Aryans: Religion and Genetics

[VitalOne]

The Aryan-Invasion theory really makes no sense. It seems completely made up, fictional. There are no historical records of it at all. Archeologists fail to provide evidence of it. I'm really wondering what the real 'evidence' of the Aryan Invision is.

If there are genetic similarities between Northern Indians and Europeans, that is expected, as Europe is further North....

 

[lightgigantic]

if you give creedence to the vedas as a self evident authority you can find there is no substance to the Aryan invasion theory - there appears to be a backlog of eurocentric doctoring to suggest

It is generally accepted that Buddha appeared about 2,500 years ago, and we know that Lord Buddha preached against the Vedas. So the Vedas had to have been existing at least until then - it seems difficult to understand how a society can socialize around the vedas (with all the complex details of social duties and rituals) so quickly just in time to completely reject it for the wake of buddhism

here's a few points

The Indus valley culture was pronounced pre-Aryans for several reasons that were largely part of the cultural milieu of nineteenth century European thinking As scholars following Max Mullar had decided that the Aryans came into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus valley culture was earlier than this, they concluded that it had to be pre-Aryan. Yet the rationale behind the late date for the Vedic culture given by Muller was totally speculative. Max Muller, like many of the Christian scholars of his era, believed in Biblical chronology. This placed the beginning of the world at 400 BC and the flood around 2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it became difficult to get the Aryans in India before 1500 BC.

Muller's great contribution to the aryan theory is the word itself

In 1848 the young German scholar Friedrich Max Müller (1823-1900) settled in Oxford , where he remained for the rest of his life. ... About 1853 he introduced into the English language the unlucky term Aryan as applied to a large group of languages.... Moreover, Max Müller threw another apple of discord. He introduced a proposition that is demonstrably false. He spoke not only of a definite Aryan language and its descendents, but also of a corresponding 'Aryan race'. The idea was rapidly taken up both in Germany and in England. It affected to some extent a certain number of the nationalistic and romantic writers, none of whom had any ethnological training.... In England and America the phrase 'Aryan race' has quite ceased to be used by writers with scientific knowledge, though it appears occasionally in political and propagandist literature. In Germany the idea of the 'Aryan' race found no more scientific support than in England. Nonetheless, it found able and very persistent literary advocates who made it very flattering to local vanity. It therefore spread, fostered by special conditions

which translates as something else, at least by standard definitions

The word 'Arya' in Sanskrit means noble and never a race. In fact, the authoritative Sanskrit lexicon (c. 450 AD), the famous Amarakosa gives the following definition:



mahakula kulinarya sabhya sajjana sadhavah.



An Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct.



And the great epic Ramayana has a singularly eloquent expression describing Rama as: arya sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah.



Arya, who worked for the equality of all and was dear to everyone. The Rigveda also uses the word Arya something like thirty six times, but never to mean a race. The nearest to a definition that one can find in the Rigveda is probably:



praja arya jyotiragrah ... (Children of Arya are led by light) RV, VII. 33.17



The word 'light' should be taken in the spiritual sense to mean enlightenment. The word Arya, according to those who originated the term, is to be used to describe those people who observed a code of conduct; people were Aryans or non-Aryans depending on whether or not they followed this code. This is made entirely clear in the Manudharma Shastra or the Manusmriti (X.43-45):

Aryan was taken to mean "light skinned person" - very conducive for generating a theory about racial drifts but not at all aligned with anything in the vedas -

Next there is the issue of dating

Muller therefore assumed that the five layers of the four 'Vedas' & 'Upanishads' were each composed in 200 year periods before the Buddha at 500 BC. However, there are more changes of language in Vedic Sanskrit itself than there are in classical Sanskrit since Panini, also regarded as a figure of around 500 BC, or a period of 2500 years. Hence it is clear that each of these periods could have existed for any number of centuries and that the 200 year figure is totally arbitrary and is likely too short a figure.

Meanwhile, it was also pointed out that in the middle of the second millennium BC, a number of Indo-European invasions apparently occured in the Middle East, wherein Indo-European peoples - the Hittites, Mittani and Kassites - conquered and ruled Mesopotamia for some centuries. An Aryan invasion of India would have been another version of this same movement of Indo-European peoples. On top of this, excavators of the Indus valley culture, like Wheeler, thought they found evidence of destruction of the culture by an outside invasion confirming this.

The Vedic culture was thus said to be that of primitive nomads who came out of Central Asia with their horse-drawn chariots and iron weapons and overthrew the cities of the more advanced Indus valley culture, with their superior battle tactics. It was pointed out that no horses, chariots or iron was discovered in Indus valley sites.

This was how the Aryan invasion theory formed and has remained since then. Though little has been discovered that confirms this theory, there has been much hesitancy to question it, much less to give it up.

while according to the dates given in the Vedas .....

Vedic and late Vedic texts also contain interesting astronomical lore. The Vedic calender was based upon astronomical sightings of the equinoxes and solstices. Such texts as 'Vedanga Jyotish' speak of a time when the vernal equinox was in the middle of the Nakshtra Aslesha (or about 23 degrees 20 minutes Cancer). This gives a date of 1300 BC. The 'Yajur Veda' and 'Atharva Veda' speak of the vernal equinox in the Krittikas (Pleiades; early Taurus) and the summer solstice (ayana) in Magha (early Leo). This gives a date about 2400 BC. Yet earlier eras are mentioned but these two have numerous references to substantiate them. They prove that the Vedic culture existed at these periods and already had a sophisticated system of astronomy. Such references were merely ignored or pronounced unintelligible by Western scholars because they yielded too early a date for the 'Vedas' than what they presumed, not because such references did not exist.

ignoring statements seemed to be a trend of the colonial pioneers

Vedic texts like 'Shatapatha Brahmana' and 'Aitereya Brahmana' that mention these astronomical references list a group of 11 Vedic Kings, including a number of figures of the 'Rig Veda', said to have conquered the region of India from 'sea to sea'. Lands of the Aryans are mentioned in them from Gandhara (Afganistan) in the west to Videha (Nepal) in the east, and south to Vidarbha (Maharashtra). Hence the Vedic people were in these regions by the Krittika equinox or before 2400 BC. These passages were also ignored by Western scholars and it was said by them that the 'Vedas' had no evidence of large empires in India in Vedic times. Hence a pattern of ignoring literary evidence or misinterpreting them to suit the Aryan invasion idea became prevalent, even to the point of changing the meaning of Vedic words to suit this theory.

meanwhile the archeological and anthropological anomolies continue to sprout up ...

The Indus Valley culture had a form of writing, as evidenced by numerous seals found in the ruins. It was also assumed to be non-Vedic and probably Dravidian, though this was never proved. Now it has been shown that the majority of the late Indus signs are identical with those of later Hindu Brahmi and that there is an organic development between the two scripts. Prevalent models now suggest an Indo-European base for that language.

 

[Prince_James]

Light Gigantic:

From whence are you quoting?

Also, what is your direct response to the genetic (haplogroup R1A1 as well as the other genetic information presented) and linguistic (Finno-Ugric influences in Sanskrit, no Dravidian in Indo-European generalized) as well as archaeological data given?

Moreover, many of the dates given for the Vedas in your statement connect with the Aryan invasion theories, specifically the "1,300 BC".

The Persian Empire certainly considered "Aryan" a race, according to this Zoroastrianism website: http://saga.zoroastrianism.com/disclm33.html

 

[UltiTruth]

Light Gigantic:
...
Also, what is your direct response to the genetic (haplogroup R1A1 as well as the other genetic information presented) and linguistic (Finno-Ugric influences in Sanskrit, no Dravidian in Indo-European generalized) as well as archaeological data given?

Moreover, many of the dates given for the Vedas in your statement connect with the Aryan invasion theories, specifically the "1,300 BC".

Well, if I may respond, none of this is substantiated. All it is, is to decide upon a hypothesis based on personal leaning, gather some convenient data, add in some mitochondrial DNA stuff, put in some chi-squared and regression analysis and present the findings to the 'scientific community'! Having been a scientist myself in a different field, I know one can nicely build & interpret findings to prove your point, whichever it is- especially in a complex area as this, and one that needs no substantiation at all.

Why have been these great scientific minds unscuccessful yet in deciphering the script of the Indus valley civilization- is it because they have to have some genuine results to be achieved other than merely posting a hypothesis and building data around it?

And why is it that migration about India is always to be inward? Why for once, do we not prove a hypothesis on migration of "Aryans", one sect of the native Indians to Central Asia and then to Europe? And having carried Sanskrit along, to be the precursor for all the IE languages? Why is a sophisticated, living language as Sanskrit to be an off-shoot of some supposed-to-be extinct western language? And despite being deeply ingrained in the literature and life of the people of India, this still has to be some external party's gift to them?

The Persian Empire certainly considered "Aryan" a race, according to this Zoroastrianism website: http://saga.zoroastrianism.com/disclm33.html

Did the version of the website that existed during the Persian empire say so too? And does the existence of the term "Aryan" prove the migration?

I think debunking the invasion theories needs breaking out of the colonial frameworks and start thinking of fresh new hypotheses.

 

[UltiTruth]

And why did life have to originate only Africa?

 

[Prince_James]

Ultitruth:

I fail to see how 400 years of linguistic research wedded to cutting edge DNA analysis is "not substantiated". Specifically on the linguistic front, you'd be hard pressed to find ANY study as thorough.

Why have been these great scientific minds unscuccessful yet in deciphering the script of the Indus valley civilization- is it because they have to have some genuine results to be achieved other than merely posting a hypothesis and building data around it?

It took a Rosetta stone to translate into Greek. It will take something similar to be able to decipher the writings of the INdus Valley civilization. A script has little, if any, explanation of its semantic content in its syntax.

And why is it that migration about India is always to be inward? Why for once, do we not prove a hypothesis on migration of "Aryans", one sect of the native Indians to Central Asia and then to Europe? And having carried Sanskrit along, to be the precursor for all the IE languages? Why is a sophisticated, living language as Sanskrit to be an off-shoot of some supposed-to-be extinct western language? And despite being deeply ingrained in the literature and life of the people of India, this still has to be some external party's gift to them?

First off: Sanskrit is not a "living language". Sanskrit is as dead as Latin and as scholarly of a pursuit. No one speaks or writes in Sanskrit any longer.

Secondly, note the Finno-Ugric consideration. Also, the total lack of Dravidian loan-words in the other Indo-European languages. This makes India an unlikely origin of Indo-European.

Third, there is archaeological evidence in the Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses to conclude that India is not the origin of the Indo-European people.

Did the version of the website that existed during the Persian empire say so too? And does the existence of the term "Aryan" prove the migration?

I think debunking the invasion theories needs breaking out of the colonial frameworks and start thinking of fresh new hypotheses.

The references are from the Persian emperor who inscribed the "Aryan, son of an Aryan" as well as the Avesta (holy text of Zoroastrianism).

So yes, the "Persian Empire version of the website" said this.

And why did life have to originate only Africa?

Your point?

 

[UltiTruth]

Ultitruth:

I fail to see how 400 years of linguistic research wedded to cutting edge DNA analysis is "not substantiated". Specifically on the linguistic front, you'd be hard pressed to find ANY study as thorough.

First the Europeans who landed in India 400 years back were surprised to discover a language so evolved; then they fitted it into their own belief that they were a superior race and were more evolved. How much of the 400 years of linguistic research managed to be free of this bias?
And why don't the cutting edges ever agree?

It took a Rosetta stone to translate into Greek. It will take something similar to be able to decipher the writings of the INdus Valley civilization. A script has little, if any, explanation of its semantic content in its syntax.

I could be naive, but shouldn't it be an easier task for the great minds to decipher the writings, compared to proving migration theories based on genetic make-up?

First off: Sanskrit is not a "living language". Sanskrit is as dead as Latin and as scholarly of a pursuit. No one speaks or writes in Sanskrit any longer.

Well, as compared to the mythical and supposedly extinct precursors of Sanskrit that the hypotheses put together, Sanskrit is very much alive, given that it is actively learnt and spoken in some small circles, and is an essential component of most Indian languages. But you are right, strictly speaking.

Secondly, note the Finno-Ugric consideration. Also, the total lack of Dravidian loan-words in the other Indo-European languages. This makes India an unlikely origin of Indo-European.

Are you sure we cannot have any reasonable hypotheses to explain this? Mine would be that the migration from India happened much before the Dravidian loaning started. And that loaning itself was not too common a phenomenon- Tamil, a dravidian language does not have too much of Sanskrit influence even today.

Third, there is archaeological evidence in the Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses to conclude that India is not the origin of the Indo-European people.

Can you explain what kind of evidence?

The references are from the Persian emperor who inscribed the "Aryan, son of an Aryan" as well as the Avesta (holy text of Zoroastrianism).
So yes, the "Persian Empire version of the website" said this.

Arya or Aryan just means an elder/respected being semantically.This does not translate to a race.

Your point?

My hypothesis would be that life and humans originated in India. And this has as much real substantiation as for the origination in Africa.

 

[Prince_James]

UltiTruth:

First the Europeans who landed in India 400 years back were surprised to discover a language so evolved; then they fitted it into their own belief that they were a superior race and were more evolved. How much of the 400 years of linguistic research managed to be free of this bias?
And why don't the cutting edges ever agree?

Funny: If this were the case, you'd imagine the theories would pop up immediatly. But any theory of an Aryan race didn't come till the mid-19th century, after Europeans had been in contact with India for 200 years.

Also, the linguistics research is -continued- to be held in high esteem. It is one of the most well researched, well done, aspects of linguistics in this world.

I could be naive, but shouldn't it be an easier task for the great minds to decipher the writings, compared to proving migration theories based on genetic make-up?

Not at all, considering languages do not come with semantics. A language without living speakers or a Rosetta stone is unreadable.

Well, as compared to the mythical and supposedly extinct precursors of Sanskrit that the hypotheses put together, Sanskrit is very much alive, given that it is actively learnt and spoken in some small circles, and is an essential component of most Indian languages. But you are right, strictly speaking.

Mythical? Not mythical at all. It is found in every language in the Indo-European. They've even been able to construct entire stories in proto-Indo-European.

Are you sure we cannot have any reasonable hypotheses to explain this? Mine would be that the migration from India happened much before the Dravidian loaning started. And that loaning itself was not too common a phenomenon- Tamil, a dravidian language does not have too much of Sanskrit influence even today.

Dravidians show all the signs of being in close contact with the rest of the Indian population for millennia. Their influences on Indian languages outside of their own is all ready know, and though of course no language takes every aspect of a language upon themselves, generally one can tell in the formation of words, of odd phrases, et cetera, when some influence came to pass. In all but the Indian Indo-European langauges, there is not even a single trace. In all including the Indian languages, there are traces of Finno-Ugric. Why would even the Indian languages have Finno-Ugric if the migration was outward?

Can you explain what kind of evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis

Arya or Aryan just means an elder/respected being semantically.This does not translate to a race.

"Aryan countries" and references to blood and "son of" seem to indicate a less than "noble/respected" conception of Aryan in Persian.

My hypothesis would be that life and humans originated in India. And this has as much real substantiation as for the origination in Africa.

Save for the complete lack of evolutionary data for such, as well as the genetic proof that shows our common descent from Africans a hundred thousand years ago.

 

[everneo]

Aryan invasion of India is a myth created and nurtured by vested interests - colonial, evangelical and the left. New evidences proving that Aryans migrated from India indeed.

From India to Iran-Armenia-Russia, the steppes. The so called 'barbarians' built cities and spoken a language that was un-nomadic :

"This is the basis of the conclusion suggested by the Russian archeologists and linguistics (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1984; Grigoryev, 1996, 1998) that the Aryans migrated from Iran to Armenia and then to Russia; Aryans never came down from Russia to India. According to them, Aryans most possibly had started migrating from Iran in 8000BC. They had reached Balkan Peninsula and Anatolia in about 6000BC and had reached Russian steppes in Chelyabinsk in about 4000BC. By that time, they had very advanced urban civilization, not at all nomadic in any way. The Indo-Europeanization of the Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine lasted for a long time, from the Neolithic to the beginning of the Iron Age. In the Middle Bronze Age Indo-Aryans came to Bulgaria, former Yugoslavia, and Greece. Russian archeologists were not aware of the Sindhu-Saraswati civilization or Dwarka. I have drawn the attention of Prof.Grigoryev to these ruins, perhaps in future he and his team will prove the migration of the Aryans had started from India, not from Iran. "

Submerged ancient city "Dwaraka" in the Gulf of Cambay :

"Ruins of Dwarka also show a very advanced civilization of at least 4000 years old, which could not be formed by semi-nomadic Aryans coming down from central Asia in 1500BC. The city originally itself could be about 6000 years old. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in his essay ‘Is Krisna a historical figure’ (in ‘Krisna Charita’) has calculated the time of the war described in Mahavarat. According to him, the war took place in about 3700BC. "

Indo-Aryans in Japan before Mongols :

"Undersea ruins near Yonaguni Island stand 25 meters tall and 100 meters long. This megalithic structure was artificially formed. There are a number of these types of ruins off the coast of Okinawa. However, this one in Yonaguni is the largest, and the only authenticated one. The structure of the buildings are not Mongolian in character but related to the ruins of India, Middle East and Egypt.

The ancient people of Japan were not Mongolian, but Indo-Aryans; Mongolians began to migrate to Japan about 2000 years ago. The decendants of the ancient Indo-Aryans of Japan, Aino people, are still there in the northern island of Hokkaido; they have distinct Indo-Aryan physical features. "

- http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_051212.htm

 

[Prince_James]

Everneo:

How about you respond directly to some of the evidence shown before?

 

[UltiTruth]

UltiTruth:

Funny: If this were the case, you'd imagine the theories would pop up immediatly. But any theory of an Aryan race didn't come till the mid-19th century, after Europeans had been in contact with India for 200 years.

That proves my point. The Indus civilization was discovered in 1920s and that is exactly when the Europeans got insecure to bring up the AIT.
Even otherwise, I don't see the urgency for the theories to pop up immediately.

Also, the linguistics research is -continued- to be held in high esteem. It is one of the most well researched, well done, aspects of linguistics in this world.

We can continue to hold it in high esteem; only we might not agree with the theory. And on what basis do you certify the research?

Not at all, considering languages do not come with semantics. A language without living speakers or a Rosetta stone is unreadable.

What is there to research if the keys come bundled?
And what Rosetta stone is there to decipher the genes and make theories? - there is work to be done both places. I see most of these half-boiled genetics theories only a little less successful than the various attempts to decipher the Indus script.

Mythical? Not mythical at all. It is found in every language in the Indo-European. They've even been able to construct entire stories in proto-Indo-European.

Exactly, I am saying they are stories too.
Why don't we begin with the hypothesis of Sanskrit being the mother language than trying to imagine another extinct one that is the mother of all? Is it because we are too reluctant to accept that, or is it on a scientific basis?

How about Prakrit, if I may? This is supposed to have given rise to Sanskrit after multiple iterations.

Dravidians show all the signs of being in close contact with the rest of the Indian population for millennia. Their influences on Indian languages outside of their own is all ready know, and though of course no language takes every aspect of a language upon themselves, generally one can tell in the formation of words, of odd phrases, et cetera, when some influence came to pass.

This is too general a statement.

In all but the Indian Indo-European langauges, there is not even a single trace. In all including the Indian languages, there are traces of Finno-Ugric. Why would even the Indian languages have Finno-Ugric if the migration was outward?

I would then postulate that the migration of Sanskrit outward from India happened much before the dravidian influence started showing.
And that Finno-Ugric has been influenced by Sanskrit the way the Indian languages you mention have been.

Also it is perfectly possible that two contiguous languages stay isolated and not influence each other significantly. Like I said, look at Sanskrit and Tamil - little influence; Sanskrit & Telugu - much influence.
I believe these theories are based on an assumption that a geography (i.e., India) can have only one kind of culture and language at a time.
Can't there be multiple human tribes in the same geography; and hence multiple languages and cultures co-existing? For an example from the animal world, don't baboons and chimps co-exist in the same forests today?
And don't Indian epics talk about different kinds of populations and kingdoms- including ape-liked tailed 'vanaras'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis

This link substaniates a theory much better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_Theory

"Aryan countries" and references to blood and "son of" seem to indicate a less than "noble/respected" conception of Aryan in Persian.

Please read your own link: http://saga.zoroastrianism.com/disclm33.html . It clearly says that Aryan is not a race, but refers to the righteous!

Save for the complete lack of evolutionary data for such, as well as the genetic proof that shows our common descent from Africans a hundred thousand years ago.

All current genetic proof is too preliminary to be called proof.
I find it so funny to believe that there was one woman in Africa (don't remember her name!) who was the mother of all humans on the earth. Why couldn't there have been numerous human-related populations in various pockets of the earth, the way animals are now distributed that evolved independently? Don't we have polar bears and tropical bears that have genetic similarities but need not have been born from a single old bear in Africa?
But it is so easy to make a theory, isn't it? Sounds like some of the archaeology shows in UK where they show a scar on an excavated object and build a story on when and how an injury happened and the religious basis for the injury and so on.
Thanks.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Sanskrit cannot possibly be the progenitor of the entire Indo-European family. Sanksrit falls clearly into the "Satem," or eastern branch of that family. It is named Satem, the Sanskrit word for "hundred," precisely because in all the Satem languages (which include the Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic groups as well as some loners like Armenian) the original K in the pIE word *kmtom has been palatalized into S. (E.g, Russian sto.)

In the Kentum, or western, branch of the family, the K survived into Latin centum, after which the branch is named, Greek hekaton, Gaelic cead, etc. Palatalization is a strong force and many of those K's have subsequently bitten the dust in interesting ways. S in Portuguese cento, TH in Spanish ciento, CH in Italian cento, and, in accordance with Grimm's Law, H in all the Germanic languages including our hundred.

The point is that the original K is in the Western languages whereas Sanskrit contains the evolved form, so Sanskrit cannot have been the original language. There is no such thing as un-palatalization. No S has ever evolved into a K in any language.

Sanskrit is merely one of many ancient Indo-European languages that evolved independently during the Indo-European diaspora. And one of the very few that was written down. We have no records of proto-Germanic or proto-Celtic.

I can't tell when the Indic and Iranian sub-branches split off from Indo-Iranian. I'm not even sure that Sanskrit is the progenitor of Farsi. But it's definitely not the progenitor of the Romance, Celtic, Germanic, Albanian and Greek languages of Europe. Sounds change because of the physiology of our vocal apparatus: K changes to S but never vice versa.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sanskrit cannot possibly be the progenitor of the entire Indo-European family. Sanksrit falls clearly into the "Satem," or eastern branch of that family. It is named Satem, the Sanskrit word for "hundred," precisely because in all the Satem languages (which include the Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic groups as well as some loners like Armenian) the original K in the pIE word *kmtom has been palatalized into S. (E.g, Russian sto.)

In the Kentum, or western, branch of the family, the K survived into Latin centum, after which the branch is named, Greek hekaton, Gaelic cead, etc. Palatalization is a strong force and many of those K's have subsequently bitten the dust in interesting ways. S in Portuguese cento, TH in Spanish ciento, CH in Italian cento, and, in accordance with Grimm's Law, H in all the Germanic languages including our hundred.

The point is that the original K is in the Western languages whereas Sanskrit contains the evolved form, so Sanskrit cannot have been the original language. There is no such thing as un-palatalization. No S has ever evolved into a K in any language.

Sanskrit is merely one of many ancient Indo-European languages that evolved independently during the Indo-European diaspora. And one of the very few that was written down. We have no records of proto-Germanic or proto-Celtic.

I can't tell when the Indic and Iranian sub-branches split off from Indo-Iranian. I'm not even sure that Sanskrit is the progenitor of Farsi. But it's definitely not the progenitor of the Romance, Celtic, Germanic, Albanian and Greek languages of Europe. Sounds change because of the physiology of our vocal apparatus: K changes to S but never vice versa.

what is your source for this? Sounds like something from the mid 19th century

 

[Prince_James]

Fraggle Rocker:

Great post. Thank you.

Ultitruth:

That proves my point. The Indus civilization was discovered in 1920s and that is exactly when the Europeans got insecure to bring up the AIT.
Even otherwise, I don't see the urgency for the theories to pop up immediately.

The Indus Valley Civilization has done nothing to show that Indian civilization was not Indo-European in nature. It did somewhat take part of the thrust out of an outright military toppling. The newest genetic evidence relating to R1A1 also points towards a more ancient Indo-European population.

We can continue to hold it in high esteem; only we might not agree with the theory. And on what basis do you certify the research?

What basis? The continued development over 400 years to fully satisfy practically every consideration of the Indo-European languages. A linguistic juggernaut that is more certain than almost anything else in all of the humanities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_Languages

What is there to research if the keys come bundled?

The keys come bundled? Evidently not, as there is no translation available for any of the Indus-Valley things. It is indecipherable at present and may be forever.

And what Rosetta stone is there to decipher the genes and make theories? - there is work to be done both places. I see most of these half-boiled genetics theories only a little less successful than the various attempts to decipher the Indus script.

Genetics can be tested today. Linguistics can be tested today. Archaeology can be tested today.

You can litterally go to India and go to Russia and find the same haplogroups. Yuo can even find mutations and such shared by these people on the haplogroups.

Why don't we begin with the hypothesis of Sanskrit being the mother language than trying to imagine another extinct one that is the mother of all? Is it because we are too reluctant to accept that, or is it on a scientific basis?

Because the linguistic theories prove that it is not. No historical (in the historical period) is. If you want to call Sanskrit the origin, you can do the same for Greek, or Celtic, or Persian..

How about Prakrit, if I may? This is supposed to have given rise to Sanskrit after multiple iterations.

See above.

This is too general a statement.

It is nonetheless true.

I would then postulate that the migration of Sanskrit outward from India happened much before the dravidian influence started showing.
And that Finno-Ugric has been influenced by Sanskrit the way the Indian languages you mention have been.

It was not Finno-Ugric that was influenced by Sanskrit. It was Sanskrit that was influenced by Finno-Ugric. Finno-Ugric shows no connections to Sanskrit directly.

Also it is perfectly possible that two contiguous languages stay isolated and not influence each other significantly. Like I said, look at Sanskrit and Tamil - little influence; Sanskrit & Telugu - much influence.
I believe these theories are based on an assumption that a geography (i.e., India) can have only one kind of culture and language at a time.

No linguist has ever claimed such. Ever.

Can't there be multiple human tribes in the same geography; and hence multiple languages and cultures co-existing? For an example from the animal world, don't baboons and chimps co-exist in the same forests today?
And don't Indian epics talk about different kinds of populations and kingdoms- including ape-liked tailed 'vanaras'?

In the West we have satyrs, nymphs, and faeries. If you want to accord mythological creatures validity...We even have some families (the MacLeods) who claim descent from the latter.

And no one says that various people cannot coexist.

This link substaniates a theory much better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_Theory

And is discreditted by every major scholarly source. The Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses, on the other hand, are accepted to a wide extent and have much more proof.

The majority of Out of Indian Theories are based in pseudo-scientific Vedic-based nationalism. The same sort of nonsense that allows for ancient atomic bombs.

David Frawley lets his religion get in the way of proper research.

Please read your own link: http://saga.zoroastrianism.com/disclm33.html . It clearly says that Aryan is not a race, but refers to the righteous!

"In you shines the Glory of the Aryans, created by Mazda !"

"Who lead, who fixed the lineage (nafo) of the Aryan Countries,"

"I am an Aryan, son of an Aryan."

"As such, being an Aryan in both Iran and India, meant following the path of Righteousness as well as being a proud member of the Aryan people."

All current genetic proof is too preliminary to be called proof.

Not at all. We have massive data.

You'll find that any scholarly source will agree with me.

I find it so funny to believe that there was one woman in Africa (don't remember her name!) who was the mother of all humans on the earth. Why couldn't there have been numerous human-related populations in various pockets of the earth, the way animals are now distributed that evolved independently?

Mithchondrial DNA makes this necessary. Moreover, human populations are not different species. Only different species evolve in different areas. The races of man certainly did breed in isolation, though.

Don't we have polar bears and tropical bears that have genetic similarities but need not have been born from a single old bear in Africa?

Not necessarily in Africa, but yes, all bears have a common ancestor millions of years ago.

 

[everneo]

Sanskrit cannot possibly be the progenitor of the entire Indo-European family. Sanksrit falls clearly into the "Satem," or eastern branch of that family. It is named Satem, the Sanskrit word for "hundred," precisely because in all the Satem languages (which include the Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic groups as well as some loners like Armenian) the original K in the pIE word *kmtom has been palatalized into S. (E.g, Russian sto.)

In the Kentum, or western, branch of the family, the K survived into Latin centum, after which the branch is named, Greek hekaton, Gaelic cead, etc. Palatalization is a strong force and many of those K's have subsequently bitten the dust in interesting ways. S in Portuguese cento, TH in Spanish ciento, CH in Italian cento, and, in accordance with Grimm's Law, H in all the Germanic languages including our hundred.

The point is that the original K is in the Western languages whereas Sanskrit contains the evolved form, so Sanskrit cannot have been the original language. There is no such thing as un-palatalization. No S has ever evolved into a K in any language.

Sanskrit is merely one of many ancient Indo-European languages that evolved independently during the Indo-European diaspora. And one of the very few that was written down. We have no records of proto-Germanic or proto-Celtic.

I can't tell when the Indic and Iranian sub-branches split off from Indo-Iranian. I'm not even sure that Sanskrit is the progenitor of Farsi. But it's definitely not the progenitor of the Romance, Celtic, Germanic, Albanian and Greek languages of Europe. Sounds change because of the physiology of our vocal apparatus: K changes to S but never vice versa.

Number 10 also palatalized in eastern branch (sanskrit and russian of slavic orgin).

'dasa' in sanskrit is 'ten'
'desyat' in russian
'deka' in greek


Palatalization of few words in the orginal language, whether it was spoken in steppes of russia or northern india, does not disqualify it as a possible progenitor of other IE languages.

 

[UltiTruth]

The Indus Valley Civilization has done nothing to show that Indian civilization was not Indo-European in nature. ... The newest genetic evidence relating to R1A1 also points towards a more ancient Indo-European population.

Sure. So this does not prove what was first, right?

What basis? The continued development over 400 years to fully satisfy practically every consideration of the Indo-European languages. A linguistic juggernaut that is more certain than almost anything else in all of the humanities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_Languages

Why is so much sophistication incapable of deciphering Indus script then?

The keys come bundled? Evidently not, as there is no translation available for any of the Indus-Valley things. It is indecipherable at present and may be forever.

And that means all the out-of-the-box theories are incomplete until then.

Genetics can be tested today. Linguistics can be tested today. Archaeology can be tested today.

Everything can be tested provided it doesn't need proof, and mere theories suffice?

You can litterally go to India and go to Russia and find the same haplogroups. Yuo can even find mutations and such shared by these people on the haplogroups.

These can be interpreted in one hundred ways.

Because the linguistic theories prove that it is not. No historical (in the historical period) is. If you want to call Sanskrit the origin, you can do the same for Greek, or Celtic, or Persian..

Absolutely. And none has real scientific proof right now. All current theories are based on large number of convenient assumptions.

It was not Finno-Ugric that was influenced by Sanskrit. It was Sanskrit that was influenced by Finno-Ugric. Finno-Ugric shows no connections to Sanskrit directly.

Again, a bunch of assumptions and interpretation.

No linguist has ever claimed such. Ever.

That is what I am saying too. We need a fresh open approach.

In the West we have satyrs, nymphs, and faeries. If you want to accord mythological creatures validity...We even have some families (the MacLeods) who claim descent from the latter.

That is again looking at it through western glasses.
So you rule out all of the epics and puranas as imagination, but are fine to believe in an imaginary now-extinct language that suits your fancy.

And no one says that various people cannot coexist.

Meaning Sanskrit and Dravidian languages could have co-existed without too much influence on one another too?

And is discreditted by every major scholarly source. The Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses, on the other hand, are accepted to a wide extent and have much more proof.

This depends on how you interpret "scholarly". My statistics say otherwise.

The majority of Out of Indian Theories are based in pseudo-scientific Vedic-based nationalism. The same sort of nonsense that allows for ancient atomic bombs.

These are not Indian theories, but often originally proposed by westerners (see wiki). Unfortunately Indians are so dumb to let valuable Indus sites to remain as dacoit hubs in Pakistan. Little do they care for their ancestry and roots.
And why do you think ancient atomic bombs need to be nonsense?

Not at all. We have massive data.

Massive, but inadequate.

You'll find that any scholarly source will agree with me.

"Scholarly" again!

Not necessarily in Africa, but yes, all bears have a common ancestor millions of years ago.

Again, an assumption. I am sure you agree scientific assumptions are not static in time.

Thanks.

 

[seeing_itself]

Aryan-Dravida clash

In my Humble Opinion--
The Theories of the world are everlasting simply because of the difference between FACTS and TRUTHS.
facts are only represented and presented matters coming out of the people who were victorious in a War, Conflict or Revolution of Era after era in any country or region.

Similarly, the Indian invasion of Aryans is Faulty and it was written by people, who never witnessed anything beyond the Sanskrit language based understanding of India. Just try the Ancient language called tamizh or tamil for instance. There is very little influence of the Sanskrit language, yet the so called Brahmins who were dubbed as Cross breeds between Locals/ natives and Aryans who came from PERSIA.

Now what I have researched about this whole issue is, even Adi Sankaracharya wrotesome classical texts under a pseudonym Dramilashishu or Dravidashishu. This definitely suggests he caleld himself a Dravida and not an Aryan.(Refer: Soundarya Lahiri---mentions himself as Dravidashishu)

As far as the Brahmana, Vysya, Shoodra and Kshatriya varnas are concerned even those were never about the colour or genetic structure of the persons, born anywhere in the world but about the Degreecal position of Moon in one's Astrological chart based on Birth time and place (lat-Lon) for each individual. Even a Minute change would reflect it in the person's varna.

Simple facts are distorted by the so called victors of each War and the facts of those who lost the battle goes into oblivion anyway.

BTW, Krishna's time was definitely around 3102 bc, and Dr B V Raman of Bangalore, has rightly set his death in the year 3102 and that was takena s the Birth of Kaliyuga as well.

The Cambay episode actually matches the theories of Robert Lomas and Christopher Knight's researched work in a book titled Uriel's machine, when they place a Global flood in which many countries changed shapes etc, around 7640 bc.