Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Aryan Invasion Theory

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>
Author
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Aryan Invasion Theory
    Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 12:26
^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.
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 12:28
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

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 LOL

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.


Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 12:46
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 12:37
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

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 presenceLOL
 
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?
 
look at this and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Lion
 
there is where the only lions remaning in south asia are found, it is not far from pakistan at all:
 
 


Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 12:40
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 12:40
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
 
 


Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 12:41
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 12:46
Please keep try to keep the discussion civil.
 
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.


Edited by Cryptic - 13-Dec-2010 at 12:56
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 13:30
Originally posted by Cryptic

Please keep try to keep the discussion civil.
 
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.


Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 13:32
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 22:22
Originally posted by balochii

^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.
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 22:25
Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

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 LOL

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


Edited by ranjithvnambiar - 13-Dec-2010 at 22:27
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 22:29
Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

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 presenceLOL
 
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?
 
look at this and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Lion
 
there is where the only lions remaning in south asia are found, it is not far from pakistan at all:
 
 

That map doesnt show lions in Pakistan.

Oh! you need to introduce me to the landscape of Gujarat and the ocean and if you dont say anything about ocean I should keep mum...!!!

Your ignorance is not others lack of knowledge.

If lions live in Gujarat it is not an attestation for their presence in Pakistan.


Edited by ranjithvnambiar - 13-Dec-2010 at 22:32
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Most of the Northwestern parts of the Subcontinet are Tiger habitats.



Edited by ranjithvnambiar - 13-Dec-2010 at 22:54
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 22:52
Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by Cryptic

Please keep try to keep the discussion civil.
 
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.

Provide proofs for your claims.If indo-eoropeans originated in central asia prove it.
None of the genetical studies conducted so far has attested this claim
The word Dravidam itself is related to Tamil.Dravidians are inhabitants oof South India.And there  are many races of people belonging to this group.


Here is astudy report which says Indian Ychromosomehas a presence inthis area from Neolithic age and it is not attesting any sort of migrations from west asia towards India.
Your repeating your concepts and beliefs is not going to make it a fact.

If have genetical prooof to substantiate your claim, provide it, instead of preaching wrong theories.
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 23:07
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2010 at 10:39
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Provide proofs for your claims.
If have genetical prooof to substantiate your claim, provide it, instead of preaching wrong theories.
Originally posted by balochii

you just posted some actors/models and saying that dravidians look like that??
With due deference to the above points, I have the following anecdotal observation:
 
My Catholic church has several dozen families of Indian immigrants.  With the exception of one woman and her husband, none of the families have light complections or strong indo aryan physical features. 
 
Most Indian Christians are from the south. The ratio at the church seems to be 90% dark complected to 10% light complected (to varying degrees) with perhaps 3% of the total (one family and a visiting priest) very light. If there are substantial numbers of light complected Indians who are native to the south, should not the sample population at the church have a higher light to dark ratio?
 
I am also assuming that the light complected people are from south India (the priest was from Mumbai). I realize that this observation is anectdotal, but I made it as objectively as possible. Is there an explanation?
 


Edited by Cryptic - 14-Dec-2010 at 11:36
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2010 at 12:45
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

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 presenceLOL
 
I would like to help the discussion with little information. The scientific abbreviation of Asiatic lion is "Panthera leo persica" and lions were quite common to all Iranian plateau and the Middle East in the very near historical time. The last sighting of a live Asiatic Lion in Iran was in 1941 between Shiraz and Jahrom in Fars province. In 1944, the corpse of a lioness was found on the banks of Karun river, Khuzestan province.
 
 
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2010 at 12:51
^  indeed lions were very comman throughout, but trust me this guy wont even believe you
there are so many articles on lions being in the indus valley itself: http://www.suite101.com/content/unlocking-the-secrets-of-ancient-iconography-a187646
 
Indus valley was once a very fertile valley, infact lions are found on indus valley seals themselves: http://www.conservationandsociety.org/article.asp?issn=0972-4923;year=2008;volume=6;issue=4;spage=337;epage=338;aulast=
 
but yet he is still arguing that lions are only present in east india


Edited by balochii - 14-Dec-2010 at 16:32
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2010 at 12:52
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Provide proofs for your claims.
If have genetical prooof to substantiate your claim, provide it, instead of preaching wrong theories.
Originally posted by balochii

you just posted some actors/models and saying that dravidians look like that??
With due deference to the above points, I have the following anecdotal observation:
 
My Catholic church has several dozen families of Indian immigrants.  With the exception of one woman and her husband, none of the families have light complections or strong indo aryan physical features. 
 
Most Indian Christians are from the south. The ratio at the church seems to be 90% dark complected to 10% light complected (to varying degrees) with perhaps 3% of the total (one family and a visiting priest) very light. If there are substantial numbers of light complected Indians who are native to the south, should not the sample population at the church have a higher light to dark ratio?
 
I am also assuming that the light complected people are from south India (the priest was from Mumbai). I realize that this observation is anectdotal, but I made it as objectively as possible. Is there an explanation?
 
 
 his post is really deceiving, even north indians from punjab are not light skinned like that, your observation is correct, 90%+ people from the south have dark skin, even in the north around punjab, i would say 60% have darkskin just like dravdians, the rest 40% have brown skin ranging from dark brown to light brown.
 
He is just picking and choosing the best looking actors/models from the south and saying all dravdians look like thisLOL


Edited by balochii - 14-Dec-2010 at 16:32
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2010 at 02:51
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Provide proofs for your claims.
If have genetical prooof to substantiate your claim, provide it, instead of preaching wrong theories.
Originally posted by balochii

you just posted some actors/models and saying that dravidians look like that??
With due deference to the above points, I have the following anecdotal observation:
 
My Catholic church has several dozen families of Indian immigrants.  With the exception of one woman and her husband, none of the families have light complections or strong indo aryan physical features. 
 
Most Indian Christians are from the south. The ratio at the church seems to be 90% dark complected to 10% light complected (to varying degrees) with perhaps 3% of the total (one family and a visiting priest) very light. If there are substantial numbers of light complected Indians who are native to the south, should not the sample population at the church have a higher light to dark ratio?
 
I am also assuming that the light complected people are from south India (the priest was from Mumbai). I realize that this observation is anectdotal, but I made it as objectively as possible. Is there an explanation?
 
Ofcourse thereare darkskinned people in South India.
Dont mix your church to find this out.
There are several Syriac orthodox christians in South India who has a history of nearly 2000years.
They are believed to be converted by St.Thomas.Most of them are wheatish complexion.

The Catholic and other(pentecostal,CSI etc) christian churches are actually targetting the tribal populations all over India.And most of the tribals from Kerala,Tamilnadu,Andhra & East India has converted to christianity.

South India has both darkskinned and light skinned populations.Western states of South India(kerala,Karnataka) has less number of Darkskinned people as compared to that of Eastern states(Andhra,Tamilnadu).The percentage of Darkskinned people in South India are more compared to that of North India, but the ratios proposed by balochii are wrong.

Present Indian population as per studies , are a mix of two resident populations ie that of Ancestral North Indian and that of Ancestral South Indian
Ancestral South Indian population is known to have migrated to India from Africa 64000years ago.
Ancestral North Indian population is known to have migrated to  India 44000 years ago from Central Asia.Studies had proved this


And Ancestral South Indian population
 are more close to Africans and Ancestral North Indian
population to Central Asians.Every community in India has 30-70% of genetical traits of ASI.And communities closer to ANI are found in the North western part of India and people closer to ASI are found in the south eastern parts of India.
Studies had proved that Pure ASI populations are not available today and the most close communities to ASI are known to be in Andaman and Nicobar islands and may be Siddi community of Karnataka.

Balochii is misleading the whole debate.Dravidians belong to south India and there is no skincolour attached to dravidians.It is infact a language family.

Earlier he used to say whole of South Indians are dark skinned now he is saying 90%.He is clearly speaking about something which he has no idea about.

And about Aryan Theory He earlier spoke about some Russian Aryan Cities and now he says  Aryans originated in Central Asia. 
And about the skin colour of Aryans there is absolutelly no genetical proof available about the skin colour of Aryans.
But there are enough proofs available showing the long presence of Indians in the so called invaded areas. 
And this theory of white aryans invading Indus valley and producing hybrids doesnt have any genetical proof to substantiate it.
Aryan Invasion.migration theory says Horse riding hrdes of White Aryan migrated to /invaded Indus valley  in 1700BC.
But this theory has no genetical proofs.There is no proof for any change in genetical traits indicating the intervention of a new race in the area.
I have in my earlier posts  provided links to the studies conducted on the various ethnic people of Asia and also specific to this area and other parts of India.None of the studies indicate a change in genetical traits.

And archaeological studies till date has not recorded any change of material culture during this period(1700BC to 1500BC) whicyh is negating any possibility of a migration or invasion to this area.




A "Sumerian seal of Gilgamesh having two lions" was collected from Indus valley but no Indus valley seals are not known to have lions.


And  AIT proponents also claims that the aryans after the invasion/migration started composing Rigveda and all other vedic literature.
Rigveda extensively speaks about the River Sarasvati and its banks and the holy sites where the Bharatas conducted fire rituals like Manusa titra,Apaya tirta and Ilayaspada of Haryana.
Sarasvati River is mentioned in almost all its mandalas and several hymns are devoted to River Sarasvati.
Detailed Geographic studies and satellite imagery had helped in locating the Rigvedic Sarasvati and has identified the Gaggar-Hakra river as sarasvati.This river is now ewnding at thar desert in Rajastan.
Studies say that Sarasvati was a mighty river which at palces were wide upto 15kms and it dried up in 2000BCdue to tectonic changes.


Rigveda mentions sarasvati as a mighty river and it is praised as Naditama(best of all rivers) and Nadimata(mother of all rivers) and describes sarasvati as a river originating in Himalayas and flowing to the ocean.So the composers of Rigveda were familiar with the mighty Sarasvati which originated in the Himalayas and ended in Ocean.
This proves that Rigveda was composed during the healthy flow of Sarasvati
ie centuries before 2000BC.
According to AIT Aryans came in 1700BC,and Sarasvati dried up in 2000BC 300years before the coming of Aryans and Rigveda was composed much before that ie before the drying of Sarasvati.


Edited by ranjithvnambiar - 15-Dec-2010 at 08:51
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Dec-2010 at 13:51
^ dude give it up already, nobody is trusting you, your false knowledge has already been exposed. Your thinking is exactly like afro-centric people, who think africa and  blacks are the source of every civilization, in your case you think India is
 
in all their history, original people of india, who are darkskinned have never gone outside their borders, almost everybody has invaded india from the west and so did the aryans


Edited by balochii - 16-Dec-2010 at 13:53
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Dec-2010 at 17:41
As a total outsider, with no axe to grind, I would suggest that both of you consider a "truce?"

There seems to be no head-way being made by either side and it is becoming more and more a racists or skin colour argument!

So, I would suggest that both of you just "agree" to "dis-agree?"

"Lions, tigers and ?, oh my!"

Any takers?

Look, if one side does not agree with the other side, then this becomes an endless argument!

You might well argue if it was not an "Arian" invasion? That is a conflicting religion!

Do, either of you intend to do this for eternity?

Edited by opuslola - 16-Dec-2010 at 17:55
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2010 at 09:49
Originally posted by balochii

^ dude give it up already, nobody is trusting you, your false knowledge has already been exposed. Your thinking is exactly like afro-centric people, who think africa and  blacks are the source of every civilization, in your case you think India is
 
in all their history, original people of india, who are darkskinned have never gone outside their borders, almost everybody has invaded india from the west and so did the aryans
Speak for yourself, not for others...

Let others think what they want to..They have the capability of thinking and analysing..


Edited by ranjithvnambiar - 18-Dec-2010 at 09:53
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.079 seconds.