bansal2008
Member
Actually, I was fed that "bilge" by first rank Indo-Europeanists before I earned my Ph.D. in linguistics. One of those Indo-Europeanists was a Hindu, a former head of the linguistics department at Kurukshetra University, who taught me Sanskrit, Hindi, and yoga. He had spent time in jail during the Raj, but that probably wouldn't mean much to you. Clearly you have nothing but contempt for Indians who might disagree with your prejudices.
You know nothing of my ancestry, but, when you go back that far, we probably all have shared ancestors. I'm sure that some of mine lived in the same caves that yours did.
Nonsense. Read the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita. The Aryans migrated to northern India (probably well after the collapse of the the Harappa civilization). There was little or no evidence of horses in the Harappa culture, and that was a characteristic of the Aryan-led culture.
You clearly haven't studied the history of those times. Greeks had a major impact on Indian culture, and they were even mentioned in Panini's classic Astadhyayisutrapatha, the definitive work on the Sanskrit language.
Sanskrit has been scientifically proven to be an Indo-European language (through sound correspondences in cognate vocabulary). We know that Indo-European did not spread from India, because shared cognate words across Indo-European cultures suggest flora and fauna that did not exist in India in ancient times. The word for "salmon", for example, typically referred to a fish in daughter languages where the fish was known to speakers. In the Indic branch, where it was not known at the time, the word came to mean different things, such as "prize" and "jump". That is, the cognate words continued to exist, but their usage was adapted to different environmental conditions. The only reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that Sanskrit descended from an ancestor language whose homeland was outside of Indian subcontinent. The most reasonable theory about the Harappa culture is that they spoke an earlier version of modern Dravidian languages.
You need to read about Aryan Migration theory.
If you read vedas, you will see there is actually a Aryan Migration theory - a watered down version of its predecessor. Read on to that. Rig Veda describes an east to west migration, the earliest mandalas refer to areas and rivers (including ganga), in what is now UP, then as we move to the later mandalas, we see a westward shift, and the last few mandalas refer to areas in Afghanistan.
Aryans did not come down to civilise ancient India from northern Asia and Europe as is widely believed by historians and archaelogists, but rather that they went out from Sind on the banks of the Indus river and civilised the rest of the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
@ BOLD no evidence of an increase in frequency of horse bones, in the proposed invasion period, have have been found in the archeological records!, also no increase in horse bones in the trail from west to east have been found either in the said period!. No weapons, no chariots, no armour, no smashed bodies, no signs of destruction have been found at the IVC sites, infact the earliest archeological evidence we have of chariot usage in India dates back to the Mauryan period!.
In other words, archeological evidence does not support an invasion theory of any kind.
One would think, that an invasion of such magnitude, that completely changed the linguistic and religious landscape of the subcontinent, would've left some sort of hard evidence behind.
