Tamil Civilization - the Origins

[Bhairava]

The IVC was indeed Dravidian, and in fact there is still a small pocket in Pakistan that still speaks a Dravidian language. These people got pushed out by the Aryans when they invaded from central Asia, and the Dravidian language was replaced by an Indo-European language that eventually became Sanskrit.

There was no Invasion...for god sakes.


And if there was indeed an invasion then that punctures holes into the deary belief of many Pakistanis that they are the scions of the Indus Valley Civilization.

 

[humanfirst]

The Aryan-Dravidian divide was strenuously propagated by the Westerners for their ulterior motives and people like you have bought that hook line and sinker.

The arian-non arian divide is expicitly seen in vedas and epics...

 

[Rusty]

There was no Invasion...for god sakes.


And if there was indeed an invasion then that punctures holes into the deary belief of many Pakistanis that they are the scions of the Indus Valley Civilization.

There is overwhelming evidence for it, but the reason you chose to put your head in the sand is because it negates your victim mentality. How can you be angry at recent invaders when your culture/language is based on ancient invaders.


You can chose to bury your head, but the fact don't lie and the fact point to an Aryan civilization that came from Central Asia and invaded Northern India, Iran and Europe all the way from Bangladesh to Ireland.

 

[Bhairava]

There is overwhelming evidence for it, but the reason you chose to put your head in the sand is because it negates your victim mentality. How can you be angry at recent invaders when your culture/language is based on ancient invaders.


You can chose to bury your head, but the fact don't lie and the fact point to an Aryan civilization that came from Central Asia and invaded Northern India, Iran and Europe all the way from Bangladesh to Ireland.

No there is no "overwhelming" evidence...all the "evidence" has been debunked long back after extensive genetic studies. Moreover anywhere in the world History is written after examining archaelogical proof and not solely on linguistic basis. The Aryan Invasion theory is based solely on an assumed linguistic basis which in its own way is untenable. It was just a theory put forth by the Western historians to rationalize their claim on India and which is faithfully followed by the marxist historians to try deny India its own heritage, though in vain.

I'll just give you one argument ~ if the Aryans were indeed invaders who came thundering down the mountains and displaced the existing people ~ why is there absolutely no mention of their original homelands in the mouthpiece of the Aryans ~ the RgVeda ?

Why is that their homeland is described in details as to be centered around the River Saraswathi which satellite pics claim is the Ghagra Hakkar river system in present day Rajasthan ?

Moreover, for argument sake if we accept, that there was indeed an invasion then that punctures holes into the deary belief of many Pakistanis that they are the scions of the Indus Valley Civilization. So decide for yourself.

And dear anonymous Pakistani ~ i'm a native speaker of the oldest existing Dravidian language, Tamil..so no, my language or culture was in any case not given by the so-called Aryans.

 

[INDIC]

There is overwhelming evidence for it, but the reason you chose to put your head in the sand is because it negates your victim mentality. How can you be angry at recent invaders when your culture/language is based on ancient invaders.

So, do you believe Pakistanis are the sole owner of Indus valley civilizations and Indians with Dravidian bloodline have no claim over Indus Valley civilization.

 

[Bhairava]

The arian-non arian divide is expicitly seen in vedas and epics...

Hmmm no.

The epics like Mahabharatha mention the Pandya kings fighting on behalf of the Pandavas...

Again people should not conflate the Indo-Aryan vs Dravidian language system with races. There was and there is a Indo-Aryan language system but there never was an Aryan race or a Dravidian race.

And I'm finding it curious that a person from Kerala ~ who generally dont want to be associsated with the Dravidian race thingy put forth by some in TN ~ seems to accept the Dravidian race theory.

 

[INDIC]

There is overwhelming evidence for it, but the reason you chose to put your head in the sand is because it negates your victim mentality. How can you be angry at recent invaders when your culture/language is based on ancient invaders.


You can chose to bury your head, but the fact don't lie and the fact point to an Aryan civilization that came from Central Asia and invaded Northern India, Iran and Europe all the way from Bangladesh to Ireland.

Few years ago, I read an article by a Pakistan historian explaining like this, "5000 years ago ancestors of Pakistanis were building great cities in Harappa and Mohenjodaro while Indians were jungle dwellers."

 

[Bhairava]

Few years ago, I read an article by a Pakistan historian explaining like this, "5000 years ago ancestors of Pakistanis were building great cities in Harappa and Mohenjodaro while Indians were jungle dwellers."

There existed a 6 lane flyover straight from Khyber pass to the Wagah border which the Aryans took to bypass the "ancestors of the Pakistanis who built Harappa" and directly invade India. True story bro

 

[Rusty]

No there is no "overwhelming" evidence...all the "evidence" has been debunked long back after extensive genetic studies. Moreover anywhere in the world History is written after examining archaelogical proof and not solely on linguistic basis. The Aryan Invasion theory is based solely on linguistic basis which in its own way is untenable.

I'll just give you one argument ~ if the Aryans were indeed invaders who came thundering down the mountains and displaced the existing people ~ why is there aboslutely no mention of their original homelands in the mouthpiece of the Aryans ~ the RgVeda ?
Why is that their homeland is describes in details as to be centered around the River Saraswathi which satellite pics claim is the Ghagra Hakkar river system ?

Moreover, for argument sake if we accpet, that there was indeed an invasion then that punctures holes into the deary belief of many Pakistanis that they are the scions of the Indus Valley Civilization. So decide for yourself.

And dear anonymous Pakistani ~ i'm a native speaker of the oldest existing Dravidian language, Tamil..so no, my language was in any case not given by the so-called Aryans.

What you are doing is setting up a scare crow argument. You either don't understand or are will fully mischaracterizing the evidence.

Yes it is true that the evidence started off as linguistic, but that does not mean that it is a bad thing. Have you ever taken a linguistics class? Linguistics is a real science and is just as important as any other science. We have many examples of history being rewritten purely on linguistic basis, for example the Hitite. No one knew they even existed until we found a tablet with Hitite written on it, from that we were able to discover that an Indo European speaking civilization had existed in modern day Turkey.
As for genetics, what does that have anything to do with anything? Arguing that genetics disproved the Aryan invasion is like saying motor oil disproves that water exists. Maybe that makes sense to you since you do believe in multiple truths and what not, but no me that is just bonkers.

Also, we do see that things like the chariot were not indigenous to India, there is no mentions of chariots in India until the Aryans invaded. They Aryans brought their chariots with them and introduced the Indian people to it, who started to write about them afterwords.

Why didn't they mention where they are from? who knows. Maybe they wanted to hide the fact that they were invaders, maybe they didn't want to remember how bad their homeland was. It doesn't really matter why they didn't mention it, this does not change the fact that they were invaders. And you are referring to an ancient Religious document, we don't know who wrote it or if people changed it over time. for all we know it could have said they came from central Asia but Brahmans didn't like the fact that they were following invaders so they changed it to describe India.

How does that puncture any holes that Pakistan is the heir to the IVC, kindly explain.

 

[INDIC]

Hmmm no.

The epics like Mahabharatha mention the Pandya kings fighting on behalf of the Pandavas...

Again people should not conflate the Indo-Aryan vs Dravidian language system with races. There was and there is a Indo-Aryan language system but there never was an Aryan race or a Dravidian race.

And I'm finding it curious that a person from Kerala ~ who generally dont want to be associsated with the Dravidian race thingy put forth by some in TN ~ seems to accept the Dravidian race theory.

Do you know Japanese/Korean languages are totally different language from Chinese even though these people look totally same.

 

[Rusty]

you know, our Chinese friends are always mocking Indians for low IQ, and now I fully understand why.
you guys can't seem to understand what is being said, so instead of replying to what is being said you guys make tangents and red herring.
Who cares what Pakistanis think about the IVC, that is irrelevant to this discussion.
The fact is that you guys are so scared of losing your victim mentality that you go into extreme Internet Hindu mode when presented with facts.

But hey, one of you guys told me once that 1+1 can equal 4,5 or 2. so maybe you guys can just pretend the invasion never happens and live in your own ignorance.

 

[Bhairava]

Yes it is true that the evidence started off as linguistic, but that does not mean that it is a bad thing. Have you ever taken a linguistics class? Linguistics is a real science and is just as important as any other science. We have many examples of history being rewritten purely on linguistic basis, for example the Hitite. No one knew they even existed until we found a tablet with Hitite written on it, from that we were able to discover that an Indo European speaking civilization had existed in modern day Turkey.

Linguistics unless supported by archaelogical proof is simply not enough. Period.

As for genetics, what does that have anything to do with anything? Arguing that genetics disproved the Aryan invasion is like saying motor oil disproves that water exists. Maybe that makes sense to you since you do believe in multiple truths and what not, but no me that is just bonkers.

No genetics proved that there existed no separate race called "Aryans". And the genetic markers of people in India are different from those who live in the places considered to be the originating place of Aryans ~ which itself is under tremendous confusion. Whether it was somewhere in Russia, somewhere in Iran, somewhere in the steppes of central asia, somewhere near the seat of my toilet... Is that hard to understand ?

Also, we do see that things like the chariot were not indigenous to India, there is no mentions of chariots in India until the Aryans invaded. They Aryans brought their chariots with them and introduced the Indian people to it, who started to write about them afterwords.

It could have been a simple trad item. Did America invade you to give you your F-16s..what sort of rubbish logic is that ?

Why didn't they mention where they are from? who knows. Maybe they wanted to hide the fact that they were invaders, maybe they didn't want to remember how bad their homeland was. It doesn't really matter why they didn't mention it, this does not change the fact that they were invaders. And you are referring to an ancient Religious document, we don't know who wrote it or if people changed it over time. for all we know it could have said they came from central Asia but Brahmans didn't like the fact that they were following invaders so they changed it to describe India.

Exactly..who knows ? No one knows. You dont know. So kindly layoff from peddling your wild theories as "facts". Unless all questions are answered in a satisfactory, logical way with evidence to back it up they dont become "facts".

How does that puncture any holes that Pakistan is the heir to the IVC, kindly explain.

Because that would mean, we Tamils are the true scions of the IVC who were displaced by the incoming invaders and you guys are just the remnants of the barbarian Aryan leftovers.

Do you know Japanese/Korean languages are totally different language from Chinese even though these people look totally same.

yep ~ Sinic vs Altaic-Tungisic.

 

[Bhairava]

People who missed out the arguments about the untenability of AIT and the numerous questions for which it has no answer in another thread can read it:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/central-south-asia/207393-any-questions-regarding-india-40.html#post3430800

 

[Rusty]

Linguistics unless supported by archaelogical proof is simply not enough. Period.




No genetics proved that there existed no separate race called "Aryans". And the genetic markers of people in India are different from those who live in the places considered to be the originating place of Aryans ~ which itself is under tremendous confusion. Whether it was somewhere in Russia, somewhere in Iran, somewhere in the steppes of central asia, somewhere near the seat of my toilet... Is that hard to understand ?



It could have been a simple trad item. Did America invade you to give you your F-16s..what sort of rubbish logic is that ?



Exactly..who knows ? No one knows. You dont know. So kindly layoff from peddling your wild theories as "facts".



Because that would mean, we Tamils are the true scions of the IVC who were displaced by the incoming invaders and you guys are just the remnants of the barbarian Aryan leftovers.



yep ~ Sinic vs Altaic-Tungisic.

Says who? You? are you a linguist? or even an Archaeologist?
We found an entirely new civilization that we had no idea existed purely with linguists.
And besides, we do have archaeological evidence.The Aryians brought with them things like the chariot. There is no mention of chariots in India before the Aryans. And we have found similar chariots in Iran/Central Asia.

So? No one said that the Aryans replaced the local population.
They Theory is that the Aryans invaded India, gave the Indians their language and other things and then melted into the population. Let me ask you, how many of those Indians tested had Mughal genetic markers? Does that mean the Mughals never invaded? Once again, motor oil does not prove that water does not exist.

LOL, seriously?
You want archaeological evidence and then reject it when given.
I understand that India is still a poor county that maybe things like archaeological and linguistic science is not that developed, but you have to understand that the Vedas are not the sole source of history. And making silly statements like that make you look like you just came out of some village and for the first time saw a street light and thought it was due to magic.

We might not know the motives be we do know that facts. That is how archaeology works. And no, we won't lay off it because we are not emotionally vested in keeping this a secret in order to spare your victim mentality and even your culture.

By that logic, Africans are the true owners of India since they came to India first. So you want to give up your house to an African?
Besides, irrelevant to the topic.

And didn't you say linguistics is bunk? why do you believe the Sinic Altaic-Tungisc divide? I am sure using genetics we can find that those people do have similar genetic history.

Logic and reason was never really strong in India so I can understand these conundrums you guys keep falling into.

 

[Rusty]

People who missed out the arguments about the untenability of AIT and the numerous questions for which it has no answer in another thread can read it:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/central-south-asia/207393-any-questions-regarding-india-40.html#post3430800

Again, mis-characterization of the theory.
"Hindus think that idols are literally Gods who can give them magical powers, but they can't even defend themselves since I can just knock one over and destroy it. Thus this is the proof that Hindus are wrong"
would you accept this characterization of Hindus?