Glad you wrote disclaimer.RajeshA wrote:The point is to understand human psychology. What are the factors that play a role which enables a common man to accept one myth and to doubt another!Nilesh Oak wrote:
If this sounds like a rant, then I amprobablyguilty of it!
) humorous effect.Thanks venug and Nilesh. No I will write it up but will probably include it along with a lot of other stuff in something i have been wanting to write for a long time.Nilesh Oak wrote:I second it. Time to take next step.venug wrote:
Shiv garu, I must tell you, one thing is I learn a lot from your posts, second thing is your posts are real fun to read, like the above.
+1RajeshA wrote: A general comment about pro-Indian books. Often they sound defensive, trying to justify our right to be left alone from the aggressive but unjustified views and propaganda of the West.
There is a psychological angle to all this.
Nietzsche (I think) said something on the lines of..."People believe in the truth of anything as long as they feel that majority of them also believe in it"RajeshA wrote:The point is to understand human psychology. What are the factors that play a role which enables a common man to accept one myth and to doubt another!
http://www.thehindu.com/arts/history-an ... 775417.ece
FACT FILE: Dolmens are like stone tables in appearance and are also known as portal graves as their entrance leads to underground burial chambers. Dolmens are known to exist all over the world from Japan and India to Europe, Russia and North Africa. While some of the most important and famous Dolmens are found in Ireland, the world’s largest colony of dolmens is in Korea numbering 35,000. In India, the presence of dolmens is recorded in Kerala and Maharashtra.
Arjun ji,Arjun wrote:Did the Finno-Ugric languages produce any epic or literary masterpiece of note ? Probably not - hence the 'high priests' of the Indo-European civilization see no value in including them in their 'elite' and exclusive club.
RajeshA wrote:shiv saar,
good work on looking up Finno-Ugric. So now the challenge becomes
- Looking up words in Sanskrit which can be shown to derive from various Prakrits in India, and are also present in other Indo-European languages. This is the case where the etymology of the words is better explained in the Prakrits including Tamil. Perhaps some "one-way" phonological change axioms may also help showing an evolution from Prakrits to Sanskrit, e.g. Tamil -> Sanskrit.
- Looking up words in Finno-Ugric which are closer cognates of Sanskrit or Indian Prakrits, than to other European languages. Some collaboration here between Indians and Finns/Hungarians may help!
When your theory is shaky you have to make up all sorts of "on the spur of the moment" constructs to explain things. Someone had used the analogy of how complex planetary movements had to be invented to explain why the earth was the center of the universe.A_Gupta wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum-satem_isogloss
Notice, they have to invent Proto-Tocharian and so on to save the idea
Some theories and their rebuttals hereugandhar wrote:So what are the theories that AMT supporting people say about migrant’s dispersal method in India to introduce langue and change culture? Appreciate any pointers.
shiv saar,shiv wrote:To me this suggests that IE languages may have been extremely old - predating most of the others and occupying most of Europe and India. Perhaps we need to look for a population group that went to these areas 25000 plus years ago (that's a guess). Towards Eastern Europe there was some mixing with what are now Uralic languages. In the middle of Europe various "invaders" created Hellenic and Germanic and Romance languages by mixing other languages with the old IE. It is the IE that is a substrate not the other way round. Witzel keeps insisting that "topnyms" and "hydronyms" (names of geographical features and rivers) suggest old substrates, But he has found very few. That could mean that the IE part of European languages are the oldest, and not the other way around.
Similarly there is a mention by Elst of a possible IE substrate in Dravidian languages, suggesting that IE came earlier only to be covered over by Dravidian which spread along the Indian ocean coast
And the oddest of the lot is the Austronesian languages that have an Indo-European remnant/substrate in the far east that cannot be explained by existing theories. The possibility that "IE" was spoken by a people who spread allover Europe and Asia in the very remote past - perhaps 25,000 plus years ago is something that needs to be considered. The language was refined and preserved in India as Sanskrit for ~ 8000 years.
Yes. Yes and yes. What better way to put the AIT Nazis off their guard? Give the world a cafeteria approach that fits many ideas but still kills AIT. Kill AIT first and then give anything inconvenient a quiet burial by calling it a footnote, sideshow, substrate, adstrate etc.RajeshA wrote:
If we are saying that IE speaking people were spread all over Eurasia in the past, say 25,000 YBP, except for the fact that it does not conform to AIT-Nazis' proposals on times of migration and which language was substrate and which was superstrate in European languages, basically it does conform to the message that they want to put out -
- there is nothing particular about India,
- Aryans had their origins elsewhere and
- some of them expanded into India
- at some point in time
- becoming the dominant culture, and
- one need not give Sanskrit any preeminence in the order of IE languages.
- Thanks for preserving the language and providing us a key for deciphering our past. Goodbye then!
- Yes, sorry about the little mess with Aryan/Dravidian thing there, but it is your problem.
Is he demeaning Tibetans as robbers and kidnappers and sucking up to the Chinese?!J.P. Mallory wrote:Here, if he had been captured by a raider from the south, he would have had to talk his way out of this encounter in Tibetan or hoped for rescue from an army that spoke Chinese.
Shiv ji,shiv wrote:This whole construct is so complex and involves so many layers of history and 150 to 200 years of cooking up and bluffing that I am not surprised that it is difficult to break down this fortress of confabulation. The absence of a date in the Rig Veda but the beauty of the language has attracted linguists and allowed them to rape it like a nubile deaf-mute girl in an orphanage. It is up to us to reclaim the Rig Veda, point out how it has been raped and bring the Llar nazis into line.
Now where is my wietmer award?Yes it is....But the link it is based on is more authentic: ANI ASI Admixture Dating. Note the comments below the abstract..in particular I agree with user 'Parasher' in his analysis of the data.AbhiJ wrote:Is it some another Paki Shit?
I think shiv saar would be able to answer that better!AbhiJ wrote:Is it some another Paki Shit?
This refers to an earlier study by the same group, I had linked with other studies.Linguistic and genetic studies have demonstrated that almost all groups in South Asia today descend from a mixture of two highly divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners and Europeans, and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not related to any populations outside the Indian subcontinent. ANI and ASI have been estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor as much as 60,000 years ago, but the date of the ANI-ASI mixture is unknown. Here we analyze data from about 60 South Asian groups to estimate that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred 1,200-4,000 years ago. Some mixture may also be older—beyond the time we can query using admixture linkage disequilibrium—since it is universal throughout the subcontinent: present in every group speaking Indo-European or Dravidian languages, in all caste levels, and in primitive tribes. After the ANI-ASI mixture that occurred within the last four thousand years, a cultural shift led to widespread endogamy, decreasing the rate of additional mixture.
Now one of the mentors in that study, Shri Lalji Singh gave an interview to Daily News and Analysis India, also previously linked, where he saysEstimating a date of mixture of ancestral South Asian populations (2011) wrote:major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent
However in this study, the authors are suggesting that the ANI and the ASI did mix in a major way between 4000-1,200 years ago.Lalji Singh wrote:We have conclusively proved that there never existed any aryans or dravidians in the indian sub continent. the aryan-dravidian classification was nothing but a misinformation campaign carried out by people with vested interests. The study effectively puts to rest the argument that south indians are dravidians and were driven to the peninsula by aryans who invaded North India.
Razib Khan wrote:The most likely candidate population for an admixture event in the Indian subcontinent within such a time frame are Indo-Aryans.
However it is still not so easy for the AIT-Nazis to find a coherent narrative.I do believe that the highest probability is that Europe and India saw multiple intrusive populations after the rise of agriculture. So the larger proportion of the ANI signal probably derives back to the early West Asian farmers.
Need to wait for the original paper, if it appears at all. It has not been published. The above extract is the one sent to conference organisers by the authors who presented teh paper at a conference.I have previously highlighted that ROLLOFF, the method used by these authors produces age estimates that are about half the age of HAPMIX and StepPCO. As of this writing, ROLLOFF does not seem to be available for independent evaluation, so it is not entirely clear to me whether it, or the older methods, are right. It would be great if this issue is dealt with in the publication arising from this research.
Another issue that must be dealt with is the spurious inference that Ancestral North Indians are more closely related to Europeans than to West Asians in the previous publication on the ANI/ASI division, an inference that was an artifact of unequal sample sizes between Adygei and CEU.
Actually at HarappaDNA site, they had quite a good discussion chronologically in parallel to the one here.Arjun wrote:ANI ASI Admixture Dating. Note the comments below the abstract..in particular I agree with user 'Parasher' in his analysis of the data.
India traditionally had two large indigenous gene pools (the ANI and ASI) - which started to intermix only over the last 4000 years or so.
Even the abstract mentions here that there is a great admixture of ANI ASI genes across India, but says that it cannot measure admixture prior to 4000 years ago . But the abstract uses clear AIT language. You cannot reach a cultural judgement from genetic findings in one study. At best you can say that a cultural issue may explain the findings among other things. But the abstract does not say that. It commits itself to culture change by saying:RajeshA wrote:Actually at HarappaDNA site, they had quite a good discussion chronologically in parallel to the one here.Arjun wrote:ANI ASI Admixture Dating. Note the comments below the abstract..in particular I agree with user 'Parasher' in his analysis of the data.
India traditionally had two large indigenous gene pools (the ANI and ASI) - which started to intermix only over the last 4000 years or so.
The genetic study cannot show cultural change. It can only be stated to show reduced admixture after a particular time. The reason could range from sample bias, method of study to endogamy (as mentioned in the abstract). Endogamy need not be cultural change.After the ANI-ASI mixture that occurred within the last four thousand years, a cultural shift led to widespread endogamy, decreasing the rate of additional mixture.
Penguins that died 44,000 years ago in Antarctica have provided extraordinary frozen DNA samples that challenge the accuracy of traditional genetic aging measurements, and suggest those approaches have been routinely underestimating the age of many specimens by 200 to 600 percent.
In other words, a biological specimen determined by traditional DNA testing to be 100,000 years old may actually be 200,000 to 600,000 years old, researchers suggest in a new report in Trends in Genetics, a professional journal.
The findings raise doubts about the accuracy of many evolutionary rates based on conventional types of genetic analysis.
A major assumption of the molecular clock theory is that mutations within a particular genetic system occur at a statistically uniform rate and this uniform rate can be used for dating genetic events. In practice the assumption of a single uniform rate is an oversimplification. Though a single mutation rate is often applied, it is often a composite or an average of several different mutation rates.[1] Many factors influence observed mutation rates and these factors include the type of samples, the region of the genome studied and the time period covered.
Rama and Krishna may have been dark skinned but calling them Dravidian means that you believe that dark skin=Dravidian, light skin=Aryan. Apart from AIT Nazis and racists do you have any evidence for this?RamaY wrote: Rama was a Dravidian and so was Krishna. Interestingly the sons of Indra (who ruled Amaravati - currently in Andhra Pradesh), Arjuna and Kakasura, both were dark skinned.
Wikipedia wrote:Aryan /ˈɛərjən/ is an English language loanword derived from the Sanskrit ārya ('Noble'). In present-day academia, the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European" have, according to many, made most uses of the term 'Aryan' minimal, and 'Aryan' is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term "Indo-Aryan" to represent (speakers of) North, West and Central Indian languages.
Western notions of an "Aryan race" rose to prominence in late-19th and early-20th century racialist thought, an idea most notably embraced by Nazi ideology (see master race).
The point is the word Aryan was unknown in Europe before they came to India and studied Sanskrit, and now they want to appropriate the word for themselves. Wow!Wikipedia wrote:The English word "Aryan" is borrowed from the Sanskrit word ārya meaning 'Noble'; it was used initially as a national name to designate the worshippers of the Hindu deities and especially Indra according to Brahmanical principles (performance of sacrifice, Yajna). The Zend airya 'venerable' and Old Persian ariya are also considered as national names.
In colloquial English, the word has been adopted in accordance with Nazi racial theory's appropriation of the term to describe persons corresponding to the "Nordic" physical ideal of Nazi Germany (the "master race" ideology).
In Iranian context the original self-identifier lives on in ethnic names like "Alani", "Ir". Similarly, The word Iran is the Persian word for land/place of the Aryans (see also Iranian peoples).
What we see here is another means to instill into the minds of people that Jesus Christ is Aryan and not a Semite. This has been a long agenda of Christians in West to find a union of Christianity and Aryanism, something I had alluded to in previous posts!Movies.com: You throw religion and spirituality into the equation for Prometheus, though, and it almost acts as a hand grenade. We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?
RS: We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. But if you look at it as an “our children are misbehaving down there” scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, “Lets’ send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it. Guess what? They crucified him.