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

[bronxbull]

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.

i find it even more hilarious that people who have never been to India act like bozos and give their opinions,when it really doesn't matter is just bullshit.

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?



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.

what about those books which were destroyed and there is an oral tradition as opposed to a written tradition,

did u go n ask village elders of their history?

 

[KingMamba]

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.

First of all I think we need to call them Western Migrants instead of Aryans because the term Aryan came into play later during the vedic civilization and it denoted a nobility that developed and not race. The Europeans have screwed up the meaning of this term for their own nefarious design and so we should use a different term for the people who do not understand this difference.

Secondly you tell me what tribe you think they came from and then give me a source that says they were violent or non violent? As far as I know the migrants are claimed to have come from the west but nobody knows exactly where from the west. All we know is that they were likely an Iranic people because of the linguistic connect between Ancient Avestan and Sanskrit. The violence theory has no support because there is no archaeological digs that have dug up bones of the thousands of people they would have had to have killed in order to support said theory. Also if they were as violent as you claim this would have influenced their behavior upon settling in the Indus valley as well but these same people never militarily attacked eastward and their belief system spread through word of mouth instead.

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.

How old are you? I learned world history here in school as well but they cover the Indus valley during ancient societies along with the Babylonian and Nile river societies but never teach us about AIT. In my high school IVC was taught alongside those then when we learned about India it started from Mauryan Ashoka then went to Muslims invasions and then partition. Then we talked about India Pakistan wars for a little and that was it.

In fact the term Aryan itself never comes in the curriculum until we learn of Hitler's grand design.

 

[faithfulguy]

i find it even more hilarious that people who have never been to India act like bozos and give their opinions,when it really doesn't matter is just bullshit.



what about those books which were destroyed and there is an oral tradition as opposed to a written tradition,

did u go n ask village elders of their history?

Oral history do not count as a valid historical source for obvious reasons. In reality, acceptable historical record exists only when a piece of artifact exists around the time of an event that details the event. Preferably if there are more copies. A historical record must pass the Bibliographical Test for the Reliability.

First of all I think we need to call them Western Migrants instead of Aryans because the term Aryan came into play later during the vedic civilization and it denoted a nobility that developed and not race. The Europeans have screwed up the meaning of this term for their own nefarious design and so we should use a different term for the people who do not understand this difference.

Secondly you tell me what tribe you think they came from and then give me a source that says they were violent or non violent? As far as I know the migrants are claimed to have come from the west but nobody knows exactly where from the west. All we know is that they were likely an Iranic people because of the linguistic connect between Ancient Avestan and Sanskrit. The violence theory has no support because there is no archaeological digs that have dug up bones of the thousands of people they would have had to have killed in order to support said theory. Also if they were as violent as you claim this would have influenced their behavior upon settling in the Indus valley as well but these same people never militarily attacked eastward and their belief system spread through word of mouth instead.



How old are you? I learned world history here in school as well but they cover the Indus valley during ancient societies along with the Babylonian and Nile river societies but never teach us about AIT. In my high school IVC was taught alongside those then when we learned about India it started from Mauryan Ashoka then went to Muslims invasions and then partition. Then we talked about India Pakistan wars for a little and that was it.

In fact the term Aryan itself never comes in the curriculum until we learn of Hitler's grand design.

I went to school in Calif. Where did you go to school. I'm also a little older.

 

[KingMamba]

Oral history do not count as a valid historical source for obvious reasons. In reality, acceptable historical record exists only when a piece of artifact exists around the time of an event that details the event. Preferably if there are more copies. A historical record must pass the Bibliographical Test for the Reliability.



I went to school in Calif. Where did you go to school. I'm also a little older.

NYC so if I am younger my curriculum would be more current. I am 20 so that should tell you which one of us read the more current textbooks on the subject? Maybe AIT was taught in schools your time but for me it was not.

 

[SrNair]

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.

Thats the point where the problem lies.They cant completely displaced it.Instead they enter in to that society.India and its education system dont care about US and its education .Fact is British propagates this fake theory in India for claim and take credit of the India's advanced civilization and its powerful structure.Foreigners just only enter in to a system that is already flourishes in Ancient India.
But the very basic foundation already established in India before Aryans invaded in to India.

 

[faithfulguy]

NYC so if I am younger my curriculum would be more current. I am 20 so that should tell you which one of us read the more current textbooks on the subject? Maybe AIT was taught in schools your time but for me it was not.

School don't teach crap nowadays.

 

[Indischer]

Oral history do not count as a valid historical source for obvious reasons. In reality, acceptable historical record exists only when a piece of artifact exists around the time of an event that details the event. Preferably if there are more copies. A historical record must pass the Bibliographical Test for the Reliability.



I went to school in Calif. Where did you go to school. I'm also a little older.

Precisely. So where exactly is the evidence that has been unearthed which points to an invasion by the so called Aryans?

 

[bronxbull]

Oral history do not count as a valid historical source for obvious reasons. In reality, acceptable historical record exists only when a piece of artifact exists around the time of an event that details the event. Preferably if there are more copies. A historical record must pass the Bibliographical Test for the Reliability.



I went to school in Calif. Where did you go to school. I'm also a little older.

Thats a logical fallacy,it is not necessary that an artifact has to be present,anyway i wonder why is an american telling us what is our history.

If my dad tells me an anecdote,i demand that he catches it on his phone and show me a video,thats how shallow this is.

Precisely. So where exactly is the evidence that has been unearthed which points to an invasion by the so called Aryans?

it is not necessary,it is about faith.

artefacts may or may not exist,translation may or may not be accurate.

i cant accept a probablistic deduction of history,only certainity counts.

 

[faithfulguy]

Precisely. So where exactly is the evidence that has been unearthed which points to an invasion by the so called Aryans?

Since there are no direct evidence, the closest evidence is the linguistic study, which prove to be quite useful in studying the migration of people. Do you know that the ancestors of all SE asia islands and pacific islands originated from Taiwan base on linguistic study. This is regarded as facts based on linguistic study. Aryan invasion or migration if you prefer is also based on linguistic studies.

Austronesian languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Robert Blust (1999), Austronesian is divided in several primary branches, all but one of which are found exclusively on Taiwan. The Formosan languages of Taiwan are grouped into as many as nine first-order subgroups of Austronesian. All Austronesian languages spoken outside Taiwan (including its offshore Yami language) belong to the Malayo-Polynesian branch, sometimes called Extra-Formosan.

The question I posed before is if Indo-Aryan language came into India or the whole Indo-European language originated from India. Linguist had concluded that Indo-Aryan language was brought into India through the event we now called Aryan invasion.

 

[KingMamba]

Thats the point where the problem lies.They cant completely displaced it.Instead they enter in to that society.India and its education system dont care about US and its education .Fact is British propagates this fake theory in India for claim and take credit of the India's advanced civilization and its powerful structure.Foreigners just only enter in to a system that is already flourishes in Ancient India.
But the very basic foundation already established in India before Aryans invaded in to India.

The problem is you do not know what the IVC people followed, there are theories but no accepted truth. Your theory is that they followed some Tamil type thing based on your website written by an author who as far as I am concerned may have an agenda says he claims to have deciphered scripts that the rest of the world still claims have not been deciphered. What came to flourish in India namely the Vedic civilization came after the migration so how can you claim to know that it is the same exact civilization followed by IVC? The answer is you don't but Indians have an agenda to promote because God forbid they accept the reality that outsiders helped shape their so called continuous civilization. Not to mention the more senile group of Indians who claim not only was their no outside influence but that Indian instead influenced the rest of the planet with OIT . These are the same loons who opened the Mexicans are actually Indians thread on pdf not so long ago.

School don't teach crap nowadays.

That is because scholars don't accept AIT anymore. AMT makes sense and historically we have seen plenty of migrations to support such a theory but if it was an invasion where are the remains of the dead? No excavation has unearthed any mass grave to support such a theory.

 

[bronxbull]

@faithfulguy,

do u know any indo aryan or other indian language?

 

[Indischer]

Since there are no direct evidence, the closest evidence is the linguistic study, which prove to be quite useful in studying the migration of people. Do you know that the ancestors of all SE asia islands and pacific islands originated from Taiwan base on linguistic study. This is regarded as facts based on linguistic study. Aryan invasion or migration if you prefer is also based on linguistic studies.

Austronesian languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Robert Blust (1999), Austronesian is divided in several primary branches, all but one of which are found exclusively on Taiwan. The Formosan languages of Taiwan are grouped into as many as nine first-order subgroups of Austronesian. All Austronesian languages spoken outside Taiwan (including its offshore Yami language) belong to the Malayo-Polynesian branch, sometimes called Extra-Formosan.

The question I posed before is if Indo-Aryan language came into India or the whole Indo-European language originated from India. Linguist had concluded that Indo-Aryan language was brought into India through the event we now called Aryan invasion.

Diffusion of culture can also take place from migration, not necessarily through invasion. Linguistic clues only point to the fact that Sanskrit is an Indo-Aryan language with close similarities to Iranic languages.

Besides, what exactly is the reason for caste system prevalent everywhere in India? If the Dravidians were a ethnic community and had to retreat to the South where they had their own kingdoms and exerted political independence, why would they ever accept the caste system into their folds? More pertinently, why do the Brahmins of the South also speak Dravidian languages in addition to rudimentary knowledge of Sanskrit(in most cases)? Also, do you know that Sanskrit was NEVER the language of the common man anywhere in India, and at any time in History? Those who were proficient in Sanskrit have always been bilingual at the very least.

Immigration is not the same as invasion. Something which those linguists peddling AIT will do well to understand.

 

[SrNair]

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?



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.

You follow rules written by British colonialists and foreigners.But I dont care about it.
For you all are writings ,you consider written scripts are the real evidence.
But there is more than that.Lot of epics and other legends and oral tradition still carry our history .But in your eyes it is not enough.
For establishing a theory like this.
First you need
genetics evidence ,historical evidence and archaeological items.Then linguistics or language base an its influence.
AIT only get one support that is language.So I dont see any surprise why world reject this theory.
Ok I am not a professional and I am not an English man.So my knowledge in so called "ability for expressing" is small.
But I believe I can express my views like an average Indian

 

[faithfulguy]

Diffusion of culture can also take place from migration, not necessarily through invasion. Linguistic clues only point to the fact that Sanskrit is an Indo-Aryan language with close similarities to Iranic languages.

Besides, what exactly is the reason for caste system prevalent everywhere in India? If the Dravidians were a ethnic community and had to retreat to the South where they had their own kingdoms and exerted political independence, why would they ever accept the caste system into their folds? More pertinently, why do the Brahmins of the South also speak Dravidian languages in addition to rudimentary knowledge of Sanskrit(in most cases)? Also, do you know that Sanskrit was NEVER the language of the common man anywhere in India, and at any time in History? Those who were proficient in Sanskrit have always been bilingual at the very least.

Immigration is not the same as invasion. Something which those linguists peddling AIT will do well to understand.

So now, we both accept that there was either a migration or an invasion. One or the other. I would argue for invasion as during migration, the migrating people would absorb into the population of the native people. In invasion, especially if the invading population is sizeable, the invading culture and language and even religion would replace that of the invaded people. So an Aryan invasion is still the most plausible.

 

[SrNair]

@faithfulguy,

do u know any indo aryan or other indian language?

Please dont ask him questions like that.He is teaching us about our history here with his limited knowledge acquired from an
American School..