QuoteReplyTopic: Aryan Invasion Theory Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 22:40
Originally posted by balochii
and look at this for your uneducated mind:
Vedic literature, the lion is mentioned as the king of the jungle. Asiatic lions were abundant in the Indus Valley (actual Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Sind). Tigers were the animals of the East. For Vedic people, the inhabitants of western India, the lion was a more popular animal than the tiger and was the icon of power. That explains why in the ancient history and mythology of India, the lion is more prevalent than the tiger
^ it clearly proves that lions were popular in the western areas of the subcontinent( mainly pakistan) today and tigers were more popular in east bengal/bihar areas.
So this clearly exposes how uneducated you are, even about Rig veda itself
Calling lion as king of beasts or King of Jungle in Vedas is not an attestation for their presence in Pakistan.Vedas might have spoke about the lions of Gujarat.Or did they specifically mention l;ions of Pakistan.Then just give me the details of the verses.
If you have any biological proofs provide it.
Your link is speaking about the presence of lion in Uttarpradesh and Bihar too but not pakistan.
If Vedic people were from west they should have known tiger rather than lion.
Elephants existed in the north/punjab area as recently as porus/alexander battle, he used elephants to fight alexander, this is a fact which is recorded
about lions, the only lions remaining today in south asia exist in Gujarat state of india which borders pakistan, they dont exist in east india places like bihar/bengal, so considering the location today is so close to pakistan, lions must have existed in pakistan very recently maybe until few thousands years ago. infact if i am not mistaking, mughals, sikhs, and rajputs were famous for hunting lions in punjab/sindh/rajhistan area, just go research, so they must have existed there until very recently
No...
Porus Alexander battle had battle elephants ie tamed ones brought for battles not wild ones
Wild elephants are found only in Tropical rainforests and pakistan,punjab and even haryana is not an elephant habitat.
And for your information Girnar or the Gir forest is not on Gujarat -Pakistan border,it is in Saurastra.It is seperated from pakistan by sea.And no data about Mughals,Rajputs and sikhs hunting from "Punjab,Sindh and Rajastan" are till date available.
lol, so even if you what you are saying it true, dont you think aryans could have done the same as porus, by bringing elephants from wild places? oh and the fact is, elephant have existed in northern part of south asia for very very long time, they home might in the jungles but they were brought to the north thousands of years ago be people.
Gir Forest is still in Gujarat and that sea is such a small sea, the area is not very far from pakistan, just go look at a map. it is not in east india as you claim
Then why they are mentioning about wild elephants..?
And if you say pakistan has wild elephants..provide proofs..
Lions are not good swimmers.And they were not at all known to be present in Pakistan..
Are saying that lions swam to pakistan to show their presence
firstly, please speak proper english, half of the things your saying, i can't understand. where did i say anything about swimming? that fact is today lions only exist in Gujarat, a bordering state with Pakistan, not bengal/bihar. so it clearly shows lions existed with in the vicinity of pakistan because they still do
If you dont understand english,go and get some tuition and learn it instead of complaining..
You were mentioning about two landscapes divided by ocean.
And pakistan is not a lion habitat, thats it.
And if you say it is, then provide proof
your english is horrible ok, when did i say any thing about ocean and landscapes?
The above referrences of Rigveda will leave the Bharata dynastic lists as this.There maybe many intervening kings in between who are not mentioned in Rigveda.
1.Bharata
2. DevavAta
3. Srnjaya
4. VadhryaSva
5. DivodAsa
6. Pratardana
7. Pijavana
8. a. DevaSravas b. SudAs
9. Sahadeva
10. Somaka
Pratardana is referred to as the King of kasi in the Anukramani(composer details) which indicates that Bharatas were the Kings of Kasi in Eastern Uttarpradesh.
Their association with Sarasvati and the fire rituals performed by them on the banks of Sarasvati on Manusa,Apaya(Apaga Tirta) & ilayaspada at Varaprithivya (ie Kurukshetra in Haryana) indicates that their kingdom extended from eastern Uttarpradesh to haryana ie the banks of Sarasvati.
like i said before, it is very much possible that a small group of aryans, ruled over india, just like the mughals, who were very small in number, yet managed to rule over the dravdian indian population, in a same way small groups of aryans of central asia could have ruled over all of these parts of india including UP. History is full of fact how so many small tribes from central asia ruled over many parts of dravdian india many many times, Aryans did the exact same thing. Again no way aryans were of indian origin. Indians can not turn in to white people with blue eyes/blonde hair with in a matter of few thousand years, its a hindu nationalistic joke
Bharata dynasty mentioned here is the core characters of Rigveda.The chronological order of the kings here are attested.4 kings from Akbar to Aurangazeb took 150 years of reign and ten kings of Bharata clan(may be there are other intervening kings unmentioned) might have taken atleast 400 years.And apart from this there are many generations of the other composing rishis(bharatas themselves are among the composers).Rigveda itself might have taken more than a minimum of 4 centuries to get composed, if not more.
There is no account of a long migration or invasion throughout the Rigveda....
And most of the verses speaks about long presence of several generations on the bank of Sarasvati.
If you say that Rigveda was composed by migrants provide proofs instead of repeating yourself...
And also provide some proofs for theblue eye,white skin and blonde hair of Aryans..
Bharta was a ruling dynasty, so what? they could be aryans, i never denied that, however these ruling aryans were not of indian orgin, they were ruling over the dravdians of india.
even Mughals ruled areas like UP, Bihar, does that make Mughals of Indian origin?? no, they were central asian ruling over dravidian indians
Ya Bharata was a ruling dynasty and they were of Kasi.
They were indigenous, ie sons of the land.
There is no proof of any migration of Bharatas.
Or if you are saying they came from outside prove it
No they were not (black dravdians) indigenous people. Aryans never were indians and no they did not go to europe and became white skinned, its so foolish to think that will happen, just shows how stupid hindu nationalists are.
There is absolutely no proof for your claims.
Dravidians belong to south of India and their presence in north India is not Attested.
bharatas were not dravidians and Rigveda says they are sons of the land.
Otherwise you Prove that Bharatas were not indigenous
^stop lying ok, we all know most dravdians dont look like that, by posting some pics of actors and polticians who are of probably brahamin/north indian origin you can't fool me. The pics i posted are much more acurate, those people are not austroliod, only the first pic is off tribal. Again most dravdians are darkskinned as african, so stop lying, you are pretty much showing your cheap class.
Only 2 or 3 pictures I posted are of brahmins.You can google it and find out yourself.
If facts are against your beliefs, just admit it or give it up instead of forcing your beliefs on others.
Your racist thoughts are making you think low of others.
If you have any clear proof to justify what you say, then provide it instead of repeating your dravidian race theory.
As a side note, light complections seem to be indigenous to some parts of Europe. Study the photos of the Sa'ami and other Finno Ugaric people in this thread. These peoples have been in Europe and northwest Siberia since neolitihic times.
Please note their very distinctive cheek bones which are unlike Indo Aryan peoples.
These people do not resemble any Indo Aryans. Therefore, light complected genes seem to be indigenous to both some parts of Europe and also indigenous to some parts of the ancient Indo Aryan homeland.
Originally posted by medenaywe
My personal opinion is:Those that were conquerors have left traces,but had not changed mayor DNA plan.
I think this guy has a good point. Indo Aryans did not bring light complected genes to Europe. Rather, their light complected genes supplemented what was already there.
indo europeans were a people of central asia, not of india nor europe. Central asians were caucasians before the invasions of turks and mongols, most likely they looked like the some caucasian we still see in places like central asia, northern iran, northern afghanistan, northern pakistan. ofcourse i am not denying that europeans were already white before the indo aryans cames, however indo europeans themselves were also white, perhaps with a bit different facial features, like modern day white pashtuns.
But to say that they were from india, which is a largerly dravdian land is not true, if this was true, surely they would have left traces of their culture/looks in central asia and even europe, this is not true at all. India is a very hot land, how could indians even leave that place go in to central asia/europe and survive there in the harsh winter, espeically central asia where temperatures can drop to -30. there is no archaeological evidence of this at all. The aryans cities that are being found in Russia and Kazakhstan, do not resemble any thing indian. There is no record of indians ever leaving the subcontinent.
As a side note, light complections seem to be indigenous to some parts of Europe. Study the photos of the Sa'ami and other Finno Ugaric people in this thread. These peoples have been in Europe and northwest Siberia since neolitihic times.
Please note their very distinctive cheek bones which are unlike Indo Aryan peoples.
These people do not resemble any Indo Aryans. Therefore, light complected genes seem to be indigenous to both some parts of Europe and also indigenous to some parts of the ancient Indo Aryan homeland.
Originally posted by medenaywe
My personal opinion is:Those that were conquerors have left traces,but had not changed mayor DNA plan.
I think this guy has a good point. Indo Aryans did not bring light complected genes to Europe. Rather, their light complected genes supplemented what was already there.
Vedic literature, the lion is mentioned as the king of the jungle. Asiatic lions were abundant in the Indus Valley (actual Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Sind). Tigers were the animals of the East. For Vedic people, the inhabitants of western India, the lion was a more popular animal than the tiger and was the icon of power. That explains why in the ancient history and mythology of India, the lion is more prevalent than the tiger
^ it clearly proves that lions were popular in the western areas of the subcontinent( mainly pakistan) today and tigers were more popular in east bengal/bihar areas.
So this clearly exposes how uneducated you are, even about Rig veda itself
Elephants existed in the north/punjab area as recently as porus/alexander battle, he used elephants to fight alexander, this is a fact which is recorded
about lions, the only lions remaining today in south asia exist in Gujarat state of india which borders pakistan, they dont exist in east india places like bihar/bengal, so considering the location today is so close to pakistan, lions must have existed in pakistan very recently maybe until few thousands years ago. infact if i am not mistaking, mughals, sikhs, and rajputs were famous for hunting lions in punjab/sindh/rajhistan area, just go research, so they must have existed there until very recently
No...
Porus Alexander battle had battle elephants ie tamed ones brought for battles not wild ones
Wild elephants are found only in Tropical rainforests and pakistan,punjab and even haryana is not an elephant habitat.
And for your information Girnar or the Gir forest is not on Gujarat -Pakistan border,it is in Saurastra.It is seperated from pakistan by sea.And no data about Mughals,Rajputs and sikhs hunting from "Punjab,Sindh and Rajastan" are till date available.
lol, so even if you what you are saying it true, dont you think aryans could have done the same as porus, by bringing elephants from wild places? oh and the fact is, elephant have existed in northern part of south asia for very very long time, they home might in the jungles but they were brought to the north thousands of years ago be people.
Gir Forest is still in Gujarat and that sea is such a small sea, the area is not very far from pakistan, just go look at a map. it is not in east india as you claim
Then why they are mentioning about wild elephants..?
And if you say pakistan has wild elephants..provide proofs..
Lions are not good swimmers.And they were not at all known to be present in Pakistan..
Are saying that lions swam to pakistan to show their presence
firstly, please speak proper english, half of the things your saying, i can't understand. where did i say anything about swimming? that fact is today lions only exist in Gujarat, a bordering state with Pakistan, not bengal/bihar. so it clearly shows lions existed with in the vicinity of pakistan because they still do
If you dont understand english,go and get some tuition and learn it instead of complaining..
You were mentioning about two landscapes divided by ocean.
And pakistan is not a lion habitat, thats it.
And if you say it is, then provide proof
your english is horrible ok, when did i say any thing about ocean and landscapes?
The above referrences of Rigveda will leave the Bharata dynastic lists as this.There maybe many intervening kings in between who are not mentioned in Rigveda.
1.Bharata
2. DevavAta
3. Srnjaya
4. VadhryaSva
5. DivodAsa
6. Pratardana
7. Pijavana
8. a. DevaSravas b. SudAs
9. Sahadeva
10. Somaka
Pratardana is referred to as the King of kasi in the Anukramani(composer details) which indicates that Bharatas were the Kings of Kasi in Eastern Uttarpradesh.
Their association with Sarasvati and the fire rituals performed by them on the banks of Sarasvati on Manusa,Apaya(Apaga Tirta) & ilayaspada at Varaprithivya (ie Kurukshetra in Haryana) indicates that their kingdom extended from eastern Uttarpradesh to haryana ie the banks of Sarasvati.
like i said before, it is very much possible that a small group of aryans, ruled over india, just like the mughals, who were very small in number, yet managed to rule over the dravdian indian population, in a same way small groups of aryans of central asia could have ruled over all of these parts of india including UP. History is full of fact how so many small tribes from central asia ruled over many parts of dravdian india many many times, Aryans did the exact same thing. Again no way aryans were of indian origin. Indians can not turn in to white people with blue eyes/blonde hair with in a matter of few thousand years, its a hindu nationalistic joke
Bharata dynasty mentioned here is the core characters of Rigveda.The chronological order of the kings here are attested.4 kings from Akbar to Aurangazeb took 150 years of reign and ten kings of Bharata clan(may be there are other intervening kings unmentioned) might have taken atleast 400 years.And apart from this there are many generations of the other composing rishis(bharatas themselves are among the composers).Rigveda itself might have taken more than a minimum of 4 centuries to get composed, if not more.
There is no account of a long migration or invasion throughout the Rigveda....
And most of the verses speaks about long presence of several generations on the bank of Sarasvati.
If you say that Rigveda was composed by migrants provide proofs instead of repeating yourself...
And also provide some proofs for theblue eye,white skin and blonde hair of Aryans..
Bharta was a ruling dynasty, so what? they could be aryans, i never denied that, however these ruling aryans were not of indian orgin, they were ruling over the dravdians of india.
even Mughals ruled areas like UP, Bihar, does that make Mughals of Indian origin?? no, they were central asian ruling over dravidian indians
Ya Bharata was a ruling dynasty and they were of Kasi.
They were indigenous, ie sons of the land.
There is no proof of any migration of Bharatas.
Or if you are saying they came from outside prove it
No they were not (black dravdians) indigenous people. Aryans never were indians and no they did not go to europe and became white skinned, its so foolish to think that will happen, just shows how stupid hindu nationalists are.
^stop lying ok, we all know most dravdians dont look like that, by posting some pics of actors and polticians who are of probably brahamin/north indian origin you can't fool me. The pics i posted are much more acurate, those people are not austroliod, only the first pic is off tribal. Again most dravdians are darkskinned as african, so stop lying, you are pretty much showing your cheap class.
The above referrences of Rigveda will leave the Bharata dynastic lists as this.There maybe many intervening kings in between who are not mentioned in Rigveda.
1.Bharata
2. DevavAta
3. Srnjaya
4. VadhryaSva
5. DivodAsa
6. Pratardana
7. Pijavana
8. a. DevaSravas b. SudAs
9. Sahadeva
10. Somaka
Pratardana is referred to as the King of kasi in the Anukramani(composer details) which indicates that Bharatas were the Kings of Kasi in Eastern Uttarpradesh.
Their association with Sarasvati and the fire rituals performed by them on the banks of Sarasvati on Manusa,Apaya(Apaga Tirta) & ilayaspada at Varaprithivya (ie Kurukshetra in Haryana) indicates that their kingdom extended from eastern Uttarpradesh to haryana ie the banks of Sarasvati.
like i said before, it is very much possible that a small group of aryans, ruled over india, just like the mughals, who were very small in number, yet managed to rule over the dravdian indian population, in a same way small groups of aryans of central asia could have ruled over all of these parts of india including UP. History is full of fact how so many small tribes from central asia ruled over many parts of dravdian india many many times, Aryans did the exact same thing. Again no way aryans were of indian origin. Indians can not turn in to white people with blue eyes/blonde hair with in a matter of few thousand years, its a hindu nationalistic joke
Bharata dynasty mentioned here is the core characters of Rigveda.The chronological order of the kings here are attested.4 kings from Akbar to Aurangazeb took 150 years of reign and ten kings of Bharata clan(may be there are other intervening kings unmentioned) might have taken atleast 400 years.And apart from this there are many generations of the other composing rishis(bharatas themselves are among the composers).Rigveda itself might have taken more than a minimum of 4 centuries to get composed, if not more.
There is no account of a long migration or invasion throughout the Rigveda....
And most of the verses speaks about long presence of several generations on the bank of Sarasvati.
If you say that Rigveda was composed by migrants provide proofs instead of repeating yourself...
And also provide some proofs for theblue eye,white skin and blonde hair of Aryans..
Bharta was a ruling dynasty, so what? they could be aryans, i never denied that, however these ruling aryans were not of indian orgin, they were ruling over the dravdians of india.
even Mughals ruled areas like UP, Bihar, does that make Mughals of Indian origin?? no, they were central asian ruling over dravidian indians
Ya Bharata was a ruling dynasty and they were of Kasi.
They were indigenous, ie sons of the land.
There is no proof of any migration of Bharatas.
Or if you are saying they came from outside prove it
Elephants existed in the north/punjab area as recently as porus/alexander battle, he used elephants to fight alexander, this is a fact which is recorded
about lions, the only lions remaining today in south asia exist in Gujarat state of india which borders pakistan, they dont exist in east india places like bihar/bengal, so considering the location today is so close to pakistan, lions must have existed in pakistan very recently maybe until few thousands years ago. infact if i am not mistaking, mughals, sikhs, and rajputs were famous for hunting lions in punjab/sindh/rajhistan area, just go research, so they must have existed there until very recently
No...
Porus Alexander battle had battle elephants ie tamed ones brought for battles not wild ones
Wild elephants are found only in Tropical rainforests and pakistan,punjab and even haryana is not an elephant habitat.
And for your information Girnar or the Gir forest is not on Gujarat -Pakistan border,it is in Saurastra.It is seperated from pakistan by sea.And no data about Mughals,Rajputs and sikhs hunting from "Punjab,Sindh and Rajastan" are till date available.
lol, so even if you what you are saying it true, dont you think aryans could have done the same as porus, by bringing elephants from wild places? oh and the fact is, elephant have existed in northern part of south asia for very very long time, they home might in the jungles but they were brought to the north thousands of years ago be people.
Gir Forest is still in Gujarat and that sea is such a small sea, the area is not very far from pakistan, just go look at a map. it is not in east india as you claim
Then why they are mentioning about wild elephants..?
And if you say pakistan has wild elephants..provide proofs..
Lions are not good swimmers.And they were not at all known to be present in Pakistan..
Are saying that lions swam to pakistan to show their presence
firstly, please speak proper english, half of the things your saying, i can't understand. where did i say anything about swimming? that fact is today lions only exist in Gujarat, a bordering state with Pakistan, not bengal/bihar. so it clearly shows lions existed with in the vicinity of pakistan because they still do
If you dont understand english,go and get some tuition and learn it instead of complaining..
You were mentioning about two landscapes divided by ocean.
^ you think i am a fool? you just posted some actors/models and saying that dravidians look like that?? even most punjabi north indians are not light skinned as that:
average dravdians look like these:
I dont think, but you speak like one.
Thank you for your compliment.
Thats not an average dravidian thats an average australoid...
First of all you have posted the photographs of Tribals and some tamil actors.Ya there are australoid people in South India.But that doesnt mean all south Indians are australoid.
There are a large chunk population of Australoids in South India.
But that doesnt mean that others are not dravidians( they speak dravidian ie malayalam),
and majority of malayalees are not australoid.
or if you say all south Indians are australoid,then prove that , I have given their identity also.
Your concept about the whole dravidians being black is wrong.
There are millions of fair skinned dravidians in South India.
Nair is a community of people who belongs to Kerala ie they are dravidians bjut not australoids.There are 3 million nairs all over India.
Similar are Nambudiris,Majority of Ezhavas,Tulu bunts,Tulu Brahmins Konkanis etc of Kerala & Karnataka.Vaidekis of Andhra,Iyers,Iyengars,Gounders,Mudaliyars of Tamilnadu are also not australoids.So put a hold to dark dravidian theory.
Hemamalini,the old dreamgirl of Bollywood & Kamalhasan are Iyengars.
Shashi Taroor the Ex-UN under secretary,Shivshanker Menon Indian PM's security advisor.
Parvaty Omanakuttan ex-missworld are all Nairs.
Shilpa Shetty,Sunil Shetty,Aishvarya Rai are Tulu bunts and so on.
South India has different races and dravidian is not a reference to skin colour.
The above referrences of Rigveda will leave the Bharata dynastic lists as this.There maybe many intervening kings in between who are not mentioned in Rigveda.
1.Bharata
2. DevavAta
3. Srnjaya
4. VadhryaSva
5. DivodAsa
6. Pratardana
7. Pijavana
8. a. DevaSravas b. SudAs
9. Sahadeva
10. Somaka
Pratardana is referred to as the King of kasi in the Anukramani(composer details) which indicates that Bharatas were the Kings of Kasi in Eastern Uttarpradesh.
Their association with Sarasvati and the fire rituals performed by them on the banks of Sarasvati on Manusa,Apaya(Apaga Tirta) & ilayaspada at Varaprithivya (ie Kurukshetra in Haryana) indicates that their kingdom extended from eastern Uttarpradesh to haryana ie the banks of Sarasvati.
like i said before, it is very much possible that a small group of aryans, ruled over india, just like the mughals, who were very small in number, yet managed to rule over the dravdian indian population, in a same way small groups of aryans of central asia could have ruled over all of these parts of india including UP. History is full of fact how so many small tribes from central asia ruled over many parts of dravdian india many many times, Aryans did the exact same thing. Again no way aryans were of indian origin. Indians can not turn in to white people with blue eyes/blonde hair with in a matter of few thousand years, its a hindu nationalistic joke
Bharata dynasty mentioned here is the core characters of Rigveda.The chronological order of the kings here are attested.4 kings from Akbar to Aurangazeb took 150 years of reign and ten kings of Bharata clan(may be there are other intervening kings unmentioned) might have taken atleast 400 years.And apart from this there are many generations of the other composing rishis(bharatas themselves are among the composers).Rigveda itself might have taken more than a minimum of 4 centuries to get composed, if not more.
There is no account of a long migration or invasion throughout the Rigveda....
And most of the verses speaks about long presence of several generations on the bank of Sarasvati.
If you say that Rigveda was composed by migrants provide proofs instead of repeating yourself...
And also provide some proofs for theblue eye,white skin and blonde hair of Aryans..
Bharta was a ruling dynasty, so what? they could be aryans, i never denied that, however these ruling aryans were not of indian orgin, they were ruling over the dravdians of india.
even Mughals ruled areas like UP, Bihar, does that make Mughals of Indian origin?? no, they were central asian ruling over dravidian indians
Elephants existed in the north/punjab area as recently as porus/alexander battle, he used elephants to fight alexander, this is a fact which is recorded
about lions, the only lions remaining today in south asia exist in Gujarat state of india which borders pakistan, they dont exist in east india places like bihar/bengal, so considering the location today is so close to pakistan, lions must have existed in pakistan very recently maybe until few thousands years ago. infact if i am not mistaking, mughals, sikhs, and rajputs were famous for hunting lions in punjab/sindh/rajhistan area, just go research, so they must have existed there until very recently
No...
Porus Alexander battle had battle elephants ie tamed ones brought for battles not wild ones
Wild elephants are found only in Tropical rainforests and pakistan,punjab and even haryana is not an elephant habitat.
And for your information Girnar or the Gir forest is not on Gujarat -Pakistan border,it is in Saurastra.It is seperated from pakistan by sea.And no data about Mughals,Rajputs and sikhs hunting from "Punjab,Sindh and Rajastan" are till date available.
lol, so even if you what you are saying it true, dont you think aryans could have done the same as porus, by bringing elephants from wild places? oh and the fact is, elephant have existed in northern part of south asia for very very long time, they home might in the jungles but they were brought to the north thousands of years ago be people.
Gir Forest is still in Gujarat and that sea is such a small sea, the area is not very far from pakistan, just go look at a map. it is not in east india as you claim
Then why they are mentioning about wild elephants..?
And if you say pakistan has wild elephants..provide proofs..
Lions are not good swimmers.And they were not at all known to be present in Pakistan..
Are saying that lions swam to pakistan to show their presence
firstly, please speak proper english, half of the things your saying, i can't understand. where did i say anything about swimming? that fact is today lions only exist in Gujarat, a bordering state with Pakistan, not bengal/bihar. so it clearly shows lions existed with in the vicinity of pakistan because they still do
^ most dravdians have the same skin tone as africans from africa, there is no way these people would be aryans, who went out of india and settled in europe. How did they become white/coloured eyes/blonde hair. what a joke man
^ you think i am a fool? you just posted some actors/models and saying that dravidians look like that?? even most punjabi north indians are not light skinned as that:
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum