Ancient Man and His First Civilizations.Proving Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth and severe lie

[SrNair]

Early also means Primitive. As in not the final products. No Aryan, No contemporary Hinduism. You can't deny that basic fact.

Keep your evil to yourself we don't discuss Morality rather Historical facts. The Aryan does not simply injects something to Hindu they add to it for instance the Caste Systems to the Pantheons you worship those are Aryans legacy to Hinduism. Whether you like it or not that is considered Hindu.

Ohhhh ...What the hell are you talking about?

Please check all other posts ,then argue.
Aryans came to an advanced civilization not a primitive land.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Romans and Greeks got it from the Persians themselves.



You can't use religious books to reconstruct historical data. Most scholars of history will not accept it.

Heh.

You are quite right, and so is he.

This is the part of the south Asian past that keeps creeping into discussions as history, utterly incorrectly, as you have pointed out in an indirect manner. As it happens, these belong to the realm of pre-history, not even of proto-history. He might be justified in using these religious texts to construct a pre-historical account. It has been done, for instance, with the Pentateuch.

And, of course, it is not history.

Actually the Persians made up the word but it didn't become a widespread word to describe India until the Mughals began to use Hindustan to describe their dominions.

Well, yes and no.

It passed from Persian to the Greek.

The India of the Achaemenids was a frontier province, and was filled with adventurers from all over the Empire, including, it should surprise none, Ionian Greeks (the original Yavanas, who also gave their name to the Arabic system of medicine, Unani, centuries later). Greeks do not do the 'h' sound; so, to them, "Hindu" became "' "Indou", whence "India".

India was a very widespread word to describe south Asia, Megasthenes having used the word "Indika" and the word Hindustan came along considerably later.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Ohhhh ...What the hell are you talking about?

View attachment 19673

Please check all other posts ,then argue.
Aryans came to an advanced civilization not a primitive land.

Advanced Civilization are relative. People who have a modicum understanding of history will know that, but of course you don't. To make comparison is to make bias. Dravidian were "advanced," but not that advanced compared to lets say the Chinese or the Roman. To proof it what the hell the ancient Indians contribute to the world society other than as breeding ground for Religions? The Aryans were also advanced, but in the way of efficiently killing their fellow man. In a way it was a war between two "advanced" civilizations.

There were no Hindu they were not called it Hindu yet. It's not until the Aryan reach the Ganges around 800 BCE as narrated in Mahabharata, that both religions got mixed in the process giving rise to what is now called Hinduism.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ohhhh ...What the hell are you talking about?

View attachment 19673

Please check all other posts ,then argue.
Aryans came to an advanced civilization not a primitive land.

What advanced civilisation? What was there that marks an advanced civilisation?

 

[SrNair]

Advanced Civilization are relative. People who have a modicum understanding of history will know that, but of course you don't. To make comparison is to make bias. Dravidian were "advanced," but not that advanced compared to lets say the Chinese or the Roman. To proof it what the hell the ancient Indians contribute to the world society other than as breeding ground for Religions? The Aryans were also advanced, but in the way of efficiently killing their fellow man. In a way it was a war between two "advanced" civilizations.

There were no Hindu they were not called it Hindu yet. It's not until the Aryan reach the Ganges around 800 BCE as narrated in Mahabharata, that both religions got mixed in the process giving rise to what is now called Hinduism.

I dont want to talk to you and repeat same thing again and again.Majority of world already debunk AIT theory.We know our history ,an outsider dont need to teach us.Still Hindus are suffering due to the evils injected by Aryans into Hinduism and
a mature civilization

What advanced civilisation? What was there that marks an advanced civilisation?

I already explained that.Dont interested in repeating.

 

[KingMamba]

Heh.

You are quite right, and so is he.

This is the part of the south Asian past that keeps creeping into discussions as history, utterly incorrectly, as you have pointed out in an indirect manner. As it happens, these belong to the realm of pre-history, not even of proto-history. He might be justified in using these religious texts to construct a pre-historical account. It has been done, for instance, with the Pentateuch.

And, of course, it is not history.



Well, yes and no.

It passed from Persian to the Greek.

The India of the Achaemenids was a frontier province, and was filled with adventurers from all over the Empire, including, it should surprise none, Ionian Greeks (the original Yavanas, who also gave their name to the Arabic system of medicine, Unani, centuries later). Greeks do not do the 'h' sound; so, to them, "Hindu" became "' "Indou", whence "India".

India was a very widespread word to describe south Asia, Megasthenes having used the word "Indika" and the word Hindustan came along considerably later.

Actually originally India only described the provinces Darius had conquered he declared he had conquered Hind, Greeks translated that to India when describing his conquests that is why Alexander knew of the existence of the Indus and he wanted to conquer it as well.. It was after he reached the banks of the river that he discovered that there was still further dominions to conquer but his army balked at the task. It was then the Seleucids who send explorers further east (this is where Megasthenes comes in) and then around 200 years later it became the generic term to describe all of South Asia and even a vast part of East Asia as well. That is the history of the word India. I would venture as far as to say the ancient peoples of modern day Pakistan were the original Indians.

The word Hindu while now denotes a religious group was originally just the Persian word for India which they called Hind and Mughals being Persian speakers called their people hindu while their nation Hindustan. Before the coming of the British it would not be surprising to hear somebody call themselves a Muslim Hindu it was the British who turned the word into a generic religious label because they wanted to codify local beliefs.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

I dont want to talk to you and repeat same thing again and again.Majority of world already debunk AIT theory.We know our history ,an outsider dont need to teach us.Still Hindus are suffering due to the evils injected by Aryans into Hinduism and
a mature civilization

Don't used the word mature civilization either cause its have the same meaning. If majority did debunk (which I highly doubt it because I was taught AIT, but I was also taught another theory last semester & around the world people also being taught the same) Beside I Don't have to because I already convinced you that the Aryan did invade. you can check your own post to make sure I did. I got you from accepting Albino to accepting Aryan.

 

[KingMamba]

Don't used the word mature civilization either cause its have the same meaning. If majority did debunk (which I highly doubt it because I was taught AIT, but I was also taught another theory last semester & around the world people also being taught the same) Beside I Don't have to because I already convinced you that the Aryan did invade. you can check your own post to make sure I did. I got you from accepting Albino to accepting Aryan.

There is no proof of an invasion sir, just because there are ancient relics from Central asian or Iranic origins does not mean they came over because of an invading army. It is more likely a groups of Iranians migrated over to the area of the Indus to settle and upon mingling with the locals gave birth to Vedic civilization. The chariot relics you claims to be found in Ganges or Indus plains would be relics of their influence rather then their invasion.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

There is no proof of an invasion sir, just because there are ancient relics from Central asian or Iranic origins does not mean they came over because of an invading army. It is more likely a groups of Iranians migrated over to the area of the Indus to settle and upon mingling with the locals gave birth to Vedic civilization. The chariot relics you claims to be found in Ganges or Indus plains would be relics of their influence rather then their invasion.

Of course this why its still a contentious issue, but still no one can deny that the Aryans did came whether by swords or otherwise & leave a profound mark on Indian history, religion & culture.

I still keeping to my gun that the Aryans did violently invade the Indian continent. Because the tribe they left from was never known for anything peaceful. In a way I hate the Aryans more than Sreekumar can ever realize.

 

[bronxbull]

Advanced Civilization are relative. People who have a modicum understanding of history will know that, but of course you don't. To make comparison is to make bias. Dravidian were "advanced," but not that advanced compared to lets say the Chinese or the Roman. To proof it what the hell the ancient Indians contribute to the world society other than as breeding ground for Religions? The Aryans were also advanced, but in the way of efficiently killing their fellow man. In a way it was a war between two "advanced" civilizations.

There were no Hindu they were not called it Hindu yet. It's not until the Aryan reach the Ganges around 800 BCE as narrated in Mahabharata, that both religions got mixed in the process giving rise to what is now called Hinduism.

ayurveda,vegetarianism and so on......too many things.

Don't used the word mature civilization either cause its have the same meaning. If majority did debunk (which I highly doubt it because I was taught AIT, but I was also taught another theory last semester & around the world people also being taught the same) Beside I Don't have to because I already convinced you that the Aryan did invade. you can check your own post to make sure I did. I got you from accepting Albino to accepting Aryan.

why dont u come here n live instead theorizing in a classroom god knows how far away?

Of course this why its still a contentious issue, but still no one can deny that the Aryans did came whether by swords or otherwise & leave a profound mark on Indian history, religion & culture.

I still keeping to my gun that the Aryans did violently invade the Indian continent. Because the tribe they left from was never known for anything peaceful. In a way hate the Aryans more than Sreekumar can ever realize.

naah,u just smoke some skunk.

 

[faithfulguy]

I dont want to talk to you and repeat same thing again and again.Majority of world already debunk AIT theory.We know our history ,an outsider dont need to teach us.Still Hindus are suffering due to the evils injected by Aryans into Hinduism and
a mature civilization



I already explained that.Dont interested in repeating.

In the US, we still teach Aryan invasion as history. I learned it in school and they are still teaching it today. We learn this as how we learn about the great middle eastern empires. The kingdoms and dynasties of Egypt, the ancient Chinese civilization and the Aryan invasion of India that displaced the Indus civilization.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

ayurveda,vegetarianism and so on......too many things.

 

[faithfulguy]

Of course this why its still a contentious issue, but still no one can deny that the Aryans did came whether by swords or otherwise & leave a profound mark on Indian history, religion & culture.

I still keeping to my gun that the Aryans did violently invade the Indian continent. Because the tribe they left from was never known for anything peaceful. In a way hate the Aryans more than Sreekumar can ever realize.

Some of the Indians here come to a conclusion about what they want from history and then choose and ignore facts to suit their version of history. Its sad they are trying to convince others and are easily exposed.

 

[bronxbull]

i dont have any of it bro,my grandpa died last year at 92 and he was fine.

u develop canines by eating meat.doesn't mean it is good for u.u process it with so much spices and deep frying before etaing it,because ur stomach cant digest it otherwise.

it is elementary knowledge bro.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I dont want to talk to you and repeat same thing again and again.Majority of world already debunk AIT theory.We know our history ,an outsider dont need to teach us.Still Hindus are suffering due to the evils injected by Aryans into Hinduism and
a mature civilization

How interesting, considering that there was not a SINGLE Indian history other than Kalhana's Rajatarangini, before Muslim immigrants and British colonialists starting writing it. Did you get to know 'your' history by palm-reading?

I already explained that.Dont interested in repeating.

Nowhere have you managed to define what you mean by an advanced civilisation. I can only conclude that you have decided to acknowledge your limitations in the matter of ability to express yourself, and have decided to beat a retreat.