TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[Icewolf]

we are having a very nice discussion, please don't ruin it by being a troll.
And once you have to use swear words to get your message across, you have already lost.

i quoted a north indian

 

[Rusty]

And these linguists are better than your eminent historians, hopefully.

I don't know any historian who is as amazingly smart as Noam Chomsky

Seriously tho, Both historians and Linguistics are a serious science and to say that one is more important than the other is rather foolish.

i quoted a north indian, moron.

all you are going to do is start a flame war that will take us off topic.
Please refrain from doing that as this topic is immensely interesting.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What now? You don't even agree to this gentleman's claims of being an archaeologist ?

No, he was a pretty good archaeologist, one of the best in the business, but after retiring and becoming a political archaeologist in his second innings, he tends to depend on his college training in Sanskrit at Allahabad U to support his arguments. In short, he has become a pundit.

If you read him, it is quite school boyish, picking up one fact out of a large mass of them because that one suits him best, ignoring information or data that does not suit his case, obscuring or glossing over adverse information when he cannot ignore it altogether - the whole suite.

 

[Developereo]

Interesting but not based on evidence.

I fully concede that that was simply a postulate to explain two anomalies about ancient India: the caste system and the (almost) total loss of indigenous culture. I am suggesting that the two are related; that there is cause and effect or, rather, that the (proto) caste system was the mechanism of cultural genocide employed by the Vedic Aryans onto the native Dravidians.

there is absolutely no evidence of any caste formulation in the Rg Veda

These are proto-castes and, as such, not much different from the usual divine ruler, legitimized by an elite priesthood lording it over the masses. The only difference here is the strict control of the trans-generational cultural transmission and the successful suppression of any indigenous culture by the foreign priesthood.

and, since the argument for AIT requires the people to have been settled there having already lost the memory of their past because of assimilation as an explanation for them having absolutely no memory of having come from any foreign land.

The Aryan priesthood never lost any memory of where they came from; it was only the masses who were told that this Vedic culture was their own creation. To be fair, over time, it was influenced by local thinkers, but the original Vedic culture was an import, an imposition.

Even now, it is accepted that the Vedic culture is foreign to the South. All I am saying is that it was equally foreign to the North, but it happened a long time ago and that memory has been erased.

I don't know the history of the AIT so I am going out on a limb here, but I suspect there was always a faint generational memory of the ancient cultural conquest, complete with memories of a Southward migration of some native to try and preserve their indigenous culture. Over time, all that got misinterpreted -- or sensationalized -- into a massive physical conquest.

Again, simply conjecture.

Nor was spiritual & philosophical learning limited to the Brahmins with Kshatriyas being well versed with such thinking & in some cases being acclaimed masters.

These were later developments with the full blown caste system. By this time, the Aryan mission had been accomplished: the Vedic culture had obliterated almost all traces of the local culture and become the dominant culture of the land.

If they knew, they did not say anything & in any case, we are talking about rulers; supposedly Dravidian in your theory.

I am postulating the rulers to be Dravidian to minimize the Aryan footprint needed to accomplish the job. As long as they controlled the priesthood and culture. it didn't matter who ran the show ostensibly. The rulers were fine with this setup -- as all divinely ordained rulers had been throughout history -- because the masses were nicely controlled.

if aryan invasion was true , then they assimilated culture from the local populace

gave them their knowledge, took something from their culture

and now tell me wat did islamic invasion took from our culture , did it change a bit ????

The Aryans imposed their culture wholesale on the natives. They, like all invaders, would have taken on some aspects of the local culture but, over time, it has all gotten blurred into one mix. Muslims of the subcontinent have also taken on many Hindu customs in our daily rituals and special ceremonies. The Muslims of the subcontinent are culturally different from those of Indonesia or Saudi Arabia or Morocco.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I fully concede that that was simply a postulate to explain two anomalies about ancient India: the caste system and the (almost) total loss of indigenous culture. I am suggesting that the two are related; that there is cause and effect or, rather, that the (proto) caste system was the mechanism of cultural genocide employed by the Vedic Aryans onto the native Dravidians.



These are proto-castes and, as such, not much different from the usual divine ruler, legitimized by an elite priesthood lording it over the masses. The only difference here is the strict control of the trans-generational cultural transmission and the successful suppression of any indigenous culture by the foreign priesthood.



The Aryan priesthood never lost any memory of where they came from; it was only the masses who were told that this Vedic culture was their own creation. To be fair, over time, it was influenced by local thinkers, but the original Vedic culture was an import, an imposition.

Even now, it is accepted that the Vedic culture is foreign to the South. All I am saying is that it was equally foreign to the North, but it happened a long time ago and that memory has been erased.

I don't know the history of the AIT so I am going out on a limb here, but I suspect there was always a faint generational memory of the ancient cultural conquest, complete with memories of a Southward migration of some native to try and preserve their indigenous culture. Over time, all that got misinterpreted -- or sensationalized -- into a massive physical conquest.

Again, simply conjecture.



These were later developments with the full blown caste system. By this time, the Aryan mission had been accomplished: the Vedic culture had obliterated almost all traces of the local culture and become the dominant culture of the land.



I am postulating the rulers to be Dravidian to minimize the Aryan footprint needed to accomplish the job. As long as they controlled the priesthood and culture. it didn't matter who ran the show ostensibly. The rulers were fine with this setup -- as all divinely ordained rulers had been throughout history -- because the masses were nicely controlled.



The Aryans imposed their culture wholesale on the natives. They, like all invaders, would have taken on some aspects of the local culture but, over time, it has all gotten blurred into one mix. Muslims of the subcontinent have also taken on many Hindu customs in our daily rituals and special ceremonies. The Muslims of the subcontinent are culturally different from those of Indonesia or Saudi Arabia or Morocco.

Like the curate's egg, quite good in some parts. I have my own version, putting up which is on the agenda for today.

 

[Bang Galore]

Why? Because of the consequent age of the Saraswati, and because the Rg Veda must have seen it long before it declined, and therefore at some time anterior to 1500 BC? Not really that devastating; first, we are concerned only with its dying days, as the Rg Veda may have been a century older. If there is pottery ware in the river bed, and that pottery can be dated to 1200 BC, why must we not agree on 1300 BC for the river to have been in full flow?

That seems to be the problem. You seem to be basing your "agreeable" date on grounds other than archaeological. You are trying to make the date fit into a theory (nothing particularly wrong with that since there is not an absolute certainty of the date but is primarily a circular argument). The dates given by various sources( not just Mr.Lal) seems to suggest a 2100-1900 BCE or an even earlier, 3900 BCE(supported by studies done by people who have no interest in the Aryan theory,one way or the other). Do you agree that if either of the dates are correct then the complete idea of the AIT as propounded now, would require a rethink & extensive modification?

 

[Rig Vedic]

Since you don't pay attention, you missed my (very patient) explanation that the Aryan languages coming into India is not the subject matter for history, as it belongs to pre-historical periods. The linguists have made it their own.

Since you did reply to that little post, may it be pointed out that that doesn't say anything about whether the said linguists are any more competent or honest than the Eminences ...

Prima facie, one views them with the same skepticism as somebody trying to construct a conjectural PUA (proto-Urdu-Arabic) language. I do know that their claims are not uncontested. Maybe some day one will take a look at it.

 

[Bang Galore]

I fully concede that that was simply a postulate to explain two anomalies about ancient India: the caste system and the (almost) total loss of indigenous culture. I am suggesting that the two are related; that there is cause and effect or, rather, that the (proto) caste system was the mechanism of cultural genocide employed by the Vedic Aryans onto the native Dravidians.



These are proto-castes and, as such, not much different from the usual divine ruler, legitimized by an elite priesthood lording it over the masses. The only difference here is the strict control of the trans-generational cultural transmission and the successful suppression of any indigenous culture by the foreign priesthood.



The Aryan priesthood never lost any memory of where they came from; it was only the masses who were told that this Vedic culture was their own creation. To be fair, over time, it was influenced by local thinkers, but the original Vedic culture was an import, an imposition.

Even now, it is accepted that the Vedic culture is foreign to the South. All I am saying is that it was equally foreign to the North, but it happened a long time ago and that memory has been erased.

I don't know the history of the AIT so I am going out on a limb here, but I suspect there was always a faint generational memory of the ancient cultural conquest, complete with memories of a Southward migration of some native to try and preserve their indigenous culture. Over time, all that got misinterpreted -- or sensationalized -- into a massive physical conquest.

Again, simply conjecture.



These were later developments with the full blown caste system. By this time, the Aryan mission had been accomplished: the Vedic culture had obliterated almost all traces of the local culture and become the dominant culture of the land.



I am postulating the rulers to be Dravidian to minimize the Aryan footprint needed to accomplish the job. As long as they controlled the priesthood and culture. it didn't matter who ran the show ostensibly. The rulers were fine with this setup -- as all divinely ordained rulers had been throughout history -- because the masses were nicely controlled.



The Aryans imposed their culture wholesale on the natives. They, like all invaders, would have taken on some aspects of the local culture but, over time, it has all gotten blurred into one mix. Muslims of the subcontinent have also taken on many Hindu customs in our daily rituals and special ceremonies. The Muslims of the subcontinent are culturally different from those of Indonesia or Saudi Arabia or Morocco.

You may be right or you may be wrong, while there is no evidence that particularly supports the claims made, it is not something that can be dismissed completely as totally without basis and outside the realm of possibility. As Rumsfield said "Absence of proof is not proof of absence", we may never really know and your postulation is probably as good as any other.

Btw, the Kshatriyas were always seen as Aryan & more than any one else, seemed to revel in it. They wore a sacred thread similar(but not same) to what Brahmins wore(actually the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas & the Vaishyas wore the sacred thread & originally even the women wore it), so they being Dravidians is more unlikely but as you suggest, not impossible. The only question that could be asked is why there are absolutely no non-Aryan place & river names if they were being incorporated into a fold. Surely, someone back then would not have been worried about people thousands of years later scouring for proof of an Aryan-Dravidian divide. Your theory requires more to be done than what was probably necessary or indeed wise (no point in riling up people with complete changes, is there?) but as I have said earlier, cannot be completely ruled out. Improbable but not impossible.

 

[fai_]

of course option no.1, as Indians avoided their national security. The rulers of different states of India were always in a state of conflict so there was no unity also and most importantly when British came the Indian rulers trusted them blindly and from rulers they became slaves leaving all their knowledge and art behind...

 

[Developereo]

You may be right or you may be wrong, while there is no evidence that particularly supports the claims made, it is not something that can be dismissed completely as totally without basis and outside the realm of possibility. As Rumsfield said "Absence of proof is not proof of absence", we may never really know and your postulation is probably as good as any other.

True. My point was that the genetic studies and lack of prior culture are not quite the knock out blows to AIT as some may claim. There are possible explanations to account for these observations. I agree that, without supporting evidence, this stays in the realm of a vague postulate.

Btw, the Kshatriyas were always seen as Aryan & more than any one else, seemed to revel in it.

Everybody would want to be identified with the cultured classes, regardless of supporting genetics.

The only question that could be asked is why there are absolutely no non-Aryan place & river names if they were being incorporated into a fold. Surely, someone back then would not have been worried about people thousands of years later scouring for proof of an Aryan-Dravidian divide.

The cultural obliteration wasn't done for legacy's sake but for their own survival. The Aryans didn't want rebel cells cropping up wanting to revert to the native faiths.

 

[scorpionx]

Self Delete

 

[Joe Shearer]

No archaeological evidence only if you a-priori assume that the Saraswati settlements are non-Vedic, which leads to many other severe inconsistencies.

Linguists of the AIT school have apparently created from scratch an entirely conjectural PIE language .... not sure how well founded that exercise is. What if the Sanskritic words in European languages are loan words brought by migrating elites. For example, if you built a theory on the assumption that Urdu is a descendant of Arabic, that theory would have severe problems. I have not as yet looked into that debate.

There are no linguists of the AIT school; there are linguists, and there is a separate and self-contained department of linguistics in most eminent universities which are not dedicated to turning out technical babus. The 'Sanskritic' words in European languages are not brought by migrating elites, because their descent and their differences can be traced clearly, through historical times and historical records, through their split into Proto-European and Indo-Iranian, and their descent into the six language groups of Europe. The words that they possess that resemble Sanskrit words, strictly speaking, Vedic Sanskrit or Indo-Aryan words, are different in each language, and the differences can be traced using academic rules of change of language form through centuries. The split is broadly into Satam and Centum languages at the level of the split between European and Indo-Iranian; resemblances between European languages are greater than resemblances between any of them and any of the Indo-Iranian languages, and vice versa.

By citing the example of Urdu being a descendant of Arabic, again you display your colossal ignorance of anything and everything outside the BJP cultural and historical agenda. For your information, this is not grammatically possible, since the grammatical rules of Urdu happen to be strictly Indo-Aryan, and the grammatical rules of Arabic are shared with other languages of the Afro-Asiatic or Hamito-Semitic language family, the nearest equivalent to the Indo-European language family.

Do look into it. Judging by present performance, be sure to give it time. Say, a century or so.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Since you did reply to that little post, may it be pointed out that that doesn't say anything about whether the said linguists are any more competent or honest than the Eminences ...

Prima facie, one views them with the same skepticism as somebody trying to construct a conjectural PUA (proto-Urdu-Arabic) language. I do know that their claims are not uncontested. Maybe some day one will take a look at it.

Regarding the competency or honesty of the linguists, how would you know the difference? Do you have even the slightest inkling of what constitutes the academic discipline of linguistics? Or do you think that you can make the same a priori assumptions that you have made consistently about history, pre-history and archaeology equally, and make sense out of that?

Regarding a conjectural proto-Urdu-Arabic language, your ignorance shines forth again. Your impression that because Muslims speak Urdu, there will have been efforts to club Urdu with Arabic just shows what an unreconstructed bigot you are. Urdu, as already pointed out, and as even the slightly initiated into linguistics know, is an Indo-Aryan language in grammatical terms; it can do nothing more than share words with Arabic. There can never be a proto-Urdu-Arabic language, as these constituents differ at source itself. There can, however, be the Afro-Asiatic language family, which contains Arabic.

 

[Rig Vedic]

By citing the example of Urdu being a descendant of Arabic, again you display your colossal ignorance of anything and everything outside the BJP cultural and historical agenda.

uurrrgh ... before running off you could perhaps try to understand what was written.

The 'Sanskritic' words in European languages are not brought by migrating elites, because their descent and their differences can be traced clearly, through historical times and historical records, through their split into Proto-European and Indo-Iranian, and their descent into the six language groups of Europe.

You can't talk about splits without assuming a common parent, which is purely a conjecture. One would also have to consider alternative mechanisms. If you start out by assuming something your conclusions aren't evidence for your assumption. And if your rules were derived on the basis of assumptions about the nature of relationships between languages then the rules also become suspect. Anyway, that potential house of cards may be looked into on another occasion.

 

[vsdoc]

That was a low blow Doc.

I was referring to the group to which the guy giving me my character certificate belonged, not you guys.

I am done fighting with you guys (though I am peeved that Abii still insists on attacking India).

My point being, for my ancestors, Persian Zoroastrians, their faith came first.

And when faced with the choice of accepting the new faith of the Arab versus leaving their land of many millenia, they made a choice.

It was a choice they made.

And that should give people a glimpse into the power of the ancient faith.

You cannot doubt the bravery of a people who fought and won against foreign armies for millenia.

Against some of the most respected warriors of the ancient world.

Please remember that Persia finally succumbed 300 years AFTER we reached India.

It was NEVER meant to be a permanent move.

That's just how it happened eventually.

For those 300 years the men continued fighting. Being progressively driven deeper into the mountains of Khorasan where they made their last stand.

Of the 7 primary ancient fires of Persia, the last (of 5 - two still remain in Iran) was finally shifted by sea when all was lost and the rest of the populace converted.

The Parsis in 1000 AD realized that there was now no going back.

They lived in peace for 600 years in Gujarat till Aurangazeb decided that it was time to stamp out the fire worshippers once and for all.

At which time the Parsis broke their promise and lifted their arms one more time to join the Hindu forces.

My family has sponsored a genealogy project which is ongoing, from which I came to know that my ancestor at the time raised 10 lakh rupees (in those days) for funding Shivaji as they joined forces.

Bottom line - we will choose anything in life, even death, over accepting Islam.

Hope that clears the air.