The Strategy which is still effectively working even after two hundred years

[INDIC]

If its closest associated language is old Iranian, than its either Iranian come out of India or people that speak Sanskrit originate outside of India and started writing once they are in India.
Are you saying that northern Indians are not related to Iranians people?
This article prove Aryan migration to North India. The invaders are the original upper castes, the twice born bastes of India. The sons and daughters of the original people are the lower servant castes, the untouchable and the schedule tribes.

Genetic studies shows high caste, low caste, North Indians, South Indians, tribal and non-tribals all having same the same ancestry while the archaeological finding shows Vedic culture originated out of Cemetery H culture, Cemetery H culture is the last phase of Indus valley civilization. Even in Tamils in far South have part Northern ancestry, not just only brahmins but all caste Hindus and tribals. That proves Aryan invasion theory too much fabricated and bag of crap.

BTW I asked you to prove Sanskrit originated out of India, stop parroting the linguistic similarity.

 

[American_Millenium]

Linguist have proven Aryan invasion. However, not all scientist agree with linguists interpretation of history.

Geneticists also agree with this theory; archaeologists do not know. What other scientists are there that hold opinions one way or the other?

1. Do you also have a 'Dravidian Resistance and Rebellion Theory' at hand to explain how and why the Indo-Aryan Vedic culture pervades in all of India and yet the Dravidian languages are still dominant in Southern and parts of Eastern India?

2. For quite a while in India, the Caste system was not rigid. Many Dravidian groups also became part of the system and moved into the higher castes. Please visit South India once to see for yourself. Moreover, do you think the Caste system played no part in greater propagation of Y-chromosomes?

3. Nothing more to discuss then.

Perhaps it's time to teach Linguists the difference between invasion and migration.

1. No, consult the scientists on that, not me. I also can't prove beyond a certainty of a doubt that the first lifeforms that gave birth to the abundance of life on Earth was of terrestrial origin. It's still the most widely held theory nonetheless....

2. Of course it did; and this refutes the invasion theory how?

3. If you feel that way then feel free to leave the conversation.

 

[Indischer]

Geneticists also agree with this theory; archaeologists do not know. What other scientists are there that hold opinions one way or the other?



1. No, consult the scientists on that, not me. I also can't prove beyond a certainty of a doubt that the first lifeforms that gave birth to the abundance of life on Earth was of terrestrial origin. It's still the most widely held theory nonetheless....

2. Of course it did; and this refutes the invasion theory how?

3. If you feel that way then feel free to leave the conversation.

1. So always talk with a measure of skepticism on things over which valid and pertinent doubts still exist.

2. That's because even today in India, it's much more difficult for a man to move up the caste hierarchy than a woman through marriage. This translates into greater percolation of Y-DNA than mt-DNA from the higher castes to the lower castes. Also, have you seen the features of many of southern Brahmin groups? Here's a useful link: See how South Indian Brahmins have a lower % of European genes in comparison to North Indian Jatts.
Google-Ergebnis für http://www.harappadna.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/caste5.jpg

3. I was talking about the point which you agreed with me. No more discussion on that.

 

[American_Millenium]

1. So always talk with a measure of skepticism on things over which valid and pertinent doubts still exist.

2. That's because even today in India, it's much more difficult for a man to move up the caste hierarchy than a woman through marriage. This translates into greater percolation of Y-DNA than mt-DNA from the higher castes to the lower castes. Also, have you seen the features of many of southern Brahmin groups? Here's a useful link: See how South Indian Brahmins have a lower % of European genes in comparison to North Indian Jatts.
Google-Ergebnis für http://www.harappadna.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/caste5.jpg

3. I was talking about the point which you agreed with me. No more discussion on that.

1. The difference is that you are sure the invasion theory holds no validity; I only say it's the single most widely held theory.

2. Again, what does this prove about the invasion theory?

 

[Indischer]

1. The difference is that you are sure the invasion theory holds no validity; I only say it's the single most widely held theory.

2. Again, what does this prove about the invasion theory?

1. I'm only sure about one thing. That no actual proof of any aryan invasion has been found. I'm only countering your supposed infallibility of the Aryan Invasion Theory based on thin straws like linguistic diffusion and genetic admixture. I'm perfectly ready to change my stance should any evidence come forth.
2. Are you serious? I just gave you a plausible reason why the Eurasian Y-DNA dominates over mt-DNA in Indian populations. Weren't you bandying that as the proof of an invasion?

 

[American_Millenium]

1. I'm only sure about one thing. That no actual proof of any aryan invasion has been found. I'm only countering your supposed infallibility of the Aryan Invasion Theory based on thin straws like linguistic diffusion and genetic admixture. I'm perfectly ready to change my stance should any evidence come forth.
2. Are you serious? I just gave you a plausible reason why the Eurasian Y-DNA dominates over mt-DNA in Indian populations. Weren't you bandying that as the proof of an invasion?

1. Quote the statements I have made that imply the theory is infallible. Secondly, provide a rebuttal to the evidence I provided, rather than continue to repeat yourself about how insignificant the evidence is.

2. You seem not to understand the argument I sourced. WHY is there a much larger Y-DNA European ancestral component in South Asia, (compared to the much less significant mtDNA European ancestral component) in the FIRST place. Who cares about the caste system right now or how much larger or smaller the ancestral components are in varying regions of the subcontinent? It's wholly irrelevant to the fact that there is much less mtDNA from Europe, and much more Y-DNA from Europe, in the subcontinent. And please provide scientific sources and peer-reviewed studies like I did.

 

[faithfulguy]

For your kind information, this article does not give any firm assertion that there have been any kind of "invasion" did took place. The oldest textual evidences, whose antiquity can be attributed to around 2000 BC,suggest that Castism was a mere form of "class" division of the society clearly based upon occupation.One of the hymns in Rg veda tells " I am a poet, my father is a doctor and my mother is a grinder of corn." In all essence,this hymn not only suggests that the very class system was flexible but interclass marriages were quite frequent around 2000 BC.

But, from the later vedic texts ( which includes the last Mandala of Rg Veda) like Manu Samhita and Griha sutras it was pretty obvious that the class system had become rigid and interclass mingling was prohibited around 1500-1200 BC. This system continued to remain unchallenged until 600 B.C with the advent of Jainisam, and later Buddhism. So, your assertion that cast system is a proof of the "Invasion" is not only faulty but also not in accordance with the history of class division of society all over the world, which did not necessarily depend on violent methods to divide the society in to different groups.

I agree with many of the things you say about invasion. I don't believe Aryan "invasion" is certainly the same as one country conquered another. It could be either an invasion or migration. But we are also certain that there were some form of migration that occurred. This migration could be like the Norman invasion of Britain or Germanic invasion of Britain. Or it could be like Huns invasion of Europe. Or it could be like European migrated to western world. In any case, its displacement of the Indo Aryan people over the natives.

Also, can you prove any evidence of Vedic Sanskrit records that dated back to 2000BC? I'm interested in learning about it.

 

[scorpionx]

Also, can you prove any evidence of Vedic Sanskrit records that dated back to 2000BC? I'm interested in learning about it.

To start with, this assumptions are based on debatable facts. Some scholars believe in these, while others chose to follow different opinions. So,I will write down the points scholars have made in support of their claim about the antiquity of Vedas.

The entire Vedic literature is divided into three periods. From the earliest, these are the Samhitas, bramhanas and the last to be the Aranyakas and Upanishadas. According to Max Muller, Rg Veda was composed much before 1000 BC. While J.Hertel has dated the origin in 500BC. But, these assumptions had been greatly opposed by Indian and western scholars as well.

Dr. Jacobi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak,an Indian politician and an eminent academic had followed a novel approach to find out the origin of Rg veda by astronomical evidences. Based upon the position of vernal equinox as stated in Rg vedic hymns, these two proponents of their theory had concluded that Rg veda was written roughly from 4500 B.C to 2500 B.C. Although critics have been broadly skeptical about this conclusion, this approach needs more attention from scholars.

Now, scriptural evidences like the Puranas which were compiled around second century BC to first century AD do show some light upon the origin of Rg. According to Vayu Purana, a vedic king called Parikshit (mentioned in Satpatha Brahmanas) lived 1050 years before Mahapadma Nanda of Magadha. This proves that the composition of Rg Veda can not be placed later than 2000 BC, as the earliest part of the vedas predates the Brahmnas by approximately 500 years.

 

[faithfulguy]

Genetic studies shows high caste, low caste, North Indians, South Indians, tribal and non-tribals all having same the same ancestry while the archaeological finding shows Vedic culture originated out of Cemetery H culture, Cemetery H culture is the last phase of Indus valley civilization. Even in Tamils in far South have part Northern ancestry, not just only brahmins but all caste Hindus and tribals. That proves Aryan invasion theory too much fabricated and bag of crap.

BTW I asked you to prove Sanskrit originated out of India, stop parroting the linguistic similarity.

The fact that Sanskrit's closest relative are ancient Iranian languages are prove enough.

I saw studies of how Brahmins

To start with, this assumptions are based on debatable facts. Some scholars believe in these, while others chose to follow different opinions. So,I will write down the points scholars have made in support of their claim about the antiquity of Vedas.

The entire Vedic literature is divided into three periods. From the earliest, these are the Samhitas, bramhanas and the last to be the Aranyakas and Upanishadas. According to Max Muller, Rg Veda was composed much before 1000 BC. While J.Hertel has dated the origin in 500BC. But, these assumptions had been greatly opposed by Indian and western scholars as well.

Dr. Jacobi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak,an Indian politician and an eminent academic had followed a novel approach to find out the origin of Rg veda by astronomical evidences. Based upon the position of vernal equinox as stated in Rg vedic hymns, these two proponents of their theory had concluded that Rg veda was written roughly from 4500 B.C to 2500 B.C. Although critics have been broadly skeptical about this conclusion, this approach needs more attention from scholars.

Now, scriptural evidences like the Puranas which were compiled around second century BC to first century AD do show some light upon the origin of Rg. According to Vayu Purana, a vedic king called Parikshit (mentioned in Satpatha Brahmanas) lived 1050 years before Mahapadma Nanda of Magadha. This proves that the composition of Rg Veda can not be placed later than 2000 BC, as the earliest part of the vedas predates the Brahmnas by approximately 500 years.

Are there any writing that can be dated to 2000BC?

 

[scorpionx]

Are there any writing that can be dated to 2000BC?

Yes.

 

[faithfulguy]

Geneticists also agree with this theory; archaeologists do not know. What other scientists are there that hold opinions one way or the other?
.

I totally agree with you on this. But the Indians do not want to believe that their ancestors and their culture are from outside of India.

Yes.

Any evidence? Any carbon dating of the writing surface?

 

[scorpionx]

Any evidence? Any carbon dating of the writing surface?

No.

 

[faithfulguy]

No.

Any verifiable historical evidence to show that the writing occurred in 2000BC? For example, the Egyptian herographics was written on pillars dated back to 2900BC. Any thing that can be dated?

 

[Chronos]

I put the same image for one of my threads and it was blown to smithereens by Indian members here. They do have some misplaced sense of pride.

Muslim rulers gave them culture and identity which they want to do away but happily accept what Raj gave them. We in subcontinent are still colonized.

This quote from this British man reveals how much we have lost and how much we are detached from that reality that once Indian subcontinent was. Indian subcontinent was 25% of world economy under Mughals. The fact that will pinch Indian members here quite bad.

The income inequality at that time was worse when compared to the Europeans at the same time. The poor in India suffered even more than the poor of Europe.

It shows you that the so called 'enlightened' Islamic rulers were more often than not, feudalistic thugs.

 

[scorpionx]

Any verifiable historical evidence to show that the writing occurred in 2000BC? For example, the Egyptian herographics was written on pillars dated back to 2900BC. Any thing that can be dated?

Rg Veda had been by hearted by the priests for centuries. That's why it is also called Shruti (The one you have to remember only by hearing). So, it is almost impossible to guess the time of origin. Apart from some clay tablets from the Bokhozkoi archives no objective evidences had not been unearthed till now.