Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

[A_Gupta]

Graham Hancock has this on the changing coastline of India 6900 BP to 21300 BP
https://grahamhancock.com/ashcf1/
Animated GIF

[A_Gupta]

Koenraad Elst:
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2017/0 ... ional.html

abstract

Sheldon Pollock is by no means the first one to build on the mythology that has overgrown the factual core of a link between racism in general, National-Socialism in particular, and the study of Indo-European and Sanskrit. In his case, the alleged National-Socialist connection of Sanskrit is heavily over-interpreted and emphatically taken to be causal, as if the interest in Sanskrit has caused the Holocaust. We verify the claims on which he erects this thesis one by one, and find them surprisingly weak or simply wrong. They could only have been made in a climate in which a vague assumption of these links (starting with the swastika, which in reality was not taken from Hinduism) was already common. Yet, even non-specialists could easily have checked that Adolf Hitler expressed his contempt for Hinduism, repeatedly and in writing.

Pollock’s attempt to even link the Out-of-India Theory with the Nazi worldview is the diametrical opposite of the truth; it was the rivalling Aryan Invasion Theory (which Pollock himself upholds) that formed the cornerstone and perfect illustration of the Nazi worldview. This linking could only pass peer review because of the general animus against Hinduism and Indo-European indigenism in American academe. The whole forced attempt to associate Hinduism with National-Socialism suggests a rare animosity against Hinduism.,

[UlanBatori]

[quote="A_Gupta"]Graham Hancock has this on the changing coastline of India 6900 BP to 21300 BP
https://grahamhancock.com/ashcf1/
Guptaji: What this (and many others) miss is what this does to the Lakshadweep-Maladweep-Seychelles-Madagascar corridor plus the coast of Africa. I think there is one big valley there, but all the rest would have essentially joined up. Also, the Persian Gulf may have disappeared. The Suez landbridge would have been a lot higher, no wonder Moses could stroll across the Red Sea.

[A_Gupta]

http://creative.sulekha.com/the-roots-o ... 83713_blog
"Adi Sankara (nearly thirteen centuries ago) called himself Dravid-putra".

[A_Gupta]

Manusmriti 10:43-44.
Dravidas were kshatriyas who became "vrishala" from non-observance of vedic rites.

[UlanBatori]

Manusmriti, sorry to say, is something that we reject 400% in Ulan Bator. It is the start of the problems of "Yindooism". It is studied widely and deeply in the Marxist Communist Party in Malloostan, and my 400% commie relatives can quote page and verse from it to "prove" that Hindusim is evil.

So whatever they say about Sankara and Dravidas I will take with a truckload of salt. IMO, Manusmriti, Uttara Ramayana and the presently-accepted ending of the MB were all commissioned by Aurangzeb.

[A_Gupta]

He {Caldwell} says that Kumarila Bhatta refers to an Andhra-Dravida bhasha where "Dravida" probably refers specifically to Tamil. he says Kumarila Bhatta was from the south. I don't know

Caldwell quotes Burnell, The Indian Antiquary, 1872.
Here: http://answer2pakteahouse.blogspot.com/ ... -1872.html
or

[A_Gupta]

[A_Gupta]

[A_Gupta]

Mentions of "Dravida" in the Mahabharata that I could find:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03118.htm

Then he went to the Godavari, a river that falls directly into the sea. There he was freed from his sins. And he reached the sea in the Dravida land, and visited the holy spot passing under Agastya's name, which was exceedingly sacred and exceptionally pure.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05022.htm

That wielder of the Gandiva, Savyasachin, seated on his car, would alone be able to devastate the whole world. And likewise the victorious and high-souled Krishna, the lord of the three worlds, incapable of defeat is able to do the same. What mortal would stand before him who is the one worthiest person in all the worlds and who discharges his multitude of arrows that roar like the clouds, covering all sides, like flights of swiftly-coursing locusts? Alone on his car, holding the Gandiva, he had conquered the northern regions as also the Kurus of the north and brought away with him all their wealth. He converted the people of the Dravida land to be a portion of his own army.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08012.htm

When that host was being thus struck and slain by heroic warriors the Parthas, headed by Vrikodara, advanced against us. They consisted of Dhrishtadyumna and Shikhandi and the five sons of Draupadi and the Prabhadrakas, and Satyaki and Chekitana with the Dravida forces, and the Pandyas, the Cholas, and the Keralas, surrounded by a mighty array, all possessed of broad chests, long arms, tall statures, and large eyes.

Note: Dravida is distinct from Pandya, Chola, Kerala.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08049.htm

The Dravida, the Andhaka, and the Nishada foot-soldiers, urged on by Satyaki, once more rushed towards Karna in that battle, from desire of slaying him.

[A_Gupta]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas06.htm
Shakti and Shâkta
by Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe),1918

There are said to be three Krantas or geographical divisions of India, of which roughly speaking the North-Eastern portion is Vishnukranta, the North-Western Rathakranta and the remaining and Southern portion is Ashvakranta. According to the Shaktamarigala and Mahasiddhisara Tantras, Vishnukranta (which includes Bengal) extends from the Vindhya range to Chattala or Chittagong. From Vindhya to Tibet and China is Rathakranta. There is then some difference between these two Tantras as to the position of Ashvakranta. According to the first this last Kranta extends from the Vindhya to the sea which perhaps includes the rest of India. According to the Mahasiddhisara Tantra it extends from the Karatoya River to a point which cannot be identified with certainty in the text cited, but which may be Java. To each of these 64 Tantras have been assigned. One of the questions awaiting solution is whether the Tantras of these three geographical divisions are marked by both doctrinal and ritual peculiarities and if so what they are. This subject has been referred to in the first part of the Principles of Tantra wherein a list of Tantras is given.

In the Shakta division there are four Sampradayas, namely, Kerala, Kashmira, Gauda and Vilasa, in each of which there is both outer and inner worship. The Sammohana Tantra gives these four Sampradayas, also the number of Tantras, not only in the first three Sampradayas, but in Cina and Dravida. I have been informed that out of 56 Deshas (which included besides Hunas, places outside India, such as Cina, Mahacina, Bhota, Simhala), 18 follow Gauda extending from Nepala to Kalinga and 19 follow Kerala extending from Vindhyacala to the Southern Sea, the remaining countries forming part of the Kashmira Desha; and that in each Sampradaya there are Paddhatis such as Shuddha, Gupta, Ugra. There is variance in Devatas and Rituals some of which are explained in the Tarasukta and Shaktisamgama Tantra.

It might be worthwhile getting this list of 56 Deshas.

[Pulikeshi]

Manusmriti, sorry to say, is something that we reject 400% in Ulan Bator. It is the start of the problems of "Yindooism".

The Mangolion needs to be careful with Paki style rejections - whatever the problems of its misinterpretations - the Smiritis of which Manu's compendium is one such have contributed to the very legal codes of the current Constitution and has been a guiding force for our civilization. Even if some nasty aspects turn out to be true or if there has been malicious drivel towards the Hindus it is still a mighty body of work that has contributed more than any other legal system has to the current world.

[Dipanker]

If Pandyas and Cholas find a mention in Mahabharata that makes them contemporary to Mahabharata, doesn't it?

[shiv]

Mentions of "Dravida" in the Mahabharata that I could find:

There is ambiguity in the conclusions Caldwell has reached to pin down a definition of "Dravida" and referring to a group of languages and hence "Dravidian" languages.

In your Mahabharata refs above the Dravida is referred to as "Dravida land" or "Dravida people". In another reference from Caldwell himself the language Dravida is separate from Andhra - "Andhra-Dravida bhasha"

In a third ref that Caldwell states in his book the Dravida are referred to as people from Gujarat, Maharashtra as well as peninsular states. Caldwell makes some excuse to eliminate Marathi and Gujarati on semi linguistic grounds.

Culturally it appears to me that in this day and age - only some Tamil speakers self-identify as Dravida. People of Andhra and Karnataka refer to themselves as Andhra and Karnataka and other names. Dravidian is a name "pasted" on a group of people that has no connection with their history or cultural self identification

[A_Gupta]

If Pandyas and Cholas find a mention in Mahabharata that makes them contemporary to Mahabharata, doesn't it?

Possibly. Or it is a later insertion. But whichever it is, the point is that, assuming the translation is accurate, that the understanding **at that point of time** when the insertion occurred, to whomever inserted it, is that Pandyas, Cholas are distinct from Dravida.

[shiv]

If Pandyas and Cholas find a mention in Mahabharata that makes them contemporary to Mahabharata, doesn't it?

The people, not the named empires.

[A_Gupta]

Can you give a single example of a mis-used word leading to cession of using it in formal context ?

"Race".
"Negro".
"imbecile" (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile )
"mental retardation"

[shiv]

Can you give a single example of a mis-used word leading to cession of using it in formal context ?

Not going to bite..

[shiv]

Can you give a single example of a mis-used word leading to cession of using it in formal context ?

"Race".
"Negro".
"imbecile" (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile )
"mental retardation"

Also cretin

[UlanBatori]

Pullikesiji, Yes, I accept that the MS contains much that defines modern legal systems. It also has some unfortunately prejudices which fall into the trap set by Commies etc. All I can say is that it takes ancient, valid knowledge, and then somewhere down the line it was utterly contaminated by all sorts of things. Today it is confused with the same types of stories that occur in the Old Testament (the whole idea of Manu being around as a human when the Matsya Avatara came around, is sheer garbage), and therein come the prejudices of Abrahamic tribes. Since I have not read it in any form, all I can do is go about in horror of it, since I know my commie relatives can outgun me on it and attack all Hinduism by association with the MS.

We have to accept that the Puranas are not usable as linear chronologies. Much has been injected into them at arbitrary locations and times. In a rational moment, I have to reflect on what it must have been like in the days when the Puranas were being "composed". It was a time when knowledge was passed around orally/aurally, remember. So these all took first exposed form as plays conducted under the village tree by travelling troupes. Perhaps a whole epic was done over a whole season. Every time the performance was repeated, it would evolve. Otherwise if the troupe came back next year, few would go to hear it, unless they were anticipating some new and daring interpretations.
Example: the other din I watched a MohiniAttam performance by an accomplished professional: a PhD in dance forms, elegantly-spoken, raised in the Royal Family of southern Malloostan. She was performing the last scene of Draupadi's life, as she lay about to pass on, and prays to Krishna, to **NOT** send her to Moksha, but to allow her to come back to Earth as a normal woman (not finding herself married to 5!) and become a mother and grandmother, and... get this: BECOME A STRONG CAMPAIGNER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND RIGHTS OF WOMEN!!!!

IOW, a modern, very PC, socio-political interpretation of a scene from the MB with clear undertones of criticism against some anecdotal details in the MB that might have had nothing to do with the original version thereof.

This is how the Puranas evolved, surely. Now somewhere down the road, the story that Draupadi was reborn as a commie agitator neta wimmens in Malloostan, would become "established in the Epics". And new stories would be patched on to that, going in all sorts of directions. This is why one has to think through and reject a lot of fluff and seek the core truths in the epics and the rest of the Puranas. The only essentials in the Epics were the aspects that explain Vedic knowledge. The rest is human drama.

[shiv]

Because the facts are simple:

1. 'Aryan' as a term existed before Aryan invasion theory or Aryan superiorist theory

Arya, not Aryan

2. 'Aryan' has been universally used - whether in racial superiority or simply as ethnic group or even cultural barometer. Even Hindu authors who are anti-aryan superiorst theories, have used the term 'Aryan' in English.

Traditional and widespeard usage of a racist term does not legitimize it much as you might want it to be that way

these two facts simply lead to the conclusion that 'Aryan' is the English word for 'Arya', not specifically racial interpretation of it. Otherwise, someone would've used the term 'arya' in English.
I'd rather re-claim a word abused by foreigners than give it up in dhoti shiver.

As an individual it is your right to reach what I feel are ridiculous conclusions. Disagreement will continue on your insistence on legitimizing a racist term

Aryan is as racist a word as they come. Like Gollywog

[Dipanker]

If Pandyas and Cholas find a mention in Mahabharata that makes them contemporary to Mahabharata, doesn't it?

Possibly. Or it is a later insertion. But whichever it is, the point is that, assuming the translation is accurate, that the understanding **at that point of time** when the insertion occurred, to whomever inserted it, is that Pandyas, Cholas are distinct from Dravida.

You emphasized that in your last post itself!

[UlanBatori]

One of the dictionaries defines Dravida as Southern BRAHMIN. The DK would love that!!

[UlanBatori]

IMO. "Dravida" must have something to do with "Dravya". Rahul Dravid certainly is all Solid-Phase, Substantial!
Dravyaamsgraha

the six dravyas (substances) that characterize the Jain view of the world: sentient (jīva), non-sentient (pudgala), principle of motion (dharma), principle of rest (adharma), space (ākāśa) and time (kāla).[1] It is one of the most important Jain works and has gained widespread popularity. Dravyasaṃgraha has played an important role in Jain education and is often memorized because of its comprehensiveness as well as brevity.[1]

But the Dravidas must have been around long before there was Jainism.

[shiv]

Here is a downloadable book published between the 1850s and 1900. I have a copy - used to belong to my grandfather. Here are the references to Aryans. The word "Aryas" is found once - and refers to migrants to India. Aryan is invariably used in a racist sense
https://archive.org/details/livingracesofman02hutcrich
Quotes from the book

The South African Negroes from Northern Congoland to Natal may vary in
physical type, but their speech, like the Aryan tongues of Europe and Western Asia,
can be traced back to an original mother-tongue, termed hypothetically " Bantu."

Just as the blond Aryans of the Baltic countries overran all Europe (except Spain),
Asia Minor, Persia, and India in prehistoric times and rapidly imprinted their speech
on the five or six races of white men with whom they came into contact, so at a time
not long distant — not more, perhaps, than 5,000 nor less than 3,000 years ago — some
Central Sudanese Negroes created a new speech — the Bantu mother-tongue — under the
impulse of a Hamitic invasion (of Galas or Egyptians).

In marked contrast to the fair group
are the black or brunette Caucasians with
their black hair and eyes, and a skin varying in colour from white through different
shades of swarthy olive to black. In this section is included the bulk of the population
of the south of Europe, Northern Africa,
and South-west Asia ; so that the races
commonly known as Aryan, Semitic, and
Hamitic come under this designation.
Among the lower types of the group ai'e
classed the so-called Dravidian tribes of
India, such as the Gonds and Toclas, some
of which may perhaps have an intermixture
of Negro (Negrito) blood, as well as the
Veddas of Ceylon, the Toalas of Celebes,
the hairy Ainu of Japan, and the Mautzi
of China.

Their
identity with the Anam-
ese Mans is shown by
their physical characters,
the latter being also a
fine Caucasian race, with
long head, oval face,
small cheek-bones, eyes
without the Mongol fold,
skin not yellowish, but
rather swarthy or
browned by the sun, and
regular -features, in
nothing recalling the
yellow races, but " pre-
senting striking affinities
with the Aryan type."

Iran — that is, the
land of light, of the civilised
and settled high-born peoples
of Iranian or Aryan speech —
will then clearly coincide with
the Iranian table-land lying
between the Persian Gulf and
Mesopotamia in the west and
India in the east, and mainly
inhabited by the kindred Per-
sian, Afghan, and Baluchi
nations, all of Indo-European
stock, and all speaking lan-
guages of our common Aryan
mother-tongue.

alcha family — that is, those primitive Aryan
highlanders who, although now mostly speaking
Persian, are not Iranians, nor yet Indians, but
apparently the original Indo-European stock from
which both Iranians and Hindus migrated to
Irania and India some thousands of years ago,
while the Galchas themselves remained and still
remain in the original Aryan cradle-land. This is
well seen in our Kafirs, who have best preserved
the original Aryan physical characters — tall
stature ; brown or bronzed and even white skin ;
ruddy cheeks, recalling the Englishman ; black,
chestnut, red or light hair, smooth, wavy or
curly ; full brown or ruddy beard ; blue, grey,
or brown eyes, never oblique like the Mongol ;
long, shapely, and slightly curved nose ; oval
face; stout, vigorous frame, as described by
a kurdish mountain chief (chiep of tribe).

other abominations which were later developed with the Hindu
trinity — Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, and their endless avatars (incarnations). These gross
corruptions, which, after driving Buddhism from the field, have prevailed for over
1,000 years throughout the peninsula, were due to the intermingling of the Vedic
Aryans with the masses of black heathendom prevalent in Aryavarta and the Dekkan
before their arrival. The comparatively pure worship of the ethereal deities became
debased and saturated with the worship of the primitive chthonic gods (earth-gods),
and thus it happened that in imparting their higher culture, arts, and letters to the
Dravido-Kolarian aborigines the Vedic Aryans received a deep taint, from which their
Iranian and European kindred have long since expurgated themselves.

[shiv]

Arya, not Aryan

False. English speakers have not used the term 'Aryan'.

Rubbish. See quotes from book I have posted above, Aryan is used in a racist sense alone.

Aryan is as racist a word as they come. Like Gollywog

False, reason has been provided. Until you can counter the reasoning provided, repeating something a zillion times won't make it true.

Your problem not mine. But I will repeat every time you say it. Zillion + 1: Aryan is a racist term

[UlanBatori]

It is true that some Jains declare themselves to pre-Vedic. But that does not bring us closer to realizing the meaning of "Dravida".

[shiv]

thank you for admitting that evidence and reasoning does not matter to your propagandist views. Keep repeating away, it won't matter to 99.999% people, because evidence is against you.

Sure call me names and take comfort from your predictions and cook up statistics.

Aryan is a racist term and needs to be eliminated from general use, like Gollywog and Ch!nk

Meanwhile folks - watch this recent video - the disappointment at being Indian and the deep need to be European.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doIcfDSaSAE

[syam]

Legends of horse-gifting means diddly squat over actual archaeological evidence. We find horse-drawn carts (solid wheel) in Sumeria. We find chariots in New Kingdom Egypt and Hittite empire, as well as Old Assyrian Empire- all of whom out-date the semi-mythological 'king Solomon'.

When did I say there were no horses at other places? Is it Arabian horse that you found in Sumeria?

Typical topic diversion. I am talking about Arabian Horse.

[Rudradev]

"Race".
"Negro".
"imbecile" (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile )
"mental retardation"

Also cretin

Moron and idiot too I believe

[syam]

Arabian horse is from Arabia. Sumeria was in Arabia- which is defined as the entire region sans Egypt, turkey, Iran and Israel (even in Roman times).

Seems like you have nothing to contribute on Arabian Horse.
I repeat again even if the horse was present in every kingdom, it is still treated as Arabian horse. Arabian means Arabian origin. We again come to same origin story.

Where did Arabian horse come from?

[shiv]

the only thing cooked up here, is by you and dhoti-shiverers who cannot deal with the fact that before AMT came, along with Aryan superiority, the Brits still used Aryan as the term and were considering an 'Out Of India' theory, when their empire building & need for white superiorism came to the forefront.

You must be pretty irritated to call people names and imagine their behavior to be categorized as dhoti shivering, whatever that means. And that actually makes me happy although it shouldn't in this academic debate

i will post evidence of this after coming weekend to completely blow apart your nonsensical view.

Another boast. Ho hum

Last time it was parsing papers and extreme accuracy. Now it is getting explosive - "blowing apart" other's views. In fact using terms like "blowing apart" is simply rhetoric. I believe it makes you feel better to use such language. It is your problem that you want to "blow apart" viewpoints. To me that shows how you are unable to live comfortably with other viewpoints and it tickles me so see you use such terminology simply to express a difference of opinion

[Dipanker]

Where did Arabian horse come from?

The Arabian or Arab horse (Arabic: الحصان العربي‎‎ [ ħisˤaːn ʕarabiː], DMG ḥiṣān ʿarabī) is a breed of horse that originated on the Arabian Peninsula. With a distinctive head shape and high tail carriage, the Arabian is one of the most easily recognizable horse breeds in the world. It is also one of the oldest breeds, with archaeological evidence of horses in the Middle East that resemble modern Arabians dating back 4,500 years. Throughout history, Arabian horses have spread around the world by both war and trade, used to improve other breeds by adding speed, refinement, endurance, and strong bone. Today, Arabian bloodlines are found in almost every modern breed of riding horse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_horse

[shiv]

Where did Arabian horse come from?

[quote]The Arabian or Arab horse (Arabic: الحصان العربي‎‎ [ ħisˤaːn ʕarabiː], DMG ḥiṣān ʿarabī) is a breed of horse that originated on the Arabian Peninsula. With a distinctive head shape and high tail carriage, the Arabian is one of the most easily recognizable horse breeds in the world. It is also one of the oldest breeds, with archaeological evidence of horses in the Middle East that resemble modern Arabians dating back 4,500 years. Throughout history, Arabian horses have spread around the world by both war and trade, used to improve other breeds by adding speed, refinement, endurance, and strong bone. Today, Arabian bloodlines are found in almost every modern breed of riding horse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_horse

It also has a different number of ribs from the Eurasian horse and guess what - the Rig Veda's mention of the number horse ribs coincided with the number of ribs Arabian horses have.

[Rudradev]

Idiot, in ancient Greek, meant a person who did not vote. Many centuries later the European eugenicists, whose track record SriJoy is always busy whitewashing, employed that word to mean a specific calibre of mentally deficient person.

SriJoy is welcome to pretend that "idiot" still means "one who does not vote". I trust he will not take undue offense if that word is used to describe him (especially if it is so used by a white person); and moreover, I'm sure he will insist that we shouldn't take offense if that word is applied to us either. Especially by white people.

The made-up term "Aryan", which various non-voters continue to pretend is merely an English language cognate of "Arya" rather than a profoundly distortive mistranslation, was "non white-supremacist" for a much shorter period of time than the word "idiot" was used (in ancient Athens) to mean something other than "stupid".

If someone wants to insist that "Aryan" is not a racist and derogatory term, he should be fine with accepting the label "idiot" as no more than an innocuous civic category.

[shiv]

What I found amusing was SirJoyji's emotional appeals where he says "Ok there was no Aryan invasion" but please accept my appeal that "Aryan" is a harmless word.

No. Aryans is racist terminology and suddenly going back through the last 10 pages or so it appears that I have collected up dozen or so obviously racist examples of the usage of the word Aryan from western texts. I will place those references in a permanent place for easy checking later on. In fact I have thought of a way of using Twitter here and I will do that. Thanks to SriJoy continuing to "shout and wave it about"

An epicure dining at Crewe
found quite a large rat in his stew
Said the waiter 'Don't shout,"
"and wave it about"
Or the others will want one too

[Rudradev]

Amdst all this bluster, still waiting for you to substantiate your allegation of Akso Parpola being 'racist European' category for favouring an Aryan-Dravidian divide in linguistics.

So now the onus is on other people to substantiate the myriad statements you produce through sheer rectal extraction.

[shiv]

It has been corrupted into racist moniker, just like Swastika has been corrupted as a sign of racial superiorism in the west.

Let me not indulge in the mindless triumphalism that you chose to exhibit by saying 'Now you're learning"

This "racist moniker" remains racist to this day. None of the scholars you quote or name has lifted one finger to reverse the usage of Aryan as a "racist moniker"

[shiv]

Amdst all this bluster, still waiting for you to substantiate your allegation of Akso Parpola being 'racist European' category for favouring an Aryan-Dravidian divide in linguistics.

From "Indo Aryan controversy" edited by Edwin Bryant

Part II titled “Archaeology and Linguistics,” begins with Asko Parpola and
Christian Carpelan’s chapter “The Cultural Counterparts to Proto-Indo-European,
Proto-Yralic and Proto-Aryan.” Their contribution is to sketch out a scenario in
which the archaeological data matches the cultural and linguistic data in the hypothe-
ses of Indo-European expansion. They argue first through etymological data, and
then through archaeological discussion, that Indo-European and Uralic proto-
languages were both spoken in the archaeological cultures of Eastern Europe.
Building on the work of David Anthony (1995, 1998), they also attempt to correlate
Indo-European and Uralic linguistic groups with archaeological cultures

I have already quoted David Anthony's lies:
viewtopic.php?p=2180147#p2180147

The following paragraph is from my own notes, unpublished

The Eurasian steppe region has many ancient graves in which horses or parts of horses have
been buried along with humans. Some of these burials are elaborate and seem to be the graves of
important or wealthy people. It is claimed that burials of this type are described in the Vedas. This
is patently untrue. Not a single verse in the Vedas describes how to dig or construct a grave. No
Vedic hymn describes the burial of a king. Yet one single word in one hymn of the Rig Veda
(10.18.13) is widely quoted by archaeologists, linguists and historians as linking the Rig Veda with
“kurgan” type burials in the Eurasian steppe. David Anthony, an anthropologist and author of the
book “Horse, Wheel and Language” has commented in a paper entitled “Archaeology and
Language” 13 by saying: “One hymn (Rigveda 10.18) describes a covered burial chamber with posts
holding up the roof, walls shored up, and the chamber sealed with clay—a precise description of
Sintashta and Andronovo grave pits.”

I repeat that no Vedic scholar agrees that the Vedas were meant for translation. They are not histories. Griffiths translation sounds stupid. Ancient Hindus look like stupid morons if you read the translation. The link below is what Griffiths wrote. (Rig Veda 10:18.1 to 10.18.14)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10018.htm

Tell me where it says what David Anthony the archaeologist claims: "a covered burial chamber with posts holding up the roof, walls shored up, and the chamber sealed with clay"

These people are liars. Every single one of them.

[shiv]

Hasn't happened yet, does not mean it will never happen.
As i said, if the jews can reclaim 'jew' from being a derogatory term, Hindus should show a bit more spine than you and reclaim Aryan. Jew didn't start off as a racist term (just like Aryan) but it remained a racist term for far longer than Aryan has.

Aryan is not an Indian word. There is nothing to reclaim.

Please desist from making personal remarks.