dated to be proto-indo iranian and responsible for Invasion/Immigration of India. Also the indo-europeans are dated by most to have originated in Europe together with the rise of blue eyes in the black sea Region. Of course we Need to debate how indo-european languages came into india but with the many evidence that there is no anthropological or genetical Invasion, i doubt there could be a cultural Invasion and there Need to be new concepts rethought as how the languages spread india. i posted the "proto-vedic language theory" on first page. of course it is about White men enslaving Brown men, just politically correct speech wont say it like that but if you talk to a racist he will be more straight Forward what it is about. also they say the caste System came with Whites and Whites put themselfes at the top. also that ancient Indians like Buddha were White etc.

 

[curioususer]

Really? How come one of these stupid threads pop on PDF every other month with OP trying to 'prove' that he/his nation/ his people etc are aryans?

What are aryans according to you?

 

[Joe Shearer]

No.....I don't see anything new you have added to the point I have quoted in the article.

The article also points to the fact that the credible evidence needs to be established and AIT is also a theory used for propaganda purpose.

Regarding Languages, The basic structure of Language is unique but the words from one language jump to another due to various reasons that do not mean they originate from a single language. So to say indo - european languages originated from one single language is a absolutely wrong...!!!!

Dear me.

First, there is no need, in fact, there is no possibility of introducing credible evidence about the AIT, as it belongs to a type and nature of study that does not have any historically acceptable sources.

What does that mean to you, that credible evidence will jump on to the table?

Second, about AIT being used for propaganda. Any theory, any scientific or social scientific or historical finding, or postulation, can be taken and distorted by being turned into propaganda. That says much for the mindsets of those abusing the evidence to fulfil their agenda, it says nothing derogatory about the evidence itself. People misusing the AIT are responsible for the misuse, not the AIT. The possibility that people are misusing it to prove their own theories has no bearing on the validity or otherwise of the theory itself.

Third, words do travel, and this has been especially significant in the Indian context, in the presence of loan words from Dravidian even in very early versions of the Vedic, or Indo-Aryan language, for that matter, loan words from Austric languages. From this phenomenon, that of words travelling, to conclude that Indo-European languages need not have originated from one language displays abysmal ignorance of linguistics at the most basic level. Indo-European languages are thought to originate from one common precursor, Proto-Indo-European, precisely because, disregarding the presence of loan words, the grammatical structure can be traced from one level to another, and seen to be identical, or seen to be progressing in one direction of change according to well-established linguistic rules of change.

It may be useful to examine the fundamental tenets of linguistics before speculating so rashly on the nature of language.

 

[Bang Galore]

I want to jump in and say my bit but realise that I have nothing to add to what I have already said so many times. I wish there was some addition, some new knowledge that we could ponder over. Unfortunately there isn't and all arguments are simply a rehash of the same old ones. I happen to believe that the AIT is simply not proven beyond doubt, I believe that all available evidence suggests that the theory is discredited from the viewpoint of anyone but linguists. However there is a linguistic connection that has not satisfactorily been explained & that does give me pause from totally dismissing any variation of the AIT. However I see many of those opposing the AIT doing so for reasons other than just a disagreement on sound scientific/archaeological grounds. While that does not in itself render their opposition wrong (people can have any view, for any reason, if they are willing to look at the facts as quite a few do in opposition of the AIT), it makes me extra suspicious of their reasoning. I, for one would not find it objectionable if the AIT were correct or if some other theory of migration was correct, just as long as it was proved. It would not alter my view of myself or that of my country in any way. That would mean I'm open to persuasion which I fear is not the case with most who either champion the AIT or those who vehemently oppose it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

(1)
you are naive if you believe that.

(2) you seperate languages from races.

(3) but proto-indo europeans who suppossedly invented india are

(4) said to have been light eyed and light haired. like the examined skelettons from andronovo culture who are by some dated to be proto-indo iranian and responsible for Invasion/Immigration of India.

(5) Also the indo-europeans are dated by most to have originated in Europe together with the rise of blue eyes in the black sea Region.

(6)Of course we Need to debate how indo-european languages came into india but with the many evidence that there is no anthropological or genetical Invasion, i doubt there could be a cultural Invasion
and

(7)there Need to be new concepts rethought as how the languages spread india.

(8) i posted the "proto-vedic language theory" on first page.


(9) of course it is about White men enslaving Brown men, just politically correct speech wont say it like that but if you talk to a racist he will be more straight

Forward what it is about. also

(10) they say

the caste System came with Whites and Whites put themselfes at the top. also that ancient Indians like Buddha were White etc.

(1) If inclining to the judgement of the majority of thinkers and researchers in a particular field is being naive, I am happy to be naive. If differing from the majority is the opposite of naive, then all one has to do is to oppose accepted thinking in any area to become an illuminated savant in that field. As you possibly already know, this is not the case.

(2) Again, not I, alone, but the majority of those researching these issues, due to the fact that languages do not confine themselves to race. If they had, President Obama would not have been addressing us in English.

(3) What is this concept of 'inventing' India? Is it your contention that the AIT demands that there was no Indian culture or civilisation prior to the introduction of Indo-Aryan? That is only partly true, in that no known civilisation survived the decline and disappearance of the Indus Valley Civilisation, but culture certainly existed. Religious practices different from the Vedic model existed; languages distinct from Indo-Aryan existed; settlements existed; the transition from pastoral life to agricultural life existed; trade and commerce existed. So what exactly was invented?

(4) Truly startling statements.

=> Light-eyed and fair-haired, like the skeletons from the Andronovo culture?

I would like to know how skeletons display eye colour and hair colour. I would also like to know where these characteristics came to be noticed in the Andronovo culture.

Please recall that mummies are not skeletons, and that there were no mummies in the Andronovo culture findings. Please recall that mummies that may have had a bearing on this question came from locations far to the east of the sites of the Andronovo culture finds.

=> dated to be proto-Indo-Iranian?

Incredible. How are skeletons, for that matter, anything tangible, dated to be equivalent to a language that is derived by linguistic analysis, and does not have a written script and writings in general to link to the archaeology concerned?

=> stated to be responsible for the invasion of India?

Surely not the proto-Indo-Iranian? If you recall, the linguistic progression is thought to be into proto-Iranian and Indo-Aryan at the next stage, and it is the Indo-Aryan that is thought to have entered India.

I am happy to grant you the point that this is to be identified as the generation of the language that entered India, but your other arguments, about the racial taxonomy of the Andronovo culture, and the identification of these with proto-Indo-Iranian, are wholly lacking in proof. These are speculations. There is no physical evidence that the persons who introduced Indo-Aryan into India were light-eyed and fair-haired.

(5) What has blue eyes got to do with language?

(6) The debate on how Indo-European languages, Indo-Aryan, to be a little more specific, came into India is precisely where the AIT is today.

(7) Why not by adoption as the favoured language of a dominant minority? The way Turkish spread through Anatolia? Or the way Urdu spread through south India?

(8) No doubt it will be debated and discussed until some conclusions emerge.

(9) The trouble is that you have adopted as canonical one of the distortions and mischievous uses to which the AIT was put, by European racists, and think that it is the definitive interpretation. Far from it. For one, few think any longer that the people of the Andronovo culture were racially or genetically homogenous. Just as nobody thinks that the Scythian was racially homogenous. Even if there was a physical incursion into northern India by the people who spoke Indo-Aryan, there is no reason to believe that they were white themselves, and there is no evidence that there was a white vs. brown clash in the events surrounding this injection of Indo-Aryan into south Asia.

(10) You may find it edifying to look up the motto of the Scots Clan Keith.