Facts are in-Aryan Invasion Of Indus is a Lie!

[Wannabe Yogi]

Climate change wiped out one of the world's first, great civilisations more than 4,000 years ago

Read more: Climate change wiped out one of the world's first, great civilisations more than 4,000 years ago | Mail Online

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Climate change wiped out one of the world's first, great civilisations more than 4,000 years ago

Read more: Climate change wiped out one of the world's first, great civilisations more than 4,000 years ago | Mail Online

Maybe now all Indians can claim their ancestry to be indigenous Aryavarta inhabitants.

And all Dharmics can try to reach for the status of Aryan (noble).

But many have known this (AIT) to be fake for the past 200 years.
There has been many discoveries and research that had already proved this, but never reaches the lay person. So basically Nazi history gets more views then actual Aryan history.

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe now all Indians can claim their ancestry to be indigenous Aryavarta inhabitants.

Don't get too excited, yet. All this meant was that the Indus Valley Peoples weren't wiped out by invading people. Sanskrit is still part of the Indo-European family of languages, and so many Indians still share a brotherhood with Iranians, who descended from Proto-Indo-Europeans. Linguistic evidence still points to this.

Until the Indus Script is deciphered, that's still the standard history.

 

[Jainarayan]

I've been following this for a while now. This theory has been gaining more and more ground with archaeologists, anthropologists and linguists over the past few years.

The area around the Indus River Valley experienced a drying out. The "mythical" Saraswati River is not so mythical. Satellite images show what appear to be its dried up course. In fact, in Old Persian we have the name of a river referred to as Hairovati (there is a regular sound shift between Old Persian and Vedic Sanskrit. Sanskrit 's' becomes Old Persian 'h'... Sindhu->Hindu; sapta->hapta; Saraswati->Hairovati; asura->ahura (the meaning also flipped); and many more).

The Indus Valley Civilization inhabitants probably moved eastwards towards the Ganges Plains where it was more fertile and wet, thereby abandoning what we know as the IVC (and no it was not an atomic blast from Ancient Aliens ).

There is no DNA evidence to show that there has been any kind of mass migration into or out of India for at least 50,000 years, if not even up to 100,000 years. Small migrations and cultural exchanges may have taken place, accounting for the linguistic relationships between the Indoeuropean languages (including Proto-Indoiranian which includes Old Persian and Vedic Sanskrit). And from a linuistic p.o.v. my guess is that the language of the IVC was... drumroll please... Proto-Sanskrit. But I doubt there was any mass migration or invasion into India from outside (the north), except for when humans left Africa 200,000 years ago.

When humans left Africa, there were several routes they took. Remember that the Sahara was not a desert up to 10,000 years ago. It was a wet marshland with lakes. The same can be said for the Arabian peninsula and most of south and southwest Asia. Humans took the "southern route" into south Asia, to southeast Asia and on to Australasia (land bridges) by 40,000 years ago. Some humans went north and east to the Asian steppes, and some north and west into Europe. By about 10,000 years ago the Sahara and southwest Asia became desertified. It was probably another few thousand years before the northwest of the Indian subcontinent dried.

So what this says if my theory is correct, is that if the Indian subcontinent and most of south Asia was inhabited for the past 50,000 to 100,000 years, that was more than sufficient time for advanced civilizations to arise. In a nutshell, Indians have been indigenous to India for at least 50,000 years.

However, I don't buy into the Out of India theory either: the linguistics and genetics don't bear it out or support it.

 

[Jainarayan]

Don't get too excited, yet. All this meant was that the Indus Valley Peoples weren't wiped out by invading people. Sanskrit is still part of the Indo-European family of languages, and so many Indians still share a brotherhood with Iranians, who descended from Proto-Indo-Europeans. Linguistic evidence still points to this.

Until the Indus Script is deciphered, that's still the standard history.

I think there were small continuous migrations and cultural exchanges over milennia. The IE relationships aren't hard to account for if there were those small migrations and cultural exchanges, especially over such long time scales. People have a knack for getting around and sharing culture and language.

Consider that only 1,000 years ago, what is now English was Anglo-Saxon; 2,000 years ago, what are now Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (Spanish and Portuguese diverged only within the past 500-1,000 years), French, and the other Romance languages were colloquial Latin. Even now in our own lifetimes English is diverging into more and different accents and dialects.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

that's still the standard history.

It is not standard History. Many, many, scholars disagree with you. How can it be standard history if there is no consensus among scholars.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

However, I don't buy into the Out of India theory either: the linguistics and genetics don't bear it out or support it.

I agree.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Don't get too excited, yet. All this meant was that the Indus Valley Peoples weren't wiped out by invading people.

It also means that there is an archaeological continuity in the Indian subcontinent from the Neolithic period.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Don't get too excited, yet. All this meant was that the Indus Valley Peoples weren't wiped out by invading people. Sanskrit is still part of the Indo-European family of languages, and so many Indians still share a brotherhood with Iranians, who descended from Proto-Indo-Europeans. Linguistic evidence still points to this.

Until the Indus Script is deciphered, that's still the standard history.

i know, i jumped the gun, sorry.

Sanskrit is still part of the Indo- European Languages but only survives In India.

The Indus people weren't invaded, so what is the Aryan Race????

Until the indus scrip is deciphered in conformance with the AIT, it will never be deciphered, or any other decipherment will not be accepted.


So i guess, i did jump the Gun. Again

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I've been following this for a while now. This theory has been gaining more and more ground with archaeologists, anthropologists and linguists over the past few years.

The area around the Indus River Valley experienced a drying out. The "mythical" Saraswati River is not so mythical. Satellite images show what appear to be its dried up course. In fact, in Old Persian we have the name of a river referred to as Hairovati (there is a regular sound shift between Old Persian and Vedic Sanskrit. Sanskrit 's' becomes Old Persian 'h'... Sindhu->Hindu; sapta->hapta; Saraswati->Hairovati; asura->ahura (the meaning also flipped); and many more).

The Indus Valley Civilization inhabitants probably moved eastwards towards the Ganges Plains where it was more fertile and wet, thereby abandoning what we know as the IVC (and no it was not an atomic blast from Ancient Aliens ).

There is no DNA evidence to show that there has been any kind of mass migration into or out of India for at least 50,000 years, if not even up to 100,000 years. Small migrations and cultural exchanges may have taken place, accounting for the linguistic relationships between the Indoeuropean languages (including Proto-Indoiranian which includes Old Persian and Vedic Sanskrit). And from a linuistic p.o.v. my guess is that the language of the IVC was... drumroll please... Proto-Sanskrit. But I doubt there was any mass migration or invasion into India from outside (the north), except for when humans left Africa 200,000 years ago.

When humans left Africa, there were several routes they took. Remember that the Sahara was not a desert up to 10,000 years ago. It was a wet marshland with lakes. The same can be said for the Arabian peninsula and most of south and southwest Asia. Humans took the "southern route" into south Asia, to southeast Asia and on to Australasia (land bridges) by 40,000 years ago. Some humans went north and east to the Asian steppes, and some north and west into Europe. By about 10,000 years ago the Sahara and southwest Asia became desertified. It was probably another few thousand years before the northwest of the Indian subcontinent dried.

So what this says if my theory is correct, is that if the Indian subcontinent and most of south Asia was inhabited for the past 50,000 to 100,000 years, that was more than sufficient time for advanced civilizations to arise. In a nutshell, Indians have been indigenous to India for at least 50,000 years.

However, I don't buy into the Out of India theory either: the linguistics and genetics don't bear it out or support it.

Your theory is correct, as there is no proof otherwise.

 

[Andal]

I am currently finishing my doctorate in anthropology and the AIT is NOT standard history. In fact in my department it is not taught as the explanation of Vedic cultural and linguistic development. It is simply one of many possibilities.

Also there is just as strong of a case to be made that Sanskrit is the mother of the other Indo European languages having moved westward through extended periods of trade and migration. In other words the argument for Sanskrit moving eastward into India can be flipped and the same argument can be made for it moving westward out of India.

The truth is there is not definitive evidence in any direction yet although the evidence against the AIT is getting stronger because of the incongruency in dates coupled with archaeological findings from the IVC.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[A-ManESL]

Your theory is correct, as there is no proof otherwise.

Without sticking my nose into AIT or whether it was migration or invasion, I just want to say that the above statement is absurd. Any theory does not become become correct if there is no proof otherwise. There is no proof otherwise that a teapot is orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, that does not make this theory correct.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think there were small continuous migrations and cultural exchanges over milennia. The IE relationships aren't hard to account for if there were those small migrations and cultural exchanges, especially over such long time scales. People have a knack for getting around and sharing culture and language.

Consider that only 1,000 years ago, what is now English was Anglo-Saxon; 2,000 years ago, what are now Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (Spanish and Portuguese diverged only within the past 500-1,000 years), French, and the other Romance languages were colloquial Latin. Even now in our own lifetimes English is diverging into more and different accents and dialects.

I think that's very likely, as well.

Just remember that Anglo-Saxon became Latinized because of the Norman invasion of 1066.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is not standard History. Many, many, scholars disagree with you. How can it be standard history if there is no consensus among scholars.

I mean that the speakers of Vedic Sanskrit are, at least, linguistically descended from Proto-Indo-Europeans, if not inherently.

I am currently finishing my doctorate in anthropology and the AIT is NOT standard history. In fact in my department it is not taught as the explanation of Vedic cultural and linguistic development. It is simply one of many possibilities.

Also there is just as strong of a case to be made that Sanskrit is the mother of the other Indo European languages having moved westward through extended periods of trade and migration. In other words the argument for Sanskrit moving eastward into India can be flipped and the same argument can be made for it moving westward out of India.

The truth is there is not definitive evidence in any direction yet although the evidence against the AIT is getting stronger because of the incongruency in dates coupled with archaeological findings from the IVC.

Aum Hari Aum!

I certainly don't call the AIT standard history.

But from what I've read, the Out of India theory is just as unlikely. Currently, the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language are believed to have lived somewhere around the Black Sea.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Without sticking my nose into AIT or whether it was migration or invasion, I just want to say that the above statement is absurd. Any theory does not become become correct if there is no proof otherwise. There is no proof otherwise that a teapot is orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, that does not make this theory correct.

That is my personal opinion, and I think it is correct, because there is no evidence for the opposite.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think that's very likely, as well.

Just remember that Anglo-Saxon became Latinized because of the Norman invasion of 1066.

Yes indeed it did. Norman French was the language of court and the nobility. It may not have filtered down to the common person tilling the land, but it was certainly enshrined in official documents. English is a West Germanic language in structure, but its vocabulary is ~60% Latin-derived.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I mean that the speakers of Vedic Sanskrit are, at least, linguistically descended from Proto-Indo-Europeans, if not inherently.

This also seems to be open for debate.

 

[Riverwolf]

This also seems to be open for debate.

But not much. Linguists pretty much know what they're talking about.

After all, the Vedic God Dyaus Pita (Sky father) is clearly linguistically related to the Irish word for God, Dia.

 

[Jainarayan]

In fact the following names are all cognate from the hypothetically reconstructed PIE: Dyaus, Dio, Dios, Deus, Zeus, Theos, Jupiter from Iovis Pater (Yo-wiss).

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Read this.
Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist, who is known to lead the idea of Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory in more recent times, continued to question genetic evidence on the basis that it does not provide the time resolution to explain events that may have been involved in Aryan presence in India.
Dr. Kashyap’s reply was that even though the time resolution needs further work, the fact that there are clear and distinct differences in the gene pools of Indian population and those of Central Asian and European groups, the evidence nevertheless negates any Aryan invasion or migration into Indian Subcontinent.
Witzel though refused to present his own data and evidence for his theories despite being invited to do so was nevertheless present in the conference and raised many questions. Some of his commentaries questioning the credibility of scholars evoked sharp responses from other participants


How Scientists Trash Linguists “Evidence” of Indian History and Why Aryan Invasion is an Incorrigible Lie!
The Lingisists seem to be having real problems with the hard scientists.