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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Word "Aryan" is priced becoz of its Indic(Hindu)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 15>
Author
varma View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
  Quote varma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Word "Aryan" is priced becoz of its Indic(Hindu)
    Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 23:09
I too have a muslim freinds blind belief is the sole characterstic of the muslims, I have found that quality in you. I just meant stop beleiving blindly..
    And vedam you havent addressed at all the genuine arguments I have raised against the reliablity of Romila Thapars -History of India and

This is typical of escaping the crunch rather than finding a honourable way out...

1 When u said that there was absence of Horse remains,  if one had crossed checked u would never had made this argument, but u made and were caught that u doesnt have a habit of cross checking.
 
2. When I pointed out the various anomolies and shown a breif critique of Romila Thapar's History of India, u again havent replied to that critique while not denying that Romila's work may be plageud with errors it only confirms that u hold her works as ultimate work..

     Precisley u have'nt made one right point answering the questions I have received but your are personaly accusing me in most of your posts...
    U havent answered the findings of Horse remains, U havent let me know the credibility of Romila Thapar in view of the Critique.
   That Romila Thapar has categorised first that Aryans were a race and later described them as Ethno Linguists...

 This just goes to confirm ones scholarship. I respect archeology and when Historians come armed with their predecessors assertions wiothout any proof of archeology I despise them....
     All those who were seeing our conversation will realise who is making a worthy point....So dont ask me to stop replying but it would be in your interest to answer with facts or else u'll be noted for the type of scholarship u are exhibiting in this forum
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 03:33

Meanwhile, in several Harappan sites remains of horses have been found. Even supporters of the AIT have admitted that the horse was known in Mohenjo Daro, near the coast of the Arabian Sea (let alone in more northerly areas), in 2500 BC at the latest.

No.  The evidence of horses in Harappan sites has actually been disputed by supporters of the AIT theory.  Their evidence points to the verifiable presence of equus caballus in about 1800 BC.

But the presence of horses and even domesticated horses has already been traced further back: horse teeth at Amri, on the Indus near Mohenjo Daro, and at Rana Ghundai on the Panjab-Baluchistan border have been dated to about 3,600 BC. The latter has been interpreted as indicating "horse-riding invaders"31, but that is merely an application of invasionist preconceptions. More bones of the true and domesticated horse have been found in Harappa, Surkotada (all layers including the earliest), Kalibangan, Malvan and Ropar.32 Recently, bones which were first taken to belong to onager specimens, have been identified as belonging to the, domesticated horse (Kuntasi, near the Gujarat coast, dated to 2300 BC). Superintending archaeologist Dr. A.M. Chitalwala comments: "We may have to ask whether the Aryans () could have been Harappans themselves. () We dont have to believe in the imports theory anymore."33
 
Here's the problem.  The literature of such "discoveries" does not elaborate on how they determined the "type" of "horse" or how their chronology was determined, both which are important, since other types of "horses" such as the onager, donkey, and the hemione, which are documented in the area.  Bones of such equids have fooled those untrained in archaeozoology (an expert in examining animal remains in archaeological contexts) into thinking that they are the true horse since their bones are very similar.  In examining the correct age of the animal it must be determined from the bone itself, not from the surrounding strata.  An example of such examination is the case of the remains of a camel found within Mature Harappan context (c. 2200-1900 BC), but upon examining the bones themselves, it was determined that the animal died about AD 690.  Since the published reports completely lack such examinations, their worth is simply, nil.

Admittedly, the presence of horses in the Harappan excavation sites is not as overwhelming in quantity as in the neolithic cultures of Eastern Europe. However, the relative paucity of horse remains is matched by the fact that the millions-strong population of the Harappan civilization, much larger than that of Egypt and Mesopotamia combined, has left us only several hundreds of skeletons, even when men sometimes had the benefit of burial which horses did not have. The implication for the question of the horses is that any finds of horses are good enough to make the point that horses were known in India, and that they were available to a substantially greater extent than a simple count of the excavated bones would suggest. The cave paintings in Bhimbetka near Bhopal, perhaps 30,000 years old (but the datings of cave paintings are highly controversial), showing a horse being caught by humans, confirm that horses existed in India in spite of the paucity of skeletal remains.34

But the question is - "What kind of horse is it?"
 
 
This still doesn't determine what kind of horses we are talking about.  Also, what are the dating of that horse-riding art?

The fact that both the Austro-Asiatic and the Dravidian language families have their own words for "horse" (e.g. Old Tamil ivuLi, "wild horse", and kutirai, "domesticated horse") not borrowed from the language of the Aryans who are supposed to have brought the horse into India, should also carry some weight.

Having a word for horse doesn't really mean that it had to be borrowed.  They could have easily "made-up" a new word for the steppe-horse, or used an adaptation of their word for onager or donkey.  Sorry, but this proves nothing. 
 
Partly because of the uncongenial climate, horses must have been comparatively rare in India (as they would remain in later centuries, when Rajput forces were attacked by Turkish invaders with an invariably superior cavalry), but they were available.
 
For the most part, from the time of the Vedic until recently, the Indians had always replenished their stock of horses by importing horses from abroad.

The evidence concerning horses remains nonetheless the weakest point in the case for an Indian Urheimat. While the evidence is arguably not such that it proves the Harappan cultures unfamiliarity with horses, it cannot be claimed to prove the identity of Vedic and Harappan culture either, the way the abundance of horse remains in Ukraine is used to prove the IE character of the settlements there. At this point, the centre-piece of the anti-AIT plea is an explainable paucity of the evidence material, so that everything remains possible.

 
Thus far nothing suggests that the Harrapans were familiar with the horse.
 

Rajaram's two claims to have found the steppe-horse in Harappan contexts have proven to be hoaxes by Witzel, and co.  Even his supporters have abandoned him on this point.

A fossil has been discovered from the Siwalik hills (Himalayan foothills): with short-pillare teeth and find limbe the horse is 15-hands long and perhaps date back to the stone age. (J.C.Ewart, Animal remains, in J.Curle, A Roman frontier post and its people (The Fort of Newstead), Glasgow: J. Mackehose and Sons, 1911, Appendix II, pp. 364,368). E.J. Ross reported the discovery of bones scattered over an area of about 40 ft., of a domesticated horse in the lowest level of Rana Ghundai I, close to Mohenjodaro and Ga_ndha_ra (pre-Harappan, contemporary with Hissar IA, Susa B and Middle Uruk in Iraq, assigned to ca. 3500-3400 B.C.) in a chalcolithis site of Northern Baluchistan . It should be noted, however, that these remains are not, as might be expected, those of small pony-like animals. The teeth were well examined by an expert veterinary officer before their dispatch to the Archaeological Department and he assured us that they are indistinguishable either in structure or in size from those of our modern cavalry horses. This points to a very long previous period of domestication. (E.J. Ross, Rana Ghundai, a chalcolithic site in Northern Baluchistan, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 5, 1946, pp. 284-516; R.H. Dyson, Problems in the relative chronology of Iran 6000-2000 B.C. in R.W. Ehrick, Chronologies in old world archaeology, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1965, pp. 215-50).

A.K.Sharma, The Harappan horse was buried under the dunes of..., in Puratattva, Bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society, No. 23, 1992-93, pp. 30-34]: "At Surkotada the bones of the true horse (equus caballus Linn.) identified are from Period IA, IB and IC. (radiocarbon dates: 2315 B.C., 1940 B.C. and 1790 B.C respectively). With the correction factors, the dates fall between 2400 B.C. and 1700 B.C... In 1938 Mackay (FEM, Vol. I, p. 289) had remarked on the discovery of a clay model of horse from Mohenjodaro. 'I personally take it to represent horse. I do not think we need be particularly surprised if it should be proved that the horse existed thus early at Mohenjo-daro'. About this terracotta figurine Wheeler wrote: (Indus Civilization, Cambridge, 1968, p. 92): 'One terracotta from a late level of Mohenjodaro seems to represent a horse, reminding us that the jaw bone of a horse is also recorded from the same time, and that the horse was known at considerably early period in northern Baluchistan ... It is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact all familiar feature of the Indus caravans.'... appearance of true horse from the neolithic sites of Koldihwa and Mahagara in Uttar Pradesh..." (Note: camel is also not depicted on Harappan inscriptions) The identification by Sharma has been endorsed by Prof. Sandor Bokonyi, Director of the Archaeological Institute, Budapest, Hungary (an archaeozoologist); he wrote in a letter dated 13 Dec. 1993 to the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India: 'Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the prehistoric settlement of Surkotada, Kutcha, excavated under the direction of Dr. J.P. Joshi, I can state the following: The occurrence of true horse (equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones). Since no wild horses lived in India in post-Pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoutbtful. This is also supported by an intermaxilla fragment whose incisor tooth shows clear signs of crib biting, a bad habit only existing among domestic horses which are not extensively used for war."

"Perhaps the most interesting of the model animals is one that I personally take to represent a horse.' (Mackay 1938, vol. I, p. 289; vol. II, pl. LXXVIII). Lothal has yielded a terracotta figure of a horse. It has an elongated body and a thick stumpy tail, mane is marked out over the neck with a low ridge. Faunal remains at Lothal yielded a second upper molar. Bhola Nath of the Zoological Survey of India and GV Sreenivasa Rao of the Archaeological Survey of India note (S.R.Rao, 1985, p. 641): 'The single tooth of the horse referred to above indicates the presence of the horse at Lothal during the Harappan period. The tooth from Lothal resembles closely with that of the modern horse and has pli-caballian (a minute fold near the base of the spur or protocone) which is well distinguishable character of the cheek teeth of the horse.' "However, the most startling discovery comes from the recent excavation at Nausharo, conducted by Jarrige et al. (in press). In the Harappan levels over here have been found clearly identifiable terracotta figurines of this animal." (Lal, 1998, opcit., p. 112).

Much of this is outdated information, especially from Mackey.  The archaeozoologist Richard Meadow disputes these claims on the grounds already set forth earlier in my response.  Again, nothing is said about examining the true age of the fossils in all quotes made.  Therefore, there is nothing that can be made from this evidence at all.
 
Sorry for copy pasting, but they are facts so it doesnt matter if I copy paste....
 
Thus far, nothing can be said to have been a "fact", but, oh well....
 
...... and those who stick to that horse was absent in Indus valley civilization, the famous one being Micheal Witzel this is how he argues

Witzels argument is in the following lines: (1) No horse bone has been found in Harappan sites. (2) When pointed out that they are found in some instances, it is said they are only fragments and not full skeletons. (3) When pointed out they were found in more than one site it is said the layers in which they were found ought to have been eroded ones or disturbed. (4) When pointed out that the reports of horse bones were not by present day archaeologists but by the early pioneers it is said that those are dubious and decades old. (5) When pointed out they were reported by archaeological excavators then comes the argument that archaeologists are not trained zoologists and palaeontologists to comment on horse bones (though by the same argument no credence can be placed on Witzel's opinion as he is neither an archaeologist nor a palaeontologist). Such arguments are brought under reductio ad absurdum by logicians. More examples of wilful rejections of points can be cited throughout the article but suffice to say that for an unbiased reader, the whole article reads purely a personal attack on an individual writer and exhibits certain amount of impatience to listen to other view.
 
Richard Meadows who is in fact an archaeozoologist, and involved in the Harappan digs in fact backs up Michael Witzel!!!  Witzel, in composing his response to Rajaram's assertations had consulted with Meadows, and Meadows agreed that the evidence, both artistic and biological is far from being factual.  If there is anyone who is qualified to give such judgements, it is Meadows. 

Sharkinn : You told " Nomads adopt well to literate civilizations" hahaha u
make me laugh and the way you rubbished me saying "Wrong
again".. Take the example Europe let in these better than
nomadic people the Libyans, Somalis, Pakis, Banghladeshis. Now did u find them adopting quickly to Literate Europe.

I haven't the slightest idea what you were trying to say.  Please rewrite this, so I can respond.
 
Now similarly civilized people and literate people more than any body can adopt to any civilization not the nomads and illiterate backward people..
It took a whole 1000 years for the GOTHS, germans to reach the sophistication of Romans and Greeks though they were neighbours to these civilizations...
 
Goths encountered literate civilization by about AD 230.  They gained literacy by about AD 350.  Just a little more than 100 years.  'Nuf said.

 

There's a big, huge humongus problem with your theory - there is absolutely NOTHING to prove that they came from India. There is no cultural flow traceable archaeologically westwards from India, and no Indian place-names between eastern Iran/Afghanistan and Mesopotamia. The very proof YOU deny for "Aryan" migration into India is the VERY SAME proof that is completely absent from showing that the Mitanni came from India. Again, there's no denial of the Indo-Aryan nature of the Mitanni nobility as well as facits of their language and some deities (other deities worshipped by the Mitanni were in fact Semitic and Hurrian, showing how they adopted local culture). Again, language plays the most important role here. Because Indo-Aryan is far too closely related to Iranian, they must have had a linguistic urheimat as well as an ursprache. It was probably in northern Iran when the Mitanni separated from its Indo-Aryan kin to go into Mesopotamia, while the rest of Indo-Aryans went into India. This is the simplest solution to the problem of linguistic origins.


Now certain Varma lives in US, it is obvious that he came from India.
it does'nt need a great mapping of my trail, checking my passport to
say that I came from India. But due to the 1500BC time frame, Their needs to be evidence to convince skeptics like you, but you should recoganise that with that reason again the evidence becomes all the more difficult to secure becoz of 1500 BC time frame.

Ah, so since you came here by plane, I must believe that the Mitanni came into Mesopotamia by plane, also.   Wait, I'm sorry, many planes!!!  Very good comparison, varma!!!  But seriously, come on now.  You cannot have us believe that a people is not going to leave some sort of migration "trail" from India to Mesopotamia......unless, of course you actually believe they flew there?  Flying saucers, anybody?
 
Another thing about the Mitanni, is that an analysis of their Indo-Aryan has shown that it is, on linguistic grounds older than the oldest Indo-Aryan of India itself!!!  We shouldn't be talking about Mitanni coming from India, but of Mitanni going to India!!!  But of course, that will definitely not be acceptable to you, but I throw it out nevertheless.  I don't believe it either.

Here I havent got hold on any material of the origins of place names in West asia, but u should forget the ability of Sanskrit unlike any other language contain the roots of most words. So it doesnt becoem that hard to relate the names of places to Indian culture and langugaes.
 
In IE contexts, that is simply not true.  The consensus among linguists is that as languages spread geographically, they adopt words from indigenous regions, as well as dropping some terms in favor of native ones.  Indo-Iranian was the most wide-spread subfamily among all IE languages, at one time stretching from the Danube to the western Takla Makan.  It became inevitable that it would drop-off more terms than European languages.  It is the European languages which have the roots of most words.

here are far too many examples in history to mention. As far as the Vedic people are concerned, the Vedas described them as "non-urban, non-maritime, basically uninterested in exchange other than that involving cattle


I really dont seem to know whether u are really reading RV. Vedas doesnt describe these people as non urban, non maritime and themsleves as nomads" but I guess u were reading the translations of 20th cenutry scholars most of who's translations were driven with justifying British colonisation of India.

And here's the crux of your way of thinking.  Why does everything a western scholar say have to "justify" anything?  Why can't you look beyond such political rhetoric?   We should be way beyond such posturing, but instead of looking at the merits of their scholarship, you simply dismiss it as "justifying colonization".  This smacks at an agenda, which I'm too familiar with.  I've had to deal with such rhetoric in discussing Macedonians and the Bible, I guess I'll have to deal with it here, as well.

No longer it is beleived in the scholarly cirlces that RV people were non urban, non maritime. It has been refuted with valid arguments and this notion of the vedic people is no longer accepted.
 
Only by Indian nationalists.  Scholarly circles still believe in the non-urban, non-maritime nature of the Vedic Aryans.

RV descriptions alone dispel this myths and a mere anaysys would tell you that Vedic people were no nomads. and they were urban, and maritime.I would present them upon ur request.
 
I do so request your evidence.

[quote]I would ask to refer to this site to know some of the information about the evidence of posiible cultural trail from India and Indic names in West asia beyongf Eastern Iran place names and the origin of kingdom names of West asia..

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php

[/quote]
 
I've looked at the information, and virtually all of it is dated.  There is nobody today (except Indian nationalists) who believes that there are (or were) Indo-Aryan placenames beyond eastern Iran.

 

 

 

 

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 04:52
Sharrukin, as always, good value for money.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 05:02
Originally posted by Sharrukin

They gained literacy by about AD 350. 
They as in a relative small number of individuals. I don't equate the conversion to Arianism with literacy.
I think it's unproper to develop a point about the literacy of Goths prior to the estabilishment of their two kingdoms in Western Europe. And even then, not only commoners, but also conservative aristocratic factions who were openly opposing the acceptance of "Roman values".
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 05:22
Regardless of the "quantity" of people made literate, the point is that their language was committed to written form and with such a "democratic" context as the Bible.  In regards to a state, the Goths (more specifically the Ostrogoths) were already established in the Ukraine by about AD 200 with a king.  Their last great king Hermanrich was killed in the wake of the Hunnic conquest, c. 372.  Their "level" of civilization may be said to be "lower" than the Roman, but nevertheless, attain a coherency to be able to establish an empire stretching into the north, into regions inhabited by Uralic, Baltic, and Slavic tribes. 
Back to Top
Vedam View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Vedam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2006 at 05:02
Verma the reason i no longer bothered replying to your so called "facts" is because  your arguments are ridiculous.
For example your argument ... "nomads like Somalis, Bangadeshis,Pakistanis, Libyians could not adapt quickly to western Europe, which proves the Aryas could not be Nomads......because it follows that Nomads could not come up with the sophistication of the Vedas"
My god is this a joke. ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!! THESE ARE THE WORDS OF AN EXTREMIST FANATIC
When a fact that destroys your theory, such as how Vedic Sanskrit has incorporated indegious words, or how The vedas never mentions a script, which the Indus valley has, Well this you conviniently  choose to ignore. 
 
I'm sure your Muslim friends appreciate the way you speak about Islam. You speak about the Prophet Mohammed as if you personally knew him, and then you have the nerve to talk about "one sided arguments" and "examing all views" as if you are an Objective Academic.
 
With regards to your horse "evidence" you also have a habit of putting words in other peoples mouths. I never said anything about an absence of Horse remains ,i said it the horse was not familiar on the Harrapan seals. 
 
Aside from Sharrukins points, lets just say for the sake of argument the Harrapans were familiar with the Horse, yet by the sheer lack of its representation on their seals, it seems evident in all likelyhood it was not the dominant animal, whereas in the Vedas the Horse is often mentioned,  eg the sacred one year ritual the "Aswamedha" is totally dedicated to the horse. 
It seems odd that the horse is markedly absent from the Harapan seals, yet you argue the Harapans and the Aryans are one and the same, so they both frequently mention the horse in their sacred hymns and yet you hardly find any representation. Strange? 
Also is not strange that the rhinosorous is the most frquently rpresented animal on the Harrapan seals, but does not figure in the Vedas!
 
My final bit of advice, since you are so good at giving it, learn to seperate, Mythology, religion, history and conspiracy theories. 
 
 


Edited by Vedam - 08-Jul-2006 at 11:29
Vedam
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 10:22
      This is varma again with a differnt username becoz it seems I have been banned from the forum.
      I flet that sharukkin and zagros are the two people who really cared to answer my doubts, and I have learned a lot in our conversations. When I wanted to reply to the post of Sharukkin yesterday, I have found myself banned from the forum. According to me the only possible reasons for this might have been that
    1. I started a thread in middleast forum " Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad who is the Worst". Now no person is above criticsm. personal attacks on the individuals in the forum is not good As long as comparitive analysis is great topic and good and bad exists in all. Whats the problem phrasing who is the Worst. If someone is good among 2 peopale it means that the other is not as good. As long as  people have two opinions of truth the world is going to be turmoil for sure. Their are some universal principles of morality and ethics which tranced beyond space and time, and culture. These should form the basis upon which an individual should be dissected to find the merit of an individual. That tread was for what I have started and as usual the people having two opinions abt truth has discontinued the thread not allowing postings thus censoring a valid and much needed discussion to see through some of the absurdities and goods that may have resulted out of the existence of these 3 historical figures.
    2. I had in a reply to Vedam, the historian, I have asked him not to behave like a muslim. By that I meant that he would not behave like a blind beleiver. Whatever the reason of most muslims being blind beleivers, illiteracy etc, it is a fact and i dont think  for that I would warrant a ban.
     Sharkuinn, I really wanted to reply you for the previous posts of urs   
                       but am not a person who will stick around a plae where I
                       am not desired .

  I request the same people who has banned me to go through the posts of vedam replying to me,

For example your argument ... "nomads like Somalis, Bangadeshis,Pakistanis, Libyians could not adapt quickly to western Europe, which proves the Aryas could not be Nomads......because it follows that Nomads could not come up with the sophistication of the Vedas"

     This is nothing like what I said, and it is nowhere what I meant. I hope members of the forum uderstand this, he failed to answer my basic questions and engaged in most part of his posts  in personally attacking me giving names calling me extremist fanatic. I am not hurt though .

[qoute]
When a fact that destroys your theory, such as how Vedic Sanskrit has incorporated indegious words, or how The vedas never mentions a script, which the Indus valley has, Well this you conviniently  choose to ignore. 
[/quote]
            This person never raised this question in his posts to me and now he asks me why have I ignored it.
            He always evades the question on hand from answering unlike sharkinn and zagros but defends himslef by raising another question when it is answered another question and when u question him he cites Romila thapar's History of India which is full of mistakes and was written to suit a particular prevailing ideology rahter than facts which were quite clearly pointed out in the critique(link) I have posted their.

 Anyway censoring is not a good thing, I dotn think I have blindly defended any topic and where I found the evidence in opinion not confirming the standards  I have retreated..

Shakinn reply to u : Outdated is what u say about the evidence that has been found in the Indus in the early 20th century.
    Now I dont think I have to drwa ur attention to implication of that statement of urs elsewhere.
    By ur statement the evidence of any such findings in the early 20th cenutury from other civilizations Like mesoptamia etc will be as obsecure as Indus findings of early 20th century.
     wnat ot go on ansering every questionu have raised and pointing every possible mistkaes in ur deductions...but as I said I dont pride comes first for the Indians I dont wish to be in a forum which doesnt want me..

Good luck to all the members.....
Back to Top
Vedam View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Vedam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 10:55
Verma you said the arguement about Sanskrit  incorporating indigenious words was never raised to you, as well as why the Vedas never mentioned a script, so how could you possibly ignore these questions when they were never put forward?
Well they were raised to you, they were all clearly put to you in this topic, and i have quoted them below.
 You simply choose to ignore them
 
I will quote each and everyone and i will also quote your comments about illiterate nomads.
Let the FACTS speak for themselves.
If there is anyone  who is not interested in cross checking it is most certainly you. 
 


Edited by Vedam - 09-Jul-2006 at 11:21
Vedam
Back to Top
Vedam View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Vedam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 11:11
The argument about how Sanskrit incoporates indegenious words.
Originally posted by Sharrukin

The arguement of the linguists have neither the base of archeological or literary evidence.
 
There is archaeological evidence, however to show such a migration toward India as well as to other places where IE languages are evidenced.  Therefore, it is not necessary for archaeology to show that culture flowed into India.   It is a given that Indo-Aryan is related to European languages, so, there must have been a place of origin of language somewhere between the two geographic regions.  One of the most devastating arguments for the outside origin of Indo-Aryan is that while Sanskrit does display borrowings from such native languages as Dravidian and Munda, other IE language do not.  Not even Iranian languages (Sanskrit's closest relatives) have such borrowings.  It therefore stands to reason, that as the original Indo-Aryan migrants entered the Indian subcontinent, they adopted vocabulary of the native Dravidian and Munda peoples they encountered.  
 
Another piece of linguistic evidence involves innovation of language.  Linguists have long known that the younger the language, the more innovative it becomes.  Older characteristics of a language family disappear as a language changes.  Indo-Iranian displays among the most innovative changes in relation to other Indo-European languages, therefore they are among the youngest of IE languages.  Hittite and Tocharian, on the other hand, show the most archaic features of the IE language family - such features (or relics) that had long disappeared from other IE languages.  Here there is agreement with archaeology.  The culture of the steppe was expanding into Europe long before it expanded toward India. 
 
The homeland of the Aryans all through the century kept moving from place to place, how credible this one onlytime will tell but every hypothesis that Aryan originated somewhere from the steppes, Russia, and now the Souther caspian Sea were purely based upon linguistic hypothesis and not based upon any as I mentioned earlier scietific evidence..
 
I did not say that the Aryans originated on the Southern Caspian Sea.  I merely mention the region as a starting point of migration.  JP Mallory's theory takes it back even further back into the Euroasian steppe, and so he is in agreement with the Central Asian theory. 
 
    And more importantly every so called historian and investigators almost ignored the fact that Sumerians beleived that they have descended from the east.
 
I know Sumerian literature.  There is nothing in it to show that they originated anywhere else except southern Mesopotamia - just like Indian literature.
 
If indeed as u Mr J P mallory's theor the Sumerians or those people who moved into Iran, India and mespatomia must have mentioned that they descended from the west not the east.
 
All I said was that the Mitanni originated from the east.  Where do you get the idea that Mallory's theory applied to Sumerians?  All he was talking about was IE groups. 
Vedam
Back to Top
Vedam View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Vedam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 11:14
The argument about how the Vedas never mention any SCRIPT
Originally posted by Vedam

I have just two question for you?
If the Aryas are of the Indus valley civilisation, why is the rhinoceros the most frequently depicted animal on Harrapan seals but the horse is absent which is central the vedas?
Why is there an indus valley script but no mention of it in the Vedas?
 


Edited by Vedam - 10-Jul-2006 at 04:40
Vedam
Back to Top
Vedam View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Vedam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 11:25
This is your beautiful quote about Nomads
Originally posted by varma

Did the vedas mention about any other script? no

Sharkinn : You told " Nomads adopt well to literate civilizations" hahaha u
                   make me laugh and the way you rubbished me saying "Wrong
                   again".. Take the example Europe let in these better than
                    nomadic people the Libyans, Somalis, Pakis, Banghladeshis. Now did u find them adopting quickly to Literate Europe. Now similarly civilized people and literate people more than any body can adopt to any civilization not the nomads and illiterate backward people..
                It took a whole 1000 years for the GOTHS, germans to reach the sophistication of Romans and Greeks though they were neighbours to these civilizations...
   


Edited by Vedam - 09-Jul-2006 at 11:26
Vedam
Back to Top
Vedam View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Vedam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 11:46
On a final note Verma, for your information i also have read TALAGERI AND MISRA.
I dont really care what your opinion is about me, and muslims and who ever else.
As you said you are banned now, i no longer have to engage, and even if you weren't i would no longer waste my time arguing with such a person.  
Vedam
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 02:05
Shakinn reply to u : Outdated is what u say about the evidence that has been found in the Indus in the early 20th century.
    Now I dont think I have to drwa ur attention to implication of that statement of urs elsewhere.
    By ur statement the evidence of any such findings in the early 20th cenutury from other civilizations Like mesoptamia etc will be as obsecure as Indus findings of early 20th century.
     wnat ot go on ansering every questionu have raised and pointing every possible mistkaes in ur deductions...but as I said I dont pride comes first for the Indians I dont wish to be in a forum which doesnt want me..
 
That's just it.  Even the findings in Mesopotamia "from the early 20th century" have been revised in interpretation and chronology.  I remember reading about the the earliest Mesopotamian rulers in works dated to as late as about 1950 stating that they ruled from about 4300 BC!!!  Now these earliest rulers are put at about 2800 BC.  So, now, who is making mistakes in "deducting"?
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 10:14
Originally posted by Sharrukin

Regardless of the "quantity" of people made literate, the point is that their language was committed to written form and with such a "democratic" context as the Bible.
 However this is not literacy.
Anyway when various forms of Christianity spreaded out in the "Barbaric" Europe, Bible did not represent a "democratic" context. Reading the Bible ment to be literate, i.e., grosso modo, to be part of the Roman culture. Leaving aside the remnants of the Roman aristocracy and the clergy (itself formed mostly by ex-aristocrats) (though in some moments of time and some places even in their ranks the illiteracy was high - e.g. priests baptising in nomine patria et filia Wink) and those few educated non-Romans, the Christianity was preached: the images and statues, the symbols, the stories, the myths played an important part in "democratizing" the Christianity, not the Bible. 
 
In regards to a state, the Goths (more specifically the Ostrogoths) were already established in the Ukraine by about AD 200 with a king.  Their last great king Hermanrich was killed in the wake of the Hunnic conquest, c. 372.  Their "level" of civilization may be said to be "lower" than the Roman, but nevertheless, attain a coherency to be able to establish an empire stretching into the north, into regions inhabited by Uralic, Baltic, and Slavic tribes.
There's little information known about the early Gothic statal formations and I don't know on what grounds this "imperial coherency" is inferred (indeed the territory they seem to have dominated is multi-ethnic: Sarmatian, Thracian, Baltic, possibly Uralic and Slavic populations, yet there's too little information about how much they really controlled and the way they did it). When one talks about the two Gothic kingdoms usually refers to the ones estabilished in the ex-Roman territory.


Edited by Chilbudios - 10-Jul-2006 at 10:21
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 03:48
Chilbudios, there seems to be a great deal of potential discussion regarding the Goths, (for example, we can philosophise on what constitutes 'literacy', or what would be considered a Gothic state or civilization), but because it will take us off topic for a prolonged period, I do not desire to continue with this line of thought.  Perhaps, if you wish to discuss this in an appropriate subforum, you may also attract others who wish to contribute.  I for one, just have too much to do, and so I restrict myself mostly to this subforum, occasionally visiting other subforums.   Thanks for your input, nevertheless.
Back to Top
mojobadshah View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
  Quote mojobadshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 23:13
To all, I would like to throw some food for thought out there: My, current, view on the Aryan phenomenon is that the the Iranian speakers are most justly Aryan, because the unbound morpheme Arya, which can stand without the bound morpheme -n.  The morpheme was used as a national designation in Aryan and according to the science of linguistics is as archaic as Rig Vedic Sanskrit, if not more.  The Aryans were aware of the monetary value of the word, personified by Shrosha, "the most profitable," "the expander and protector of the Aryan property," who was associated with the Manthra, "the body of the word," which came from Mazda, the supreme being.  It is no coinsidence, that the word Mazda, Manthra, Mainyu, mind, memory, mnemonic, music, math, mention, money, monetary, meaning, and man, come from the same root.  The Aryans were opposed to the drukh, literally, deciever, and synonymous with nonbelievers, in the monetary value of a word.   Hittite, is, generally, accepted to be more archaic than Gathic, but, Hittite died out over 2000 years ago, and has no living relatives, and if there is someone out there that is seriously going to claim that the core of the language that he speaks is Hittite, and Indo-European language and not a non-Indo-European language I would like to know.  The rest of the Indo-European family of languages were attested after Gathic Avestan the language, cultural, and intellectual property, an intangible asset of Iranian ownership, making the Gathic Avestan vocabulary prema facie evidence of the Indo-European family of languages, and even a lamen to the study of linguistics, not fully aware of all the linguistic laws and rules of the comparative method, can recognize  the obvious resemblence of the core of the Iranian vocabulary, the most frequently used words, to the core language of its latter, younger Indo-Euorpean sisters.   The Indo-European vocabulary is the most widely used vocabulary.   According to law if one can prove that there is a likelihood of confusion amongst consumers between the mark, vata, a known cognate to the mark, windows wind + eye, and that  the Iranian mark, vata, was used in business before the mark window then one will be as rich as Bill Gates, himself, and three times what he is worth, according to civil remedies for unfair competition. The law has predetermined that one word can not be copyrighted, because according to the laws definition a a single word does not display enough creativity, but for some reason two words or a word phrase does.  Yet, according to the science of linguistics, a morpheme, the smallest linguistic unit that conveys phonemics and semantics or sound with meaning, the idea, the concept.  Hence, creativity.   One out of every 100 citizens in the United States are Iranian.  That means 99% of the citizens are using 1% of the citizenry's property for certain political gains such as in campaign advertisements, to generate business, and for organizational use.  Then there's the whole premace of the larger concepts of the ideas attested in the Gathic Avestan language, one could argue also has premace in the world of politics, business, and organization.  Apparently, it is the expert linguists application to the lexical data that bears the outcome of a case, not an attorny.  I'm not an attorny, but I know that United States legislation has been founded on false premaces before.  In the beginning, slavery was legal.  If the Forefather's didn't think twice about enslaving a person, then I would gather as much that they wouldn't have thought twice about plagerism, though they were influenced by the Irano-Aryan Cyrus II's International Charter on Human Rights.  The Cyrus Cyropedia was one of their main handbooks.  I believe it is fair to say that the Aryans do not have an ignoble history.  The Jirga or democratic council was an institution.  Slaves of war did not stay slaves.  The Cast system was not an Irano-Aryan institution it was an Indo-Aryan institution, so on and so forth.  If anybody would like to join my disscusion forum on the topic of Irano-Aryan Roots and Intellectual Property go <a href="http://wordcraft.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/932607094/m/4701048124/p/">here</a>

Edited by mojobadshah - 21-Apr-2007 at 02:08
Back to Top
pathan View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 21-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote pathan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 16:01
lol aryan has iranian origins.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 01:23
Hittite, is, generally, accepted to be more archaic than Gathic, but, Hittite died out over 2000 years ago, and has no living relatives, and if there is someone out there that is seriously going to claim that the core of the language that he speaks is Hittite, and Indo-European language and not a non-Indo-European language I would like to know.  The rest of the Indo-European family of languages were attested after Gathic Avestan the language, cultural, and intellectual property, an intangible asset of Iranian ownership, making the Gathic Avestan vocabulary prema facie evidence of the Indo-European family of languages, and even a lamen to the study of linguistics, not fully aware of all the linguistic laws and rules of the comparative method, can recognize  the obvious resemblence of the core of the Iranian vocabulary, the most frequently used words, to the core language of its latter, younger Indo-Euorpean sisters. 
 
Sorry, but the next earliest attested IE language (after Hittite and other Anatolian languages) is Greek, from the 13th century BC (Linear B tablets).  However, if we add the instances of Indo-Aryan (Indic) vocabulary in the literature of the Mitanni, then we have its attestation in the 14th century BC.  In terms of "archaicness' the next language would be Tocharian.  It possesses characteristics dropped by other IE languages with the exception of the Anatolian languages.  Avestan and other Indo-Iranian languages actually show the most innovation in development, hence they stand at a position younger than most other IE languages.
Back to Top
mojobadshah View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
  Quote mojobadshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 06:02
To the best of my knowledge, Tocharian  is as dead as Hittite.   And regarding Linear B, it was not, really, literature.  All but one word of Linear B was attested after 800 B.C.  Old Persian was attested around 600 B.C.    Even Younger Avestan is at least a few hundred years more archaic than Old Persian.  Zardusht or Zoroaster is attested by the Greeks to have lived around 8000 B.C.   Scholars generally agree that Gathic Avestan was composed at a time comparable to the Vedas, which was some time around or before 1800 B.C. 

Edited by mojobadshah - 24-Apr-2007 at 08:20
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 00:13
To the best of my knowledge, Tocharian  is as dead as Hittite. 
 
The point is that there were many languages more archaic than Avestan.  Indeed, Tocharian is dead, but it survived until the 8th century AD when it was superceded by Uighur.
 
 And regarding Linear B, it was not, really, literature.
 
That was not even your original point.  The point was that Linear B attests to the Greek language within a contemporary setting in the 2nd millennium BC. 
 
All but one word of Linear B was attested after 800 B.C.
 
So, if 99% of Linear B Greek words of the 2nd millennium BC are attested after 800 BC, then can we say that Greek had survived relatively unchanged?  I'm not quite sure of what you are objecting to.
 
Old Persian was attested around 600 B.C.  Even Younger Avestan is at least a few hundred years more archaic than Old Persian.
 
I can at least agree that Avestan is more archaic than Old Persian.
 
Zardusht or Zoroaster is attested by the Greeks to have lived around 8000 B.C.
 
No one takes the Greek date seriously.  The date of Zarathustra is not fixed, but some Iranian traditions and scholarly sources date him as late as the 6th century BC.  
 
Scholars generally agree that Gathic Avestan was composed at a time comparable to the Vedas, which was some time around or before 1800 B.C. 
 
What is agreed is that Gathic Avestan is considered as ancient as Indo-Aryan.  Regarding the Vedas, the conventional dating is between 1500 and 1200 BC. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 15>

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 0.203 seconds.