Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 11:17

Publication Date: Aug 13, 2008
Author: Max Nelson
The Barbarian's Beverage: A History of Beer in Ancient Europe

Another culture which, for Herodotus, as well as others, exemplified 'the other' was that of the Scythians, the nomadic pastoralist peoples who roamed throughout the Eurasian steppe from the Black Sea region all the way to China. Indeed Thucydides, the great fifth century BC Athenian historian, considered the Scythians, the least civilized of the Europeans, and in the Hippocratic work On Airs, Waters, Places, in which geography and climate are assumed to affect not only health and physique but also character, the Scythians, who figure prominently, are said to stunted, moist and soft, infertile, effeminate and diseased since lived in a cold climate. And as we saw, Plato cites the Scythians as his first example of overindulgers in drink, and other sources do the same.

Our first reference to peoples who live north of the Black Sea (later to be identified as Scythians) as in Homer, who speaks of the Mare-milkers who drink mare's milk. In our first reference to Scythians, they are called milk-drinkers, and many later authors also give them this epithet. Herodotus also says that the Scythians are milk-drinkers and seems to speak of them making fermented milk by having blind slaves agitating mare's milk and curdling it. One Hippocratic work also discusses the Scythian practice of agitating mare's milk to make cheese, butter, and presumably also a fermented product. Herodotus further says that the Scythians make a drink from the fruit of the Pontic tree, a type of cherry, and milk, but again does not specify whether or not it is intoxicating.

A few things I want to note here:

The Greeks considered the Scythians and their lifestyle as "the other". If Aryans were people in the image of Scythians - horse-riding pastoralists from Central Asia, why would they be considered strange?
The Scythians used to drink mare's milk. That is one of the basic requirement for all those who live with horses in their natural habitat. Any memory of cohabiting with horses in the steppes would include a reverence and love for mare's milk. There is none of it in the Rig Veda.
The Scythians do not only drink mare's milk, but they even had recipes revolving around mare's milk. I don't know of any recipe with mare's milk in the Rig Veda or any of our ancient scriptures.

As such Rig Veda cannot be a repository for memories of Indo-Aryans about their time in Central Asian steppes cohabiting with horses in their natural environment.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Jun 2012 11:21

Parhar ji
Swedish Tand = Punjabi Dand= Tooth
Swedish Naassan= Punjabi Nassan= Nose/Nostril,

Like Indians , they also have words to differentiate between Mamm, Chacha, Daada, Naana , Massi etc.

habal · Post by **habal** » 30 Jun 2012 12:53

Maybe the historians are trying to coverup for divine origin of man which is the real true origin of PIE. The Sapta Rishis could well be the progenitors of PIE. And the Nagas, progenitors of the africans, mesoamerican, and NEasian. Refer this for some ideas: http://whatisthepyramid.com/2009/08/30/ ... -reptiles/

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 14:55

I'm saying this with much hesitation, but it is something that one needs to comment on.

OIT is a serious proposition, just as AIT is a serious attack. So there are some types of arguments and propositions, which in fact weaken the claims of OIT. Even if the claims are not logically weakened, it gives the AIT-Nazis good material to ridicule OIT.

So I will try to make a list of propositions which weaken OIT.

1) Any line of argumentation which says that humans developed not through the more or less established theory of evolution and in the time-frames suggested by the theory. Now that theory itself may be vulnerable, but its weaknesses would have to be explored as a different subject. As such any suggestions based on mythology or fringe science or new age thinking should be taken up elsewhere.

2) As I have mentioned earlier, there are many ways to look at Hindu scriptures and they allow multiple readings at multiple levels. The spiritual or metaphysical aspect of the scriptures are not a subject of the discussion here. However mining and decoding the historical information in our scriptures is very much part of this debate. One needs to be however careful about what information is historical and what information is more of coded astronomical observations.

3) Though there is a tendency to look at our scriptures as very very old, some people throwing around figures of 100s of 1000s of years of even millions of years, which may or may not be true, but such dating is not part of this debate. Such dating detaches Indian Civilization from the chronology and evolution of other neighboring civilizations as well as from most of the archaeological evidence.

4) OIT is anchored in linear time and not in cyclic time.

Once OIT is established, then one can debate about the antiquity of Rig Veda, etc.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 Jun 2012 15:34

Absolutely correct. And one must also be wary of attempts to introduce something black in the dal, wittingly or otherwise.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 16:33

This is a book often quoted by scholars, and as such I am linking it here from the Open Library.

Publication: 1922
Author: F.E. Pargiter (1852-1927)
I.C.S. (Indian Civil Service), High Court Judge, Calcutta.
Retired 1906, Vice President of the Asiatic Society, London.
Ancient Indian historical tradition

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 18:23

A few leaves from the book above.

Ancient Indian Historical Traditions
Chapter 25: INFERENCES SUGGESTED BY TRADITIONAL HISTORY
Pages: 296-302

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 19:01

Now this Pargiter guy was not necessarily sympathetic to the Indians or reverent to their scriptures. Much of what he proposed was in fact directed at casting doubt at the genealogical lineages of India's itihaasic kings and placing them much later in the chronological order. He has also been criticized for that.

But he too is of the opinion that Aryans were indigenous to India, and became known in India as the Lunar race. Furthermore he says that Rshi families started off in Ayodhya, in the heart of India, and not in the Northwest part of India. Iinitially the Brahmins did not belong to the Aryans at all. Just the kshatriyas were known as Arya.

Of course the guy did not know about Sarasvati being a true river flowing through India, so his chronology does not go that further back as today we suppose. It is actually funny that he is not so well known.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2012 19:20

I think it would be more emphatic to prove something if we can find relationship to objects that was mentioned then to now. For example: Astrological elements or temporal objects, that is not part of Earth.

Sun, moon and stars that we can see today, should help us more definitively than the others. Is there references that would say tell time aspects from indics to greek and chinese use of say Sun as God?

And why would not man earlier than those religions or cultures known today, have considered Sun as God. Or when was the first 'God' concept evolved?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 19:44

Published December, 2009
By Subhash Kak
Archaeoastronomy in India

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2012 19:52

Gentle reminders:

1. Be cautious into buying into the "Ancient Indian writings are pale, distorted reflections of their true history" theme.

2. Writing our own history is important. But approaching Veda, Upanishad, Purana on a historical basis only is like consuming the mango skin only.

3. It may be more important for the future to revive Sanskrit literacy than to create The Authoritative History Of India.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2012 20:07

Also, when we consider a geographic map, there could be NSEW regions.. and when people from the North came down south, should not construe this as people from North outside the boundary or bharat/Indic region.

So, this is important..when we say Saraswati River is in now pakistan, which is NW.. and when we see some similarities in the culture between say in Vellalar community in TN, South, it does not mean that is the migration path scoped outside Indic region.

The point is, with a culture, and boundary, people are free to move, then the same theory does not hold good for people who come down and trade with indics. when they come down, they might bring in goods, articles, words, and other aspects... and that does not construe as migration path or something that could be used to premise a fact for invasion theory, either out of and to inside theories.

From a point Bangalore in Indic map, people from Indus valley move to this place, does sound like territorial migration. But this does not mean an invasion like totally different geographic and cultural invasion like Europeans.

Aryans are NW people of india is correct. Aryans are from Europe is wrong., unless Indic map was as big as that includes parts of Europe. European Aryans must prove India is as big as that to validate AIT.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 20:20

A_Gupta wrote:Gentle reminders:

1. Be cautious into buying into the "Ancient Indian writings are pale, distorted reflections of their true history" theme.

Yes we need to be cautious. No distortion should be implied unless the weight of knowledge from elsewhere in the scriptures, tilts the logic in favor of a reappraisal.

A_Gupta wrote:2. Writing our own history is important. But approaching Veda, Upanishad, Purana on a historical basis only is like consuming the mango skin only.

The "only" is unnecessary. That is why I proposed the split among Indics into two camps.

A_Gupta wrote:3. It may be more important for the future to revive Sanskrit literacy than to create The Authoritative History Of India.

There can be no authoritative history of India or any other place based on absolute truth claims. One can only speak of theories, or general consensus, or indications, all which should retain an error probability w.r.t. the truth. One can only say - "most likely" this and this happened.

The aim is to establish not an "Authoritative History of India" but a "National Narrative for Indian History", which can have many blank spots, but it should at least capture some chronological anchorage for the more important events in India's history as well as the social changes through that time.

Revival of Sanskrit remains an objective of paramount importance.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2012 20:27

I think tearing down lies and bluff where others have written the narrative is paramount and when I read that Pargiter stuff it just makes my resolve to tear down falsity stronger.

Some medium term aims
1. Get better at Sanskrit
2. Learn the methods that linguistics uses so I can critique "from the inside"

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2012 20:28

SaiK wrote: Aryans are NW people of india is correct. Aryans are from Europe is wrong., unless Indic map was as big as that includes parts of Europe. European Aryans must prove India is as big as that to validate AIT.

Who are Aryans?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 20:29

SaiK wrote:Aryans are NW people of india is correct. Aryans are from Europe is wrong.

Shrikant Talageri (2009) is of the view that Aryans point of origin lie in Haryana, West U.P.; and F.E. Pargiter (1922) thinks they built their power-base starting off even further East, and that they did not enter India through the North-West and certainly not by invasion from there. F.E. Pargiter's may not fully have believed in the autochthonous origin of Indo-Aryans, but his theory goes against the model proposed by AIT. He says:

F.E. Pargiter wrote:Moreover tradition explains why the sacred land of the Aryans was the region north of the mid-Himalayas

So Aryans are not from the North-West! .... (according to them)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2012 20:55

When spencer wells took DNA samples from vellalar tribes near madurai, TN, and linked them up to African DNA samples, gives some kind of evolution map. But, one comes to stories and definitions, there could be some facts and some conversions.

For example vellalar (alar - ruler/conqueror) could mean Vel or Vell(am) - Lance or Water. If Lance (Vel - skanda ), my expectations are that Lance users are mostly southerners.. and thus the name.

When you consider Vellam - water, and possibly linking to Velir or people migrated from Dwarka, then one could consider that they conquered the vellam - water deluge, and was able to come down south.. also it could mean, rulers of the wet land, meaning, agriculture.

So, how do we establish timelines from these type of stories? Would there be the other way around, that Vellar people became Velirs, and migrated to Dwarka, earlier? if that would mean something near correct, then I have an origin in terms of timeline and migration direction.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2012 21:31

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QivjsTY4lBM

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2012 21:32

shiv wrote:Who are Aryans?

Nazzis.

.

But from the definitions too, it could be faith-fools. .. who can never be a traitor to religion or country. going by that definition alone, he can never-ever be migrating.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 21:39

By Dr. Koenraad Elst
Linguistic aspects of the Aryan non-invasion theory

3.6. The peculiar case of "Sindhu"

Among IA-looking river names, a case can be made for surprising IE etymologies of names usually explained as loans. In particular, sindhu might be an "Indo-Iranian coinage with the meaning 'border river, ocean' and fits Paul Thieme's etymology from the IE root *sidh, 'to divide'". (1999/1:387) Now, if the Vedic Aryans only entered India in the 2nd millennium BC, the name Sindhu cannot be older than that.

According to Oleg Trubachov (1999), elaborating on a thesis by Kretschmer (1944), Indo-Aryan was spoken in Ukraine as late as the Hellenistic period, by two tribes knows as the Maiotes and the Sindoi, the latter also known by its Scythian/Iranian-derived name Indoi and explicitly described by Hesychius as "an Indian people". They seem to have used a word sinu, from sindhu, for "river", a general meaning which it also has in some Vedic verses. Trubachov lists a number of personal and place names recorded by Greek authors (e.g. Kouphes for the Kuban river, apparently a re-use of kubh, the Kabul river, Greek Kophes), and concludes that the Maiotes and Sindoi spoke an Indo-Aryan dialect, though often with -l- instead of -r-, as in king Saulios, cfr. sûrya (just the opposite from Mitannic, where palita, "grey", and pingala, "reddish", appear as parita and pinkara) and with -pt- simplified to -tt- (so that, just like in Mitannic, sapta appears as satta, a feature described by Misra 1992 as "Middle IA").

Working within the AIT framework, Kretschmer saw these Sindoi as a left-over of the Indo-Aryans in their original homeland, and even as a splendid proof of the Pontic homeland theory (Trubachov is less committed to any particular homeland hypothesis). In that case, again, the name sindhu (and likewise kubh) would be an Indo-Aryan word brought into India by the Vedic-Aryan invaders.

However, Witzel himself (1999/2:$1.9) notes that the Sumerians (who recorded a handful of words from "Meluhha"/Sindh, which incidentally seem neither IA nor Dravidian) in the 3rd millennium already knew the name sindhu as referring to the lower basin of the Indus river, then the most accessible part of the Harappan civilization, whence they imported "sinda" wood. If this is not a coincidental look-alike, then either sindhu is a word of non-IE origin already used by the non-IE Harappans, in which case the Pontic Sindoi were migrants from India (demonstrating how earlier the Kurganites might have migrated from India?); or sindhu was an IE word, and proves that the Harappan civilization down to its coastline was already IA-speaking.

This is a good riddle!

Two facts:
- People in Ukraine (Maiotes and the Sindoi), who speak Indo-Aryan languages, refer to 'river' as 'sinu' in Hellenistic Period (323 BCE - 31 BCE)
- People in Sumer (Sumerians) call wood imported from lower Indus River basin, 'sinda' wood in 3rd millennium BCE.

So is the word 'Sindhu' of Indo-Aryan origin or non-Indo-Aryan origin, as per AIT?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2012 21:46

Who named us Hindus?

I think we should begin the usage of the word Aryan without an hyphenation like indo-aryan, indo-eruopean etc.. cause, these hyphenation itself imposes wrong theories.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 21:54

Saik ji,

Here such terms as 'Indo-Aryan', etc. are used when one is discussing something in context of the AIT/AMT.

Term 'Vedic-Aryans' is used in Talageri Model of OIT, when trying to differentiate between the patrons of the composers of Rig Veda from other tribes in the region, e.g. from other tribes of the Lunar Dynasty, i.e. for a time when the term 'Arya' was limited in its scope and pertained to a single ruling dynasty - the Lunar Dynasty.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jun 2012 23:07

Published: 1900
Author: Arthur A. MacDonnell
A History of Sanskrit Literature

Page 10

History is the one weak spot in Indian literature. It is, in fact, nonexistent. The total lack of the historical sense is so characteristic, that the whole course of Sanskrit literature is darkened by the shadow of this defect, suffering as it does from an entire absence of exact chronology.

This is quite a famous quote. This is what one gets if one does not establish one's own narrative of history. AIT follows close behind, bringing all sorts of political machinations within India in tow.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 30 Jun 2012 23:52

Edmund Leach (provost of King's College, Cambridge): "Because of their commitment to a unilineal segmentary history of language development that needed to be mapped onto the ground, the philologists took it for granted that proto-Indo-Iranian was a language that had originated outside either India or Iran. From this we derived the myth of the Aryan invasions." and added that to shift the Aryan invasion theory, which he dismissed contemptuously, "is like trying to cut down a 300-year-old oak tree with a pen-knife. But the job will have to be done one day".

I have been reading some w.r.t. the need and methods of taking our history to our people.

And while I am still unconvinced by the need to have our own narrative for the whole nation, as was done or undone in other countries, I still feel we need to provide several simultaneous narratives to our people. In such a case the real challenge will not be the outsider rather it would be the insider in fact it could even be me.

Anyway I came to a strange observations. Almost every country Japs, Germany, US, Israel has had to go through a period of re-evaluation of its history books. And invariably it was about Racist vs. Traitor competition.

In India it is the other way round. Here the Racist and Traitors is the epithet used for exactly one set of people. The other set is simply bracketed under Nazi-Facist-Hindutva vaadi. The equally strange thing is that most hindus when they come to know that if they do not give up to AIT/AMT/PIE/Rationalist narrative, they are candidates for Nazi-Facist-Hindutva vaadi, do not really consider it bad. Hardly any hindu knows good enough what Nazi or Fascist means and does not feel anything bad about it all. With Hindutva, most hindus will actually feel happy. This makes the whole debate so artificial.

Another thing I noted was that as Brihaspati ji confirmed, most of what constitutes history is challenged all round the world even from within the establishment. This will basically force the establishment to commit even bigger blunders than AIT/AMT/PIE as they will rely upon Pear Reviewed Authoritative accounts even more. Which basically means more bhunkasbazi in a field that is not at all a science.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Jun 2012 23:57

RajeshA wrote:Published: 1900
Author: Arthur A. MacDonnell
A History of Sanskrit Literature

Page 10
History is the one weak spot in Indian literature. It is, in fact, nonexistent. The total lack of the historical sense is so characteristic, that the whole course of Sanskrit literature is darkened by the shadow of this defect, suffering as it does from an entire absence of exact chronology.
This is quite a famous quote. This is what one gets if one does not establish one's own narrative of history. AIT follows close behind, bringing all sorts of political machinations within India in tow.

One culture needs a history when it is new and something you dont have from the past.
Indian history does not have this problem
So Indian history is the history of the antiquity of the mankind!

But for the modern world we need to keep all the records and monuments so that social engineering cannot be used against Indians. Fractal recursivity has to be eliminated in India.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 01 Jul 2012 00:16

cautionary note to people who are about to buy Talageri's RgVeda final evidence book. In this book Talgeri doesn't state why he considers some mandalas to be earlier than others. For that he assumes that the reader is familiar with his other books prior to taking up this book.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jul 2012 01:05

venug wrote:cautionary note to people who are about to buy Talageri's RgVeda final evidence book. In this book Talgeri doesn't state why he considers some mandalas to be earlier than others. For that he assumes that the reader is familiar with his other books prior to taking up this book.

A great book about the Great Book
Review of 'The Rigveda and the Avesta, the Final Evidence', Talageri

In earlier books dated 1993 and 2000, Mumbai-based self-taught scholar Talageri (°1958) had already built a case for the following scenario. In the pre-Rigvedic age, a group of IE-speaking tribes populated the central and western Ganga plain and some of these migrated westward to the Saraswati basin in what is now Haryana and Rajasthan, and on to the Indus basin from Panjab to Afghanistan. By the time the earliest Vedic hymns were composed (tentatively dated to beyond 3000 BC), the westernmost tribes, known in Sanskrit sources as the Druhyus, were leaving the subcontinent, filling up Central Asia, thence to migrate to Anatolia, Xinjiang and Europe. The remaining peoples in the northwest, known as the Anavas, were mainly speakers of Iranian; while Indo-Aryan developed in central North India, whence it expanded westward into then-Iranian territory. Of the Indo-Aryan speakers, it is the Paurava tribe and within it the Bharata clan that produced the Rigveda. The friendly and hostile interactions between the Iranians and the Paurava Indo-Aryans form part of the historical background of the Rigveda and the Avesta. Among the conflicts, the main ones were the Battle of the Ten Kings, between the Bharata king Sudas and a confederacy of tribes in whose names we can still recognize Iranian ethnonyms; and the Varshagira Battle, to which both the younger part of the Rigveda and the earliest part of the Avesta refer. At the end of this confrontation, the Iranian centre moved to Afghanistan, those who remained in the subcontinent assimilated into Indo-Aryan.

In the present book, Talageri strengthens his thesis with a lot of new evidence, and refines it considerably. The master key for discerning historical expansions and migrations is the internal chronology of the Rg-Veda. Basing himself on two centuries of Western scholarship, from 19th-century German Veda scholar Oldenburg to present-day AIT champion Prof. Michael Witzel, Talageri compares the contents of the oldest layer, largely coinciding with books 6, 3 and 7; of the middle layer, books 2 and 4; and the youngest layer, comprising books 1, 5, 8, 9 and 10. Covering every verse and every instance of every category considered, and comparing the three periods, he finds a shifting focus in the names of animals, plants, rivers, landscape features, technology, ancestors, ethnic groups, and in personal name types and verse forms.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jul 2012 02:47

RajeshA, Mahatma Gandhi did rebut that type of quote sayin in effect those who are afraid of their furue need to constantly remind themselves of their past. He was suggesting that linear history types are those who want to manufacture the past to shape their future. Will find the quote.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jul 2012 03:40

ramana garu,

I think we too need to be afraid for our future and thus for our past. After all we see how we have been hollowed out over the several centuries.

It is true that the Europeans are out to manufacture a past for themselves and not to learn the truth, for otherwise they would have not allowed the Aryan Invasion Theory to go unchallenged for so long, and shown such scant regard for claims of the indigenist camp.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jul 2012 03:58

Publication Date: October 1, 1999
By Burra Gautam Sidharth
The Celestial Key to the Vedas: Discovering the Origins of the World's ...

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Jul 2012 05:36

Indian genes?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2012 06:29

SaiK wrote:Who named us Hindus?

I think we should begin the usage of the word Aryan without an hyphenation like indo-aryan, indo-eruopean etc.. cause, these hyphenation itself imposes wrong theories.

Stop using the name Aryan

The vedic term was "Arya, not "Aryan". Aryan is a word that was coined to differentiate intelligent fairskinned people from dark southern monkeys called Dravidians. if you can use the term Aryan, why not Dravidian? If you can use the term "Dravidian" please explain it. Who coined it? When was it coined? Why was the name created? If you explain it as "linguistic" they you accept the theory that the north had a totally separate language family connected with Europe. If Aryan and Dravidians are different races are they all Hindus? Or are the Aryans high caste and the Dravidians low caste with the latter doing penis worship and the former worshipping horse borne Gods and the sun and wind? Even today 90% existing literature says this and any person seeing the words being used who does further reading will get exactlythe wrong information.

I think the word Aryan should be discarded. Sanskrit speaking regions of Northern India and South Indian langauge speaking areas are better. Or just say "Arya/Noble/civilized" people as used in the old texts.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2012 06:49

venug wrote:cautionary note to people who are about to buy Talageri's RgVeda final evidence book. In this book Talgeri doesn't state why he considers some mandalas to be earlier than others. For that he assumes that the reader is familiar with his other books prior to taking up this book.

Thanks for the pointer. I will have to reconsider my future book orders and order the earlier one as well.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2012 07:12

Jhujar wrote:Indian genes?

This too. Them all be Injuns.

Irula tribe - Tamil Nadu

Lambada

Banni tribe, Kutch

Banjara

Bodo

Munda tribe - Jharkhand

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Jul 2012 08:43

Shiv, one thing about not using the word arya-n. linguistic twists (not firang),for example desis themselves add either one of these letters to a name - n, m, a, r, ra, ru etc.

So,
arya
arya-n
arya-m
arya-r
arya-ru

should be okay. Just because it has an AIT context, that takes it to European political connotation, we can't just give away our own words.

OTOH, we can ask the AIT folks to take a hike to himalayas, and slide from there.

--
In desh, we have all kind of linkages in terms of facial attributes that we can see a gradual progression as we have a nice segregation of states based on linguistic divisions. Thankfully we did not divide ourselves with religions.. anyway, the point I was making is though people were speaking languages were staying in their places, but then the geographic state division is only about 50 odd years old.

One could see the flattened nose, and squint eyes as ethnic graduations as we keep approaching towards NE sections.. and the hooked nose and caucasian eyes... all originating from desh, heading NW direction and beyond.

So, applying pragmatic thoughts here ... one could see arrival of SDTAs from Africa along the beach line some 250K years old... then settling below the cape comorin... and then spreading out. of course, after some real mingling of various migrating folks in random manner, since perhaps 1000years back... we are seeing diverse faces all over desh.

I may be wrong here... it could be some 500k year back SDREs went to Africa along the beach line, and became SDTAs... again pointing OIT.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2012 09:00

SaiK wrote:Shiv, one thing about not using the word arya-n. linguistic twists (not firang),for example desis themselves add either one of these letters to a name - n, m, a, r, ra, ru etc.

So,
arya
arya-n
arya-m
arya-r
arya-ru
.

SaiK ji

The word remains "arya" onlee. Aray-ru, and arya-r do not mean "Aryan"

First "Aryan" as a word does not exist in any language other than English

Arya-ru and Arya-r mean arya-people. Arya also means "arya-people". It does not need the addition of an English letter "n" to make it arya people. It is the English extension - India-Indian, America-American, Russia-Russian. We are under no obligation to continue it. One very strong reason for rejecting it is its racist connotation. After all we reject racist words like "nigger" and ch*nk . Both nigger and ch*ink refer to body characteristics.

You don't mind Aryan but I note that you speak of the very body characteristics that set the "Aryans" apart from the Dravidians (small nose) and the people of the North east and China - the "epicanthic folds" of the eyes that caused the derogatory Aryan" epithet "ch*nk". If you accept Aryan as OK how can you pretend that the non Aryan characteristics like slit eyes and flat nose did not exist and were never used to make racist characterizations of people.

Aryan is a racist term used by racists. It was racist even before the Nazis appropriated it. Arya is not. They sound similar but that dos not mean we should continue using it.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Jul 2012 09:08

clear. lets ban it.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jul 2012 13:55

Let me give some context to the case where I put up a photo of some Sorbian women. The intention was to show that the skin tone of various people could have changed simply due to them moving into colder northern climates with less sunshine, and as such they now look different from Indians in their skin color despite sharing R1a1 haplogroup. There is also the possibility that they intermingled with other ethnic groups on the way, which too would have brought about some differences.

It needs to be remembered that the migrations out of India into Europe and West Asia would have most probably have happened from among the Ancestral North Indians when the mixture between ANI and ASI was not so advanced in India, say before 7,000 or 8,000 years ago, which also explains why average European does not look like the average North Indian today.

There are no SDRE or TFTA inferences to be drawn out of such a discussion. It is just how it was. But the idea was to show difference.

However if we start putting up photos to show similarity between Indians and Europeans, especially of Indian stars, whose beauty we idolize, then it starts looking as if wish to claim racial sameness with Europeans, and that is not much different from the "Fair and Lovely" craze among some sections of Indians. And if we put up photos showing difference, then that too is stating the obvious but it fails to capture the claim that the proto-Europeans belonged mostly to the Ancestral North Indians (ANI) before the mixing up in India picked up pace.

So I have a request to all.

Please let's stop putting up photos of people here to wonder at their racial background, similarities and differences. That is a very very superficial way of looking at the subject, and easily degenerates into discussions about one or the other feature and about ethnic backgrounds of some.

I believe I was the first culprit by putting up that photo of the Sorbian women. It was in the context explained above, but I regret it nevertheless.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jul 2012 14:22

Example of Linguistic Palaeontology:

One way of determining where the original homeland of the Slavs is to undertake linguistic palaeontology. Polish botanist J. Rostafinski for example, pushed linguistic evidence even further. He argued that the original homeland of the Slavs was devoid of beech, larch and yew trees, because in all Slavic languages, the words for those trees are all foreign loan words of Germanic origin. On the basis of distribution of those trees, Rostafinski was able to locate the ancestral homeland of the Slavs in the marshes along the Pripet River in Polesie, generally in the south-eastern Poland and north-eastern Ukraine area, as this area was devoid of such trees. Polish historian Jan Peisker, elaborated this view stating "the Slav was the son and product of the marsh" (Curta 2001, p. 8 )

Some other notable pieces of the article.

The Slavs were perhaps the quietest or 'purest' branch of Indo-Europeans, due to the fact that the Slavic tribes did not move around or mix with outside populations as much as other Indo-European groups of the same period. Of course, they encountered bands of marauders, such as the Iranic Scythians (who destroyed Biskupin around 400BC), but nothing that would cause them to shift and migrate. Compared to the Slavs, the other peoples moved greatly. For instance the Romans conquered western and central Europe, the whole of North Africa, the Near East and Britian, Germanic tribes like the Sueves reached Spain, and others reached Scandanavia, and Celts like the Picts and Scots reached the British Isles.

Whilst all this was happening, the Slavs stayed put in their ancestral homeland for over 2000 years. The reason for this is the fact that early Slavs were not faced with pressure to move from migrations of other peoples. It is true to say that the Slavs material and spiritual development was a lot slower and occurred much later than the other Indo-Europeans due to this 'isolation' and due to the harsh climate of the Pripet marshes, as described by Lubor Niederle.

What Lubor Niederle is describing is perhaps not lack of spiritual development, but lack of outside corruption. The Slavs could have been sufficiently spiritually developed.

I find the Slavs interesting because they were one of the last groups of Indo-Europeans to move out through the Northern route from the Indo-European Urheimat - India, and as such must have retained much from their initial spirituality in India.

Many Slavs were also Christianized quite late, but Christianization is equivalent to complete destruction of their original religion. However among the Slavs they used to exercise dual religion for a long time, until Christianity won out and all the old knowledge died out as the oral traditions died out. For a long time, not having a script, also meant that without the oral tradition, not much has come to us to be able to study their pagen/proto-Vedic past.

Still the bonds between the Slavs and the Indians would be stronger than with the others considering their late departure from the cradle - India.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jul 2012 14:48

A book about ancient Slavs of some disputed authenticity: The Book of Veles.