TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[Rig Vedic]

There actually are some holes

More holes than substance, in fact. It has become one big hole.

 

[Rusty]

More holes than substance, in fact. It has become one big hole.

Still not as big as the hole between your two ears.

Care to prove me wrong?
Please provide evidence of these holes.

Tho I fear it's like talking to a wall, no matter how much I ask for evidence I will just get the same pre-recorded lines.

 

[Rig Vedic]

But let me summarize from where the some of the major contradictory evidence has come - (1) Internal evidence from Vedic literature (2) Saraswati archaeology and (3) Genetic studies.

Read this thread to find out more.

There is also the issue of the units of measurement deduced from the Archaelogical remains, which is a fascinating sidelight in itself.

Still not as big as the hole between your two ears.

Care to prove me wrong?
Please provide evidence of these holes.

Tho I fear it's like talking to a wall, no matter how much I ask for evidence I will just get the same pre-recorded lines.

My resolution is to not entertain content-free posts. Nevertheless look at my previous post, which will get merged with this one.

 

[Rusty]

But let me summarize from where the major contradictory evidence has come - (1) Internal evidence from Vedic literature (2) Saraswati archaeology and (3) Genetic studies.

There is also the issue of the units of measurement deduced from the Archaelogical remains, which is a fascinating sidelight in itself.



My resolution is to not entertain content-free posts. Nevertheless look at my previous post.

Vedic literature are not primary sources and it's origin is in question so while it can be used for some insight, it does not meet the standards of a solid source. Please tell me more about the Saraswati archaeology. And 3. Read my previous post Genetics have nothing to do with it.

I know you have already made up your mind and even if an Aryan came down from heaven and said "I forced your ancestors to speak my language" you still would not believe him.


And it's funny how you talk about content free posts, when in fact that is all you have been posting.

 

[LaBong]

I know you have already made up your mind and even if an Aryan came down from heaven and said "I forced your ancestors to speak my language" you still would not believe him.

Even if we consider that ancestor of Rig Vedic language originated outside of India, there's almost thousands of years difference between Rig Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit and all that development had happened inside India(in geographical term, not the political entity). So nobody forced anyone to speak anything.

I know you guys have this weird believe of pure Aryan and all, and prospect of invading Aryan forcing the indigenous population to speak their language is mouth watering, but the subject is more complex than you can grasp. Not sure why Joe is giving cue to you.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Vedic literature are not primary sources and it's origin is in question so while it can be used for some insight, it does not meet the standards of a solid source.

We're talking about the Vedic peoples. Can't ignore the Vedas themselves. One can certainly extract evidence from there.

Please tell me more about the Saraswati archaeology.

Has been posted in this thread

Read my previous post Genetics have nothing to do with it.

Well then you should be glad to accept that there were no "Aryans" who invaded / migrated into the Indian subcontinent.

Other content-free stuff ignored, as per my resolution.

 

[LaBong]

Infact we shoudn't call Rig Vedic language as Sanskrit, it defeats the whole purpose of naming the language as "Sanskrit". It wouldn't be Sanskrit until Panini codify it.

 

[Bang Galore]

Aren't some Indians fond of telling everybody how India dominated China culturally for centuries without sending a single soldier? One wouldn't expect a significant Indian genetic signature in the East Asian population, yet Buddhism thrives. Why is the absence of a large genetic footprint an automatic invalidation of foreign influence?

You are right, it isn't. That was my point when I said that genetics rules out only the most primitive of the AIT and is not an argument I would rely upon against a point such as the one you are making. However what supposedly happened here is somewhat different from the China analogy. The Chinese adopted Buddhism, they didn't however think that they were Indians and completely forget their own cultural inheritances and call themselves Indians. That is what supposedly happened here. This is a long argument and would require some understanding of the Rg veda & indeed the Mahabharata. These were people who called themselves Aryans & the land they lived in was known by them as Aryavarta-the abode of the Aryans. Leaving dating aside for a moment, this wholesale acceptance of a culture with no traces of an earlier culture having been replaced, nor remembered has almost no parallel & certainly not on this scale. Even the South, not part of the Aryan speaking land adopts the culture of a people whose language they did not adopt. Yet even they remember no previous culture. Extraordinary brain washing, don't you think?

The second point is about the tribes, few in number supposedly being absorbed to a larger body of supposed natives thereby diluting any genetic identity over a period of time. The Rg veda already speaks of fighting between clans (no castes yet) while by the time of the Mahabharata, castes are an established phenomenon. Therefore whatever assimilation/dilution took place even before the Rg veda was composed. Yet the Mahabharata enlists distant Aryan tribes from Afghanistan/Iran on the basis of kinship (which should have been long diluted & in case should not have been responded by parts of the tribes that were not incorporated into a local "Indian/Indus" population) suggesting an unbroken feeling of kinship between the diluted & the non-diluted. The other alternative would be to suggest that the distant Aryan tribes too were diluted similarly, yet still had an almost identical reaction of not remembering being any other people. I suppose possible theoretically but quite a stretch.

Why should we believe that the Mahabharata was speaking of contemporary events? Why could it not simply be a retelling of ancient (oral) traditions?

Most people accept that many Abrahamic religious tales, including Noah's Flood, are a retelling of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, which themselves are probably retellings of earlier myths.

Not opposed to your premise at all but the Mahabharata shows knowledge of several key earlier compositions making it definitely a later work when compared to the Rg veda. The Rg veda mentions the Saravati as a large flowing river which by the time of the Mahabharata was a dying river no longer flowing to the ocean but drying up in the desert. Its previous importance made it worthy of a mention even when it was no longer a great river system. You could push the dating of the events mentioned in the Mahabharata as far back as you want, it is just that it takes the Rg veda further back & that does not fit in with the AIT as propounded now.

 

[Rusty]

Even if we consider that ancestor of Rig Vedic language originated outside of India, there's almost thousands of years difference between Rig Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit and all that development had happened inside India(in geographical term, not the political entity). So nobody forced anyone to speak anything.

I know you guys have this weird believe of pure Aryan and all, and prospect of invading Aryan forcing the ingeniousness population to speak their language is mouth watering, but the subject is more complex than you can grasp. Not sure why Joe is giving cue to you.

Your first part is actually quite accurate.
The Aryans did give India proto Sanskrit, but Sanskrit developed natively in India for thousands of years.
I do disagree with the forced part, as the Aryans forced it on the Dravidian speaking people and pushed Dravidian language to south India. So if you really want to be pure of the land, then stop speaking Hindu and start speaking Tamil

We don't have any weird believes of any pure people. In fact it is the Vedas that call them "noble" not us.
I am merely pointing out the similarities of the Aryan invasions and the Islamic ones.
While many Indians despise Muslims because they consider it foreign, they would die to defend their "native" language and culture......which just happens to be not so native to begin with.

And it is due to this paradox that many Indians cannot believe in it. It will destroy their very identity.

 

[Rusty]

We're talking about the Vedic peoples. Can't ignore the Vedas themselves. One can certainly extract evidence from there.


Has been posted in this thread

Well then you should be glad to accept that there were no "Aryans" who invaded / migrated into the Indian subcontinent.

Other content-free stuff ignored, as per my resolution.

Feel free to correct me, but I would imagine that most of what we know about the vedic people comes from the vedas themselves.....otherwise they would not be the vedic people. And you even say that we can extract certain evidence from them, which I agree.

Well, I am not going to go through 35 pages to find it, so that's a no go.

Let me ask you this. If the genetic analysis says that all Indians are indigenous then what about the Mughals? Where they indigenous? were they imaginary? Was it an evil mullah conspiracy? I mean your own genetic analysis says that all Indians have indigenous genetic markers. Oh and what about Islam? that too must be indigenous.
So why do you people hate Islam so much? after all, your own genetic study has proven that Muslims are indigenous to India.

 

[Rig Vedic]

For Saraswati archaeology see The Sarasvati (b.b. Lal)

I will just respond to one other part of your post -

So why do you people hate Islam so much? after all, your own genetic study has proven that Muslims are indigenous to India.

Why should my attitude towards Islam depend on whether it is indigenous or not? Should it be not based on understanding the character of the Prophet, after a study of the Sahih Hadiths?

 

[Rusty]

I will just respond to one part of your post -

Why should my attitude to Islam depend on whether it is indigenous or not? Should it be not based on understanding the character of the Prophet, after careful study of the Sahih Hadiths?

This is not even fun any more. It's like defeating a kid in arm wrestling.

At least make stuff up as a rebuttal to what I say, keep things interesting. I keep writing this long paragraphs fulled with logic and evidence and you just ignore what I say, and like a computer stuck on repeat, keep spitting out nonsensical talking point.

 

[Rig Vedic]

This is not even fun any more. It's like defeating a kid in arm wrestling.

At least make stuff up as a rebuttal to what I say, keep things interesting. I keep writing this long paragraphs fulled with logic and evidence and you just ignore what I say, and like a computer stuck on repeat, keep spitting out nonsensical talking point.

I did take the trouble of giving you a link on Saraswati archaeology, which I added to my previous post a bit later. Feel free to peruse.

And the response to your point about my alleged "hate" for Islam is quite logically sound.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Creation of Hindu India was the biggest blunder in sub-continent's history

What on earth was that about? Nobody created Hindu India, if you are talking about Hindu India in ancient times. It happened through conquest, assimilation, imitation, a host of things all together. And the Republic of India is not Hindu India, and would be even less a Hindu majority India if some dim thick types had not spooked at their own shadows, disregarded their own propaganda about being twice (or ten times, or five hundred and eighty three times, depending on the day of the week and the bragger's state of digestion) and chose primly to park themselves elsewhere.

To my shock, even a stormtrooper from the Internet Muslims is talking sense and getting some powerful ideas across. If you can't manage anything else, at least lip sync with him.

Even if we consider that ancestor of Rig Vedic language originated outside of India, there's almost thousands of years difference between Rig Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit and all that development had happened inside India(in geographical term, not the political entity). So nobody forced anyone to speak anything.

I know you guys have this weird believe of pure Aryan and all, and prospect of invading Aryan forcing the indigenous population to speak their language is mouth watering, but the subject is more complex than you can grasp. Not sure why Joe is giving cue to you.

It is complex, and it is also an on-going process, but in essence, that is what happened. That is what is happening; have you visited a Santhal locality and looked around for yourself and seen how Sanskritisation takes place?

We're talking about the Vedic peoples. Can't ignore the Vedas themselves. One can certainly extract evidence from there.


Has been posted in this thread

Well then you should be glad to accept that there were no "Aryans" who invaded / migrated into the Indian subcontinent.

Other content-free stuff ignored, as per my resolution.

Of course, to those of 'content-free' thought processes, the fact that it was the Vedic culture, in the process of being imposed on another, older culture, and that there was nothing called the Vedic people, is not in the least irrelevant. Such fragments of fact are merely content, to be eschewed.

 

[Rusty]

What on earth was that about? Nobody created Hindu India, if you are talking about Hindu India in ancient times. It happened through conquest, assimilation, imitation, a host of things all together. And the Republic of India is not Hindu India, and would be even less a Hindu majority India if some dim thick types had not spooked at their own shadows, disregarded their own propaganda about being twice (or ten times, or five hundred and eighty three times, depending on the day of the week and the bragger's state of digestion) and chose primly to park themselves elsewhere.

To my shock, even a stormtrooper from the Internet Muslims is talking sense and getting some powerful ideas across. If you can't manage anything else, at least lip sync with him.



It is complex, and it is also an on-going process, but in essence, that is what happened. That is what is happening; have you visited a Santhal locality and looked around for yourself and seen how Sanskritisation takes place?




Of course, to those of 'content-free' thought processes, the fact that it was the Vedic culture, in the process of being imposed on another, older culture, and that there was nothing called the Vedic people, is not in the least irrelevant. Such fragments of fact are merely content, to be eschewed.

I think you have some very wrong, though amusing, but wrong Ideas about me.
I never start hate for Indians or Hindus, I only jump in when I feel Indians are getting cheep shots in.
And I try to do in a way that is amusing to me at least.
Honestly Joe, I think if we met in real life, we could be good friends.