India's caste system goes back 2,000 years, genetic study finds

[bronxbull]

vedas were written before krishna,

Rig veda is just sounds,Yajur/Sama Vedas are rituals,Atharvana Veda is mysticism.

Krishna is outside the realm of all this.

 

[Developereo]

The historians themselves keep the confusions about Meluhha's location because of conflicting Sumerian records.

Means nothing.

It could be that original Meluhha reference to IVCers later got generalized by the Sumerians to refer to other foreigners.

In the same way that the word Philistine originally had a specific meaning, but has become generalized over time.

 

[bronxbull]

Can you please provide a source for the "meluhha" & "mleccha" words. I want to read up on that. The word Arya means noble & honorable, but would have referred to an ethnic group initially during the Indo-Aryan migrations. The same is the case in Avestan, except that over there the word solely focuses on an ethnic group or the Indo-Iranian people.

Based on what I know, the Sanskrit speaking migrants are said to have called the Harappans "mleccha" based on the Sumerian word for them called "meluhha". Wouldn't the origins of the word "meluhha" be difficult to trace entirely because the Harappan script still hasn't been decrypted?

Once again, provide me with a reliable source for further reading.

Again the point here is,Harappa is in Balochistan.

The migration from Iran is more liekly to have happened across the mountians in Central Asia and from NWFP into Punjab rather than through the desert.

Cattler herder people are more likely to move towards water/grasslands,not towards a desert.

 

[INDIC]

Can you please provide a source for the "meluhha" & "mleccha" words. I want to read up on that. The word Arya means noble & honorable, but would have referred to an ethnic group initially during the Indo-Aryan migrations. The same is the case in Avestan, except that over there the word solely focuses on an ethnic group or the Indo-Iranian people.



There was no Aryan invasion & Max Mueller's theory has long been discredited. However, genetic studies do indicate an Aryan migration & it won't be surprising because the Harappans did trade with Andronovo.



I don't see what's so humorous, I already mentioned that I just found that source. I didn't have time to go through it all. Just because it doesn't refer to Delhi as Indraprastha doesn't necessarily imply that the information provided is incorrect.

Based on what I know, the Sanskrit speaking migrants are said to have called the Harappans "mleccha" based on the Sumerian word for them called "meluhha". Wouldn't the origins of the word "meluhha" be difficult to trace entirely because the Harappan script still hasn't been decrypted?

Once again, provide me with a reliable source for further reading.

Meluhha was traced back to Sumerian records, no Indian records were used.

The link you provided is claiming Delhi originated out of Sanskrit word. I checked the dictionary, I can't found a such words claimed by the article.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Again the point here is,Harappa is in Balochistan.

The migration from Iran is more liekly to have happened across the mountians in Central Asia and from NWFP into Punjab rather than through the desert.

Cattler herder people are more likely to move towards water/grasslands,not towards a desert.

The fact remains there was an Aryan migration from Andronovo or possibly from the norther regions of Afghanistan perhaps. Genetic studies prove Eurasian & Central Asian mixture in the north western & northern regions of the Sub-Continent. Some people say that that migration took place in the Bronze age so the Aryans were more advanced than the Harappans. The most interesting part is that the vast majority of Indo-Aryan lineages happen to be male. If they were indigenous in origin then Aryan female lineages would be prevalent in equal amounts at least because no ethnic group exists without its women. This indicates the migrants were male as far as the Indus is concerned. That also gives rise to the possibility of conflict because the Indo-Aryans would require women to marry & mate with, & no other people would have easily handed over their women to them.

 

[Developereo]

Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 9 Chapter 23 Verse 16

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 9.23.16

mlecchādhipatayo 'bhūvann
udīcīḿ diśam āśritāḥ
turvasoś ca suto vahnir
vahner bhargo 'tha bhānumān

SYNONYMS

mleccha — of the lands known as Mlecchadeśa (where Vedic civilization was not present); adhipatayaḥ — the kings; abhūvan — became; udīcīm — on the northern side of India; diśam — the direction; āśritāḥ — accepting as the jurisdiction; turvasoḥ ca — of Turvasu, the second son of Mahārāja Yayāti; sutaḥ — the son; vahniḥ — Vahni; vahneḥ — of Vahni; bhargaḥ — the son named Bharga; atha — thereafter, his son; bhānumān — Bhānumān.

TRANSLATION

The Pracetās [the sons of Pracetā] occupied the northern side of India, which was devoid of Vedic civilization, and became kings there. Yayāti's second son was Turvasu. The son of Turvasu was Vahni; the son of Vahni, Bharga; the son of Bharga, Bhānumān.

This seems to make it quite clear that mleccha referred to a specific region, which coincides with the location of the IVC.

 

[INDIC]

Means nothing.

It could be that original Meluhha reference to IVCers later got generalized by the Sumerians to refer to other foreigners.

In the same way that the word Philistine originally had a specific meaning, but has become generalized over time.

First you need to find out what was a word actually referred to. There are many words that sounds identical to each other, here only the first letter sound same.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Meluhha was traced back to Sumerian records, no Indian records were used.

The link you provided is claiming Delhi originated out of Sanskrit word. I checked the dictionary, I can't found a such words claimed by the article.

I don't know about the origins of the word Delhi because I am not an expert in the Sanskrit language.

Regardless, that still doesn't invalidate the idea that "meluhha" & "mleccha" are related & most relevant & reliable sources I read in the past indicated that as well. The term "meluhha" was a Sumerian word that referred to the Indus Valley Civilization.

This also highlights the need to decrypt the Harappan script, & figure out whether or not the word could have been of indigenous origin. Besides, the Sanskrit language itself absorbed words from surrounding languages, some of which are considered unknown.

Jholachaap means someone unqualified for certain profession but still fool people, commonly used for fake doctors.

So the word basically translates to some sort of pseudo-intellectual? As long as you weren't insulting me, I don't care.

 

[Bang Galore]

Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 9 Chapter 23 Verse 16



This seems to make it quite clear that mleccha referred to a specific region, which coincides with the location of the IVC.

Unlikely to be anywhere near the IVC. While the lands west of the Indus were looked at with mild suspicion, mleccha seems to be reserved for the lands out of Afghanistan. India being described here is unlikely to be political India post 1947

 

[Developereo]

First you need to find out what was a word actually referred to. There are many words that sounds identical to each other, here only the first letter sound same.

It seems to be the accepted view that, for Sumerians, Meluhha did refer to the IVC. It may be that later usage of the word referred to Egyptians but, as I explained above, that could simply reflect a later generalization of a specific term.

As for the similarity between Meluhha and Mleccha, again, this seems to be the accepted view that they are cognates, i.e. it is more than just "first letter sounds same".

Anyway, we are not linguists, so we can only go by what the experts believe.

 

[Developereo]

Unlikely to be anywhere near the IVC. While the lands west of the Indus were looked at with mild suspicion, mleccha seems to be reserved for the lands out of Afghanistan. India being described here is unlikely to be political India post 1947

There are two clues: "northern side of India" and "devoid of Vedic civilization".

Depends on which period of time it refers to but, the IVC being non-Vedic, it is more likely to refer to them, especially since the term is very similar to the Sumerian name for that region/peoples. The logical conclusion is that the Sumerian/Sanskrit word(s) are derived from the IVCers' own name for themselves.

I agree that the term got generalized over time to refer to all foreigners.

 

[Bang Galore]

There are two clues: "northern side of India" and "devoid of Vedic civilization".

Depends on which period of time it refers to but, the IVC being non-Vedic, it is more likely to refer to them, especially since the term is very similar to the Sumerian name for that region/peoples.

I agree that the term got generalized over time to refer to all foreigners.

The word mleccha specifically is referred to people whose "tongues" were not recognised. Considering that the vedic & post vedic people were familiar with areas upto Afghanistan, it is very unlikely that this was the case. There are references to kings going noorthwards from Afghanistan & into the mleccha lands. It seems that unfamiliarity of language would have to be the first basis for being called a mleccha.

Among the tribes termed Mlechcha were Sakas, Huns, Yavanas, Kambojas, Pahlavas, Bahlikas and Rishikas. The Amara-kosa described the Kiratas and Pulindas as the Mleccha-jatis. Indo-Greeks, Scythians, and Kushanas,were also mlecchas.

 

[Roybot]

There are two clues: "northern side of India" and "devoid of Vedic civilization".

Depends on which period of time it refers to but, the IVC being non-Vedic, it is more likely to refer to them, especially since the term is very similar to the Sumerian name for that region/peoples. The logical conclusion is that the Sumerian/Sanskrit word(s) are derived from the IVCers' own name for themselves.

I agree that the term got generalized over time to refer to all foreigners.

IVC sites are not located to the northern side of India, and India isn't the India of today. They are referring to BharatVarsha, and north of it should probably be Central Asia.

 

[Developereo]

IVC sites are not located to the northern side of India, and India isn't the India of today. They are referring to BharatVarsha, and north of it should probably be Central Asia.

It says northern side of India, not north of India.

The word mleccha specifically is referred to people whose "tongues" were not recognised. Considering that the vedic & post vedic people were familiar with areas upto Afghanistan, it is very unlikely that this was the case. There are references to kings going noorthwards from Afghanistan & into the mleccha lands. It seems that unfamiliarity of language would have to be the first basis for being called a mleccha.

What I am saying is that this generalized meaning of the word mleccha was a later development, and its origin stems from the IVC.

Again, no way to prove it without deciphering the IVC script, but linguists consider the Sumerian and Sanskrit words to be related.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 9 Chapter 23 Verse 16



This seems to make it quite clear that mleccha referred to a specific region, which coincides with the location of the IVC.

Absolutely wrong. The real translation has no reference to 'India' at all.