Clarification for non-Hindus

[Arkangel]

I hate to but in, not being Hindu inclined in any way, however my point is historic and not religious.

I notice early on that a theory of Aryan invasion upon the Vedics is described.

I do not think that this can be the case as Vedic scripture is almost identical in every way to Avestan scripture (Zoroastrian, in the modern world). There was a rift between the two groups of what once was this single religion well before the Roman emipire and possibly around or before the time of the Egyptian civilisations.

This group of people were the original Aryan race, and lived (mostly) in what is now Iran.

When the religion schismed, the two sides went their seperate ways. One to end in near extinction, the other to be tossed into the melting pot of the east.

That is my theory too ChrisP. Not my theory as such but the one i have been arguing for. Like everyting else in our world even our history is disputed Nobody will ever agree to anything that will undermine them in any way.

 

[Surya Deva]

I hate to but in, not being Hindu inclined in any way, however my point is historic and not religious.

I notice early on that a theory of Aryan invasion upon the Vedics is described.

I do not think that this can be the case as Vedic scripture is almost identical in every way to Avestan scripture (Zoroastrian, in the modern world). There was a rift between the two groups of what once was this single religion well before the Roman emipire and possibly around or before the time of the Egyptian civilisations.

This group of people were the original Aryan race, and lived (mostly) in what is now Iran.

When the religion schismed, the two sides went their seperate ways. One to end in near extinction, the other to be tossed into the melting pot of the east.

What you say makes sense to me, but I feel you are limiting yourself with your conclusions. It is known that Sanskrit and Hinduism's influences can be found all over Indo-Europe. It is also known that pre-Muhammed, the religion of Arabia was very similar to Hinduism and even worshipped the same pantheon of vedic gods(Varuna, Indra) Indeed the language Avestan is a dialect of Sanskrit. Zoroastrianism is almost identical to the Vedas, in that the verses is written in poetic/hymn and also has a similar oral tradition. So it it can be known that the Aryan influence spread very wide.

In fact, other than differences in dialetcs, it is virtually the same religion.

So what can explain this? I think there are five possibilities:

1. Aryans migrated from Iran into India(Aryan Migration theory)
2. Aryans migrated from India into Iran(and then Europe)
3. Arya culture propogated beyond Indian geographical boundaries
4. Indo-Europe had a common Aryan language and religion
5. Indo-Europe had a common Aryan language and religion, whose capitol was India.

If you look for Aryan culture and literature in the world today, your search will lead you to India, where the fabric of Indian society has historically been Aryan, if Aryan here is taken to mean vedic. If Aryans indeed had a foreign origin, then why is it that the vast majority of Aryan culture is in India?

Moreover, why are there no records of a migration of "Aryans" from central Europe or Persia? The Arya Indus-Saraswati civilisation, according to all the literature written, evolved in India on the river Saraswati, on the banks which the biggest cities were situated such as Harrapa and Mohen Jodaro(now in Pakistan) There were no records they had foreign home; India had been their home since Manu(first man) To corrborate there is an entire geneology of kings dating as far 10,000 years ago and history(itihas) There is support from archeaological evidence corroborating the antiquity.

Most of all the River Saraswati dried up between 3000BC and 2000BC, meaning that the Vedic Indians(or Aryans as you would like it) existed prior in India to these dates. The Mahabharata text records when it was beginning to dry up, the Mahabharata has traditionally dated to have occurred around 3000BC. The oldest sites of the Harappan are about 5000BC, according to The Directorate of Archaeology and Museum NWFP of Pakistan that conducted an extensive survey of the Gomal Plain in March 2003 and discovered 95 sites out of which exist 53 sites of different periods dating back to 7,000 years.

The recent discovery of a submerged city, believed to be where the ancient city of Dwarika once was, could be as old as 9000 years according to an article published in the BBC.

Finally, as mentioned in the prior post, the DNA evidence shows that there were no migrations. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the Aryans always having been indigenous to India.

This therefore means that from the possibilities ennumerated above, the following are likely true:

2. Aryans migrated from India into Iran(and then Europe)
3. Aryan culture propogated beyond Indian geographical boundaries
5. Indo-Europe had a common Aryan language and religion, whose capitol was India.

Given just how antiquated Indian civilisation is and the capabilities of the people at the time, that had extraordinary engineering skills, a modern decimal system and command over mathematics, also mention of seafaring capabilities. It is not surprising that over thousands of years the influence of this civilisation would have propogated beyond the geographical boundaries and it's people would have migrated far and wide over the world, spreading their culture and language. The most affected would be the neighbouring states like Iran, Aghhanistan and Arabia and indeed that is where the vedic influence is the most greatest.

Zoroaster could have been, one of the many sages/gurus or spiritual teachers propogating the dharmic ways with his own unique interpretations. Just like Buddha or Guru Nanak. Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Sikhism all share a common denominator; they are all within the field of influence of the dharmic or vedic religion.

Note how far Buddhism has spread from India to as Far East Asian nations such as Japan in such a short period of time. Can the same not have happened for the religion of the Aryans? Suppose in a distant future where much of the records of the world are lost for inexplicable reasons and historians try and trace back the origins of Buddhism. They too would be left with theories and possibilities; did it begin in Japan and then spread outwards? Did Buddhism split from Zen Buddhism or Tibetan Buddhism? etc etc

Likewise the records of Ancient Indian civilisation have been lost, much of what we know about Hinduism has been passed down orally though the ages and only since very recently are we uncovering the history of this glorious civilisation.

There is growing evidence that Ancient India was a thriving civilisation and an economic and intellectual capitol of the world. It was where the first univerisities were built where people from all over the world came to study. It was the only civilisation at the time that created metals like zinc and steel and had very complex sanitation and sewer system. So just like the influence of great civilisations spread across the world, likewise, a similar thing could have happened with the "Aryans" of India.

Now you may doubt the conclusion I have posted, but can you in all honesty, completely discard the possibility without a hint of ignorance?



Although I have used the word Aryan in this post to denote the vedic race or civilisation of people. I would like to clarify though, that the Indian civilisation was not synonymous with Aryan. Aryan is a word that was used to describe noble people and not everybody in ancient India were noble or Aryans

 

[ChrisP]

I am inclined towards the first option you present Suraj, Zoroastrians hold some of the more ancient recordings in middle/central asia. Might I direct you to : http://www.avesta.org/avesta.html

There used to be a documetn called USHAO available there, but it appears to now be in a forbidden area of the domain. I downloaded it to my employers network drives (for those long boring shifts ) and will upload it tomorrow for your perusal.

I believe the "aryans" of Europe are a different breed of people, the histories of which are lost in the mists of time. Particular evidence of this is the secluded isles of Brittania. Several waves of Brythonic and Gaelic Celts migrated there over the centuries, but much older agricultural civilisation has been unearthed dating back as far as 5000 BC, whose people used not unadvanced farming techniques.

But now I am digressing to a history of the world, and that is a lengthy discourse indeed.

I believe that the Iranian "aryans" migrated to th east after said religious "schism". My reasons for this are weak and devoid of physical evidence, but I have always found human nature more compelling evidence than a piece of pottery in barrows graves or hovels that, for all we know, could have been placed there by a travelling Ethiopian proselyte.

The early sanskrit peoples did not travel west other than to trade, contact with Europe was slim (mostly non-existant). They chose to disassociate themselves from the middle eastern Zoroastrians, considering them heretics.

The Zoroastrians Civilisations were decimated and interbred in what was (and still is) one of the most populous areas of the planet. The Vedic Aryans, over the hills and far away, were free from such. . . . difficulties. There religion remained, altered only by immigration and the greatest force for change there is, time.

The Roman Empire came and with it, Paganism, which was replaced by Christianity and eventually Allah, as rendered by the prophet Muhhamed, Peace Be Upon Him. Vedic influences can clearly be shown as Paganism (which exists anywhere and everywhere) and the teachings of the Buddha. Buddhisms great influence on Vedic practises is apparent as noted by Hindus' in this thread.

Surely the inclusion of Buddhist (almost exclusively Eastern until recent years), and deliberate exclusion of Abrahamic traditions, from a culture whose language is rooted in the heartland of said descendants of Abraham, is proof enough that Vedics left and did not return because they felt there tradtions were being warped or blasphemed against.

In any case, a most interesting academic discussion. I thank you all for your attentions and your honest and thoughtful responses.

 

[Arkangel]

This just goes to show that nobody will ever agree to one thing no matter how compelling ones arguments and evidences are.

 

[ChrisP]

This just goes to show that nobody will ever agree to one thing no matter how compelling ones arguments and evidences are.

But that's the best thing about people

 

[Surya Deva]

I believe that the Iranian "aryans" migrated to th east after said religious "schism". My reasons for this are weak and devoid of physical evidence, but I have always found human nature more compelling evidence than a piece of pottery in barrows graves or hovels that, for all we know, could have been placed there by a travelling Ethiopian proselyte.

I admire your humility and honesty. It is indeed a possibility that the "Aryans" migrated from Iran and into India, but a highly unlikely one, given the evidence. It would completely contradict everything we know about Indian history from the literary, archeaological, DNA and other evidence which shows Aryans were always indigenous to India.

If you argue, however, that there was another breed of European Aryans, completely different from the indigenous Aryans of India, then you have a more credibe argument. However, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The influences of the Vedic Aryans and their language Sanskrit on Indo-Europe is too great, that one would have to conclude it is the same Aryans.

I suppose now we have reached a juncture in this discussion where the AIT theory has to be turned on it's head, and the reverse, of India's Aryans having migrated over Indo-Europe and influencing the culture of the world.

The evidence would suggest this is a plausible scenorio. As more and more evidence amasses to prove that Arya culture is indigenous to India. Then it has become even more likely that the ancient Indians have somehow propogated their culture over the world and strongly influenced the worlds languages, arts and sciences. There has been a very great cultural influence from the Arya. Hence, why they are considered so important as to be elevated to some master race.

I will argue for this scenorio in this post. If I can prove that Ancient India has seafaring capabilities and contact and trade with much of the world, it would provide a functional, logical and likey explanation on how so many distant and remote lands were influenced and shaped by the Aryans of India. This is actually not a new idea, it has been accorded by many scholars all over the world.

I touched on the mention of seafaring capabilities of Ancient Indians earlier and how there is Vedic symbolism and architecture as far as Sumeria. I will expand on this now.

The mention of seafaring, shipbuilding and sea voyages can be found all over ancient Indian literature, including the Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas as well the secular texts

These vary from small ferry-crossing boats using oars to cross lakes and rivers to big ships for deep sea voyages of hundreds of tons, that can carry large loads and hundreds of people. Most of these sea-voyages were for the purpose of commerce/trade and exploration. It is now even accepted by many scholars that the Indians India had made contact with China, Egypt, Persia and the Greeks and even colonies in Indonesia and beyond and this maritime activity and intercourse between nations continued right on from vedic times to medieval times.

The earliest allusions to seafaring can be found in the oldest of Indian texts, the Rig Veda. The following verses:

RV (I. 25.7) represents Varuna having a full knowledge of the sea routes
RV(L. 56.2) speaks of merchants going everywhere and frequenting every part of the sea for gain.
RV (I. 97.8) As a ship across the river (or sea), Agni takes us across to safety
RV(I. 56.2) speaks of merchants, under the influence of greed, going sending ships to foreign countries.
RV (I. 116. 3) mentions a naval expedition on which Tugra the Rishi king sent his son Bhujyu against some of his enemies in the distant islands; Bhujyu, however, is ship wrecked by a storm, with all his followers, on the ocean, "where there is no support, no rest for the foot or the hand," from which he is rescued by the twin brethren, the Asvins, in their hundred-oared galley.
RV(1, 97, 8) Do thou, Agni, whose countenance is turned to all sides, send off our adversaries, as if in a ship to the opposite shore. Do thou convey us in a ship across the sea for our welfare." (A remarkable prayer for safe conduct at sea).

The mention of seafaring capaibility is alluded also in the Mahabharata and Ramayana epics, where the islands of Java(Indonesia) and China are named. In the Mahabharata, there is a very interesting and telling verse where the royal scribe(Vidhur) helps the Pandavas to escape in a secret ship that was planned for them. The ship was large, provided with all kinds of weapons and machinery and could withstand any storms and waves.

Another very interesting verse is how rescue boats were sent to rescue ship wrecked men.

The Manu Smiriti(The Laws of Manu) is where the most explicit references are made to ships. It codifies rules and laws on how to settle maritime trade disputes, insurance policies to be set by men competent in sea voyages. There is even rules on fixing boat-hire. The insurance policy states that the sailors would be liable for any damage caused to the goods on a ship, unless it is caused by something beyond human means. The practice of marine insurance is also stated in the Ramayana.

This would give a clear indication that since Manu(according to genelogy of kings this is going back to 10,000 years) there was seafaring capability. This opinion is shared by Sir William Jones, who states ""must have been navigators in the age of Manu, because bottomry (The lender of money for marine insurance) is mentioned in it. In the Ramayana, the practice of bottomry is distinctly noticed. " (Source: The Journal of the Royan Asiatic Society 1901)

A similar view is shared by Lord Mountstuart Elphinstone "The Hindus navigated the ocean as early as the sage of Manu's Code, because we read in it of men well acquainted with sea voyages."

Other explicit mentions can be found in the Yajnavalkya Samhita and Brihat Samhita. Thesse mention just how widespread sea borne trade was and how developed shipbuilding and navigation was. The Brihat Samita deals with how certain configuration of stars, and particularly the moon affects the fortune of sailors out at sea.

The Puranas mention the sea voyage of a merchant who set out in quest to find pearls from the "people who know about them" There is another anecdote of mentioned in the Varaha Purnaa of a merchant named Gokarna who was nearly shipwrecked at sea because of a storm.

In secular Sanskrit texts, Kalidasa Raghuvamsa (canto 4, sloka 36) mentions a battle at sea, where Raghu is attacked by a powerful naval force, by kings of Benegal.

Trade Links between India and Babylon can be found as early as 800BC. The Buddhist Text, Baveru Jataka, tells of how sea voyages were taken out to Baveru(Babylon)and the rivers of the Persian Gulf for trade from the Indian sea ports Bhroach and Supara.

So given all these references from ancient Indian literature, not least of which is the Laws of Manu text which even describes insurance policies for goods conveyed by sea, there is ample evidence here to show that the Arya of Indians were a sophisticated seafaring people. This gives us a viable method by which Arya culture would have propogated over the world. Indeed, the fact that Pakistan is a corridor into Indo-Europe is good enough, but sea travel makes it almost certain.

There is actually proof that Aryans of India did actually directly affect other cultures and actually colonized them peacefully. I will cover that from hereof:
Indian merchandize, goods and even symbolism can be found as far as Sumeria and Mesopotamia.

India and Egypt, and what is to be noted here is just how distant they are from each other, were trading around 285-247 BC. India was known as the land of "Punt" to the ancient Egyptians and was affectionally called "God's own land" The ancient Egyptians made many voyages to India and vis-versa. India exported spices, teak wood, cosmetics and other things.
In an extraordinary testimant to the powers of shipbuilding industry of India at the time. A trip of Alexander to the Indus was provided for by India, supplying 2000 vessels, which accomodated 8000 troops, several thousand horses and huge quantity of supplies.

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, written by a Graceo-Egyptian sailor in the first century A.D, gives an account of how when he came to India, he found the coasts of India replete with ports and harbour and brisk trade activity taking place. The chief exports from India were spices, perfumes, medicinal herbs, pigments, pearls, precious stones like diamond, sapphire, turquoise and lapis lazuli, animal skins, cotton cloth, silk yarn, muslin, indigo, ivory, porcelain and tortoise shell; the chief imports were cloth, linen, perfume, medicinal herbs, glass vessels, silver, gold, copper, tin, lead, pigment, precious stones and coral.

This would give a very strong indiciation that India was an economically and culturaly prosperous nation at the time. And apparently, and most amusing, it was heavily costing the Roman empire. An account given by the elder Pliny, who complained that there was "no year in which India did not drain the Roman Empire of a hundred million sesterces (1,000,000 pounds)....so dearly do we pay for our luxury and our women."

 

[Surya Deva]

Most surprisingly of all, that as far as Sumtra(Indonesia) there were Indian colonies before the common era. There was regular martime trafic from India in the South China Seas, and this is corrobrated by Chinese and Greek records, that even record Indian colonies in South East Asia. Since the fith century to the 10th century, the Mallaca straits were in control of an Indian naval power based in Sumatra, called the Sri Vijaya empire. It's control included much of Peninsular Malaya, Sumatra and the Western half of Java.

I'Tsing who resided for some years in that Kingdom says that the King possessed numerous ships which sailed regularly between India and Sri Vijaya as also between Sumatra and China.

The above explains how Hinduism and Buddhism, mainly Buddhism spread so far and wide across South East and Far East Asia, given India's cultural and economic supermacy.

In fact in a most startling revelation by Francois Balazar Solvyns (1760-1824) a French maritime painter, has made the following observation in his book, "Les Hindous"
Introducing the 40 or so sketches of boats and river vessels in use in Northern India in the 1790s, he observes, "the English, attentive to everything which relates to naval architecture, have borrowed from the Hindoos many improvements which they have adapted with success to their own shipping."


In fact very recently(2003) the USA actually also took assistance from ancient Indian shipbuilding knowledge to build a fast ship to deploy in Iraq. This was reported in the Wallstreet journal:

Washington May 28 2003: The United States adopted ancient Indian catamaran-making technology to construct fast ships which were used with dramatic effect in the Iraq war, says a media report.
Among the equipment the Americans used to win the Iraq war were 100-feet catamaran ships to ferry tanks and ammunition from Qatar to Kuwait.

The ships, built with technology adapted from ancient Tamil methods to make catamarans, can travel over 2,500 kms in less than 48 hours, twice the speed of the regular cargo ships, and carry enough equipment to support about 5,000 soldiers, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday.

Speaking of America, could ancient Indians Arya have got there before the Europeans? You know looking at this absolutely spectacular evidence, it wouldn't surprise me:

The Indus script has been found on Easter Island tablets. The Indus seal can be found in Sumeria.

Carl Jung especially noted that there are so many similarities in world culture, language, mythology that he proposed a collective unconsciousness to explain this. However, I think there is an even more prosaic explanation, and that is the global Aryan influence of ancient India. There is great evidence supporting this.

This gives us a functional and plausible explanation as why Aryan culture and language(Sanskrit) has such great similarity with the rest of the world. I think we have still only uncovered a tip of the ice berg of the gloriouos Indian civilisation; planned modern cities, deep sea ships and navigation, sewer systems and sanitation, demical systems, industrial production of zinc, steel, copper, tin and I also just recently found out they did brain and plastic surgery! What are we going to find out next? Aeroplanes? LOL

However, for me the most glorious of the contributions of this society to the world will be the infinite wisdom of the vedic religion and everything that has sprang from it.

I know that despite the vast body of evidence, it still maybe difficult to accept the conclusion of this post and I respect that completely.

But, if this really is the true history of our world, then historians are going to have to concede it at some time, irrespective of how much it hurts their pride.

 

[ChrisP]

Suraj, the information you have presented is certainly very persuasive in respect to the influence of Indus upon other cultures, but I find your conclusions a little far reaching.

Certainly the ancient cultures in India were as advanced in most areas as other "Great" civilisations in their times. In some areas their skills were greater.

With all this trading and open communications with far away lands, surely some of these skills must have been acquired from other areas of the world and built on in the Indus. Of course the reverse replies to other cultures. This is how development of our technologies has occured over the years.

Probably there were several "Aryan" races scattered throughout the world, and as they conquered assimilated and otherwise intermingled they created the varieties of races we know today. We have no proofs for this, but it certainly seems the more likely theory. The general confusion of the origins of "Aryans" indcates this. If it can be argued that the Aryan race was from anywhere from India to France, why not all of these?





Ary·an adj.

Word History: It is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, Indo-European peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, and India. Their tribal self-designation was a word reconstructed as *arya- or *arya-. The first of these is the form found in Iranian, as ultimately in the name of Iran itself (from Middle Persian

r

n (

ahr), “(Land) of the Iranians,” from the genitive plural of

r, “Iranian”). The variant *arya- is found unchanged in Sanskrit, where it referred to the upper crust of ancient Indian society. These words became known to European scholars in the 18th century. The shifting of meaning that eventually led to the present-day sense started in the 1830s, when Friedrich Schlegel, a German scholar who was an important early Indo-Europeanist, came up with a theory that linked the Indo-Iranian words with the German word Ehre, “honor,” and older Germanic names containing the element ario-, such as the Swiss warrior Ariovistus who was written about by Julius Caesar. Schlegel theorized that far from being just a designation of the Indo-Iranians, the word *arya- had in fact been what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, meaning something like “the honorable people.” (This theory has since been called into question.) Thus “Aryan” came to be synonymous with “Indo-European,” and in this sense entered the general scholarly consciousness of the day. Not much later, it was proposed that the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans had been in northern Europe. From this theory, it was but a small leap to think of the Aryans as having had a northern European physiotype. While these theories were playing themselves out, certain anti-Semitic scholars in Germany took to viewing the Jews in Germany as the main non-Aryan people because of their Semitic roots; a distinction thus arose in their minds between Jews and the “true Aryan” Germans, a distinction that later furnished unfortunate fodder for the racial theories of the Nazis.





​

The peoples of this world have been intermingling since we were spawned, from where ever/what ever it was that spawned us. I am not implying this is the case here, but : It is easier to think of ourselves as human with different and equally interesting cultures, rather than waste our efforts, in the vain pursuit of racial supremacy. This seems to be mostly the pursuit of people who pursue power, and philosophers such you and I needn't concern ourselves with such people wasting their precious moments.

​

 

[Jyothi]

ChrisP

Most of the people who have some knowledge of Sanskrit would not agree with your quotation or observation. i for one dont think that Suraj was intending to prove racial supremacy in anyway - what he presented were facts and any conclusion that one makes is ones own.

i agree with you that ancient civilizations have indeed complimented each others techonological and other prowess - that is very much possible.

When you say that arya is a tribal self designation, it might be questionable, as arya as has been already pointed out, only means cultured. thus even brahmins in India (the so called upper most caste), could do activities that arya or anarya (or not arya). meaning essentially that arya is more of something most acceptable to the society at any time. and any activity or person, who would do activities against societal norms or civility would be considered anarya.

so do you want to loosely translate it to a gentleman - maybe.

the rest of your quotation, brings back to the table the issue of AIT or at least postulates that Aryans originates in Northen Europe, now i think what all the previous posts were trying to prove through data from genetic studies and other evidence including archaeological evidence, that such supposition is at best - without evidence

i think we need more substantive arguments from you than that. it is difficult for a person like me to understand such logic - maybe a catholic mind set, considering the bible as the be all and end all of all logic could help.

but sadly or not i grew up challenging all i was taught including the scriptures millions of hindus hold dear. i think the essence of the discussion is - when you present the northern european basis of aryans - can you prove it using more scientific data, such as maybe archaeological evidence or genetic studies; and i hope i have set the sanskritic arya discussion right. i dont think it is tribal self designation.

 

[ChrisP]

ChrisP

Most of the people who have some knowledge of Sanskrit would not agree with your quotation or observation. i for one dont think that Suraj was intending to prove racial supremacy in anyway - what he presented were facts and any conclusion that one makes is ones own.

This is why I mentione the fact I was not implying such claims. I did not think he was at all.

This is the far reaching conclusion I was referring to :

However, for me the most glorious of the contributions of this society to the world will be the infinite wisdom of the vedic religion and everything that has sprang from it.

I know that despite the vast body of evidence, it still maybe difficult to accept the conclusion of this post and I respect that completely.

But, if this really is the true history of our world, then historians are going to have to concede it at some time, irrespective of how much it hurts their pride.

This is not very humble. Every nations achievments are great in one respect or another. To level Vedic culture with such civilisations as the Chinese, Roman, Egyptian, Greek, and Mayan civilisations is certainly applicable. To promote it above? This is to trample on others achievments.

i agree with you that ancient civilizations have indeed complimented each others techonological and other prowess - that is very much possible.

When you say that arya is a tribal self designation, it might be questionable, as arya as has been already pointed out, only means cultured. thus even brahmins in India (the so called upper most caste), could do activities that arya or anarya (or not arya). meaning essentially that arya is more of something most acceptable to the society at any time. and any activity or person, who would do activities against societal norms or civility would be considered anarya.

so do you want to loosely translate it to a gentleman - maybe.

In this context I was discussing the origins of the aryan word in English which are Iranian and are a tribal self designation. I was not discussing the Indian language as my knowledge of this language is extremely poor, until recently I had no knowledge of it at all. I would be happy to translate it to Gentleman in ?Brahmin? if this is what you advise.

In english I prefer to translate it to origin of a race.

the rest of your quotation, brings back to the table the issue of AIT or at least postulates that Aryans originates in Northen Europe, now i think what all the previous posts were trying to prove through data from genetic studies and other evidence including archaeological evidence, that such supposition is at best - without evidence

i think we need more substantive arguments from you than that. it is difficult for a person like me to understand such logic - maybe a catholic mind set, considering the bible as the be all and end all of all logic could help.

but sadly or not i grew up challenging all i was taught including the scriptures millions of hindus hold dear. i think the essence of the discussion is - when you present the northern european basis of aryans - can you prove it using more scientific data, such as maybe archaeological evidence or genetic studies; and i hope i have set the sanskritic arya discussion right. i dont think it is tribal self designation.

I do not argue that Aryans are from Northern Europe. I argue that Aryans were the early members of the human race everywhere in the world. To clarify: There were Indian Aryans, Mid Eastern Aryans, European Aryans (of more than one variety), there were probably East Asian Aryans as well and more besides. From this point all races intermingled. I am not arguing on the basis of Archaelogical evidence. I have consistently maintained that I am arguing on the basis of human nature.

I do not believe in an Aryan master race, I believe in several Globally. There are smart people, strong people, fast people, people who are good with their hands, people who are good with their tongue (got to watch the last ones ) in every race, which seems to me to prove people are now and have always been equal.

Aryan to me is not a case of superior breeding, or conduct. This is not a concept I can agree with as all people are beautiful. Aryan to me is the origin of our races, and as there are certainly more races than 1 there must be more groups of Aryans than 1.


I put no stock in physical evidence for this reason: if you saw a woman from behind with long beautiful hair and an arse to die for, you would say she was good looking. If this woman turned around and was a transvestite, what then is the situation. Physicality depends upon perspective, as does any qualitative and quantitative evidence. Much better to reason based on what we can see happening around us and compare. The way of things has not changed so much as we would like to think.

On a completely unrelated note, isn't it a shame Sehwag is not going to have a chance to take on Lara's record.

 

[Surya Deva]

This is not very humble. Every nations achievments are great in one respect or another. To level Vedic culture with such civilisations as the Chinese, Roman, Egyptian, Greek, and Mayan civilisations is certainly applicable. To promote it above? This is to trample on others achievments.

Hi Chris,

I will respond to your other points in due course. For now, I just wanted to clarify, that racial superamcy was not the conclusion of my post. I think you put it quite succiently that these different civilisations had different strengths of their own and complimented each other. What I am arguing for is the influence the Arya/Vedic civilisation/Indus had on the world, and why this would explain the common Aryan heritage over the world.

Take for example, the USA today. It is a very prosperous superpower nation, but that is not to say it is superior to other countries in the world in every respect or that Americans are a superior race. However, US culture has strongly influenced the word, because of the cultural and economic power it commands. Similarily, India commanded a lot of economic and cultural power back then and hence why it's influence spread wide over the world. This in no way should be construed as something to undermine the great contributions of other great civilisations, each of whom made valuable contributions to our world.

My remark was aimed at the Eurocentric scholars and historians who cannot accept the possibility of the reverse of AIT theory they push on us Indians.

 

[ChrisP]

Hi Chris,

I will respond to your other points in due course. For now, I just wanted to clarify, that racial superamcy was not the conclusion of my post. I think you put it quite succiently that these different civilisations had different strengths of their own and complimented each other. What I am arguing for is the influence the Arya/Vedic civilisation/Indus had on the world, and why this would explain the common Aryan heritage over the world.

Take for example, the USA today. It is a very prosperous nation, but that is not to say it is superior to other countries in the world in every respect or that Americans are a superior race. However, US culture has strongly influenced the word, because of the cultural and economic power it commands. Similarily, India commanded a lot of economic and cultural power back then and hence why it's influence spread wide over the world. This in no way should be construed as something to undermine the great contributions of other great civilisations.

My remark was aimed at the Eurocentric scholars and historians who cannot accept the possibility of the reverse of AIT theory they push on us Indians.

Greatness comes, Greatness goes. All civilisations have had a zenith and nadir, likewise their influence.

 

[Jyothi]

Now, in an important book titled The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey out of Africa (New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2003), the prominent Oxford University scholar Stephen Oppenheimer has synthesised the available genetic evidence together with climatology and archaeology with conclusions which have bearing on the debate about the early population of India. This work has received great attention in the West, and it will also interest Indians tremendously.

Much of Oppenheimer's theory is based on recent advances in studies of mitochondrial DNA, inherited through the mother, and Y chromosomes, inherited by males from the father. Oppenheimer makes the case that whereas Africa is the cradle of all mankind; India is the cradle of all non-African peoples. Man left Africa approximately 90,000 years ago, heading east along the Indian Ocean, and established settlements in India. It was only during a break in glacial activity 50,000 years ago, when deserts turned into grasslands, that people left India and headed northwest into the Russian steppes and on into Eastern Europe, as well as northeast through China and over the now submerged Bering Strait into the Americas.

In their migration to India, African people carried the mitochondrial DNA strain L3 and Y chromosome line M168 across south Red Sea across the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. On the maternal side the mtDNA strain L3 split into two daughters which Oppenheimer labels Nasreen and Manju. While Manju was definitely born in India the birthplace of Nasreen is tentatively placed by him in southern Iran or Baluchistan. One Indian Manju subclan in India is as old as 73,000 years, whereas European man goes back to less than 50,000 years.

Considering the paternal side, Oppenheimer sees M168 as having three sons, of whom Seth was the most important one. Seth, in turn, had five sons which are named by him as Jahangir, H, I, G and Krishna. Krishna, born in India, is the ancestor of the peoples of East Asia, Central Asia, Oceania and West Eurasia (through the M17 mutation). This is what Oppenheimer says about M17:

South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a 'male Aryan Invasion of India.'

Study of the geographical distribution and the diversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with his son M17, arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India, and subsequently spread not only south-east to Australia but also north, directly to Central Asia, before splitting east and west into Europe and East Asia.

Oppenheimer argues that the Eurocentric view of ancient history is also incorrect. For example, Europeans didn't invent art, because the Australian aborigines developed their own unique artistic culture in complete isolation. Indian rock art is also extremely ancient, going back to over 40,000 BC, so perhaps art as a part of culture had arisen in Africa itself. Similarly, agriculture didn't arise in the Fertile Crescent; Southeast Asia had already domesticated many plants by that time.

Oppenheimer concludes with two extraordinary conclusions: 'First, that the Europeans' genetic homeland was originally in South Asia in the Pakistan/Gulf region over 50,000 years ago; and second, that the Europeans' ancestors followed at least two widely separated routes to arrive, ultimately, in the same cold but rich garden. The earliest of these routes was the Fertile Crescent. The second early route from South Asia to Europe may have been up the Indus into Kashmir and on to Central Asia, where perhaps more than 40,000 years ago hunters first started bringing down game as large as mammoths.'

This synthesis of genetic evidence makes it possible to understand the divide between the north and the south Indian languages. It appears that the Dravidian languages are more ancient, and the Aryan languages evolved in India over thousands of years before migrations took them to central Asia and westward to Europe. The proto-Dravidian languages had also, through the ocean route, reached northeast Asia, explaining the connections between the Dravidian family and the Korean and the Japanese.

Indian history has long been plagued by the Aryan invasion narrative, which was created by English scholars of the 19th century; it is only fitting that another Englishman, Stephen Oppenheimer, should announce its demise.

 

[anders]

Lots of interesting points. I would have liked to be able to use a week to respond to everything.

I have found one book that really tries to be impartial in discussing the AIT: Edwin Bryant: The quest for the origins of Vedic culture: the Indo-Aryan migration debate. The conclusion seems to be that the AIT can be neither proved nor disproved.

Personally, I have had a few laughs at "proof" sounding like there were Proto-Indo-Europen speaking bits of pottery invading India, bringing no other traces of culture with them - especially not of horses, which are so important for Aryan culture.

I can live with a theory that man emerged in Africa and then, via the central Asian steppes, and then entered the subcontinent to create Northern Indian civilizations. That is, before the proposed age of the "Invasion". The Southerners may well have come by sea.

Speaking of America, could ancient Indians Arya have got there before the Europeans? You know looking at this absolutely spectacular evidence, it wouldn't surprise me:

The Indus script has been found on Easter Island tablets. The Indus seal can be found in Sumeria.

The Hungarian M.G. de Hevesy, who I think is the person who made those drawings, probably was the first person to point out Indus-Easter Island resemblances. If you look at photographs of the real seals and tablets, the likeness isn't all that obvious. I'm not alone in believing that those similarites them (and equally few similarities to Chinese characters) are only matters of coincidence.

It is very interesting that Indus seals are found in the Mesopotamian area. This testifies to trade, and perhaps even to that India was the more active partner providing more attractive goods, because I think there is less if any evidence of products brought from Mesopotamia to the Indus valley.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

Thats awesome. Yay for tamizhans!

Its weird though. According to our actual "race" Indians of the indian subcontinent are caucasoid. There are only three races according to this classification, the other two being negroid and mongoloid. One must note though, that certain physical features are inherent in each race, but not limited to. For example, north africans and southern europeans may share mixed traits of caucasoid and negroid. The same goes for caucasoid and mongoloid in western china.

 

[ChrisP]

Thats awesome. Yay for tamizhans!

Its weird though. According to our actual "race" Indians of the indian subcontinent are caucasoid. There are only three races according to this classification, the other two being negroid and mongoloid. One must note though, that certain physical features are inherent in each race, but not limited to. For example, north africans and southern europeans may share mixed traits of caucasoid and negroid. The same goes for caucasoid and mongoloid in western china.

Yeah, I met some Siberians and Mongolians whilst in Japan and they are definitely an... exotic blend

 

[Jyothi]

i think what ardhanarishwar is refering to is the racial stereotype taught in indian schools, which was inturn inherited from the british - though i did not see the relevance of such reference.

however the racial stereotyping into 3 categories is now found to be inadequate and irrelevant as there are many more different races, if you were to classify them as such.

anyways the reason i brought in the post above, was because we had discussed about the AIT and this particular article stood it on its head. so even if you were to use the codification system and assume that indians were caucasoid, it doesnt either support or counter the AIT.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

"anyways the reason i brought in the post above, was because we had discussed about the AIT and this particular article stood it on its head. so even if you were to use the codification system and assume that indians were caucasoid, it doesnt either support or counter the AIT."

My point was that indians, regardless of what race classifcation they are, are genetically similar. The AIT teaches how the so called nomadic aryans manged to conquer the vast civilazation of Harappa and Mohanjodar, and supposedly push the dravidians (who were supposedly negroid) who created these civilizations to the south.

The guy who created the AIT (Max Muller) even says that people misunderstand what he says. His subject was language and when he said aryan, he meant the aryan language. But the german nationalists basically took this further to race, which is not true. For example, I speak english, but that doesnt mean Im english. The evidence of an invasion was only the fighting between the n. indians and the iranians (who before the arrival of islam had vedic belief systems).

This new AIT based on race is now the theory everyone is most familiar with, even though its nothing like the original AIT.

 

[Jyothi]

"anyways the reason i brought in the post above, was because we had discussed about the AIT and this particular article stood it on its head. so even if you were to use the codification system and assume that indians were caucasoid, it doesnt either support or counter the AIT."

My point was that indians, regardless of what race classifcation they are, are genetically similar. The AIT teaches how the so called nomadic aryans manged to conquer the vast civilazation of Harappa and Mohanjodar, and supposedly push the dravidians (who were supposedly negroid) who created these civilizations to the south.

The guy who created the AIT (Max Muller) even says that people misunderstand what he says. His subject was language and when he said aryan, he meant the aryan language. But the german nationalists basically took this further to race, which is not true. For example, I speak english, but that doesnt mean Im english. The evidence of an invasion was only the fighting between the n. indians and the iranians (who before the arrival of islam had vedic belief systems).

This new AIT based on race is now the theory everyone is most familiar with, even though its nothing like the original AIT.

Oh i see where u come from and agree with you.

however, it might be of interest to note that there is virtually no genetic difference between any human being irrespective of race.

some racial characteristics are prminant thats all.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

Oh i see where u come from and agree with you.

however, it might be of interest to note that there is virtually no genetic difference between any human being irrespective of race.

some racial characteristics are prminant thats all.

lol, yeah... which are determined by genetics.