• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Indus Valley Civilization

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Well I had a feeling I wasn't going to be able to convey the thought without offending (or it at least being taken the wrong way). My point was not to say that this is a conspiracy with which you are working. Rather, I was merely stating the way you are painting a picture feels as though you are. We are bouncing from time period to time period. Over here you talk about Atlantis, and over there you talk about Gandhi. In one stream of thought you explain the Shankarcharya math, in the next you will discuss Ancient Egyptians.

My friend, I understand this is complex. I understand that you have compiled much knowledge on this subject. But I need to walk before I can run with you.

Hehe, I think very much like an Indian. Your frustration is again because of the different categorical framework we are using when thinking and writing. You want to be narrow, just focused on one point, sort of the trees for the forest approach. I want to be broad, and cover several related points, sort of forest for the trees approach. It sort of reminds me(look I am doing it again!) of how Western people react to Bollywood movies for the first time -- Bollywood movies can be extremely frustrating because they mix everything comedy, drama, suspense, action, melodrama, thriller, music, dance and include every emotional tone and will often have sides stories, stories within stories(this is based on Indian theory of atheistic) and Western people are use to single genre, with a single tone -- so horror will be horror, there will be no comedy. In Indian movies there can be both comedy and horror.
I think your reaction to my way of writing conveys a similar frustration. You are not the first to tell me this by the way, my professors have pointed it out. I just cant zero in and focus on just one area -- I need to look at several different areas and how they relate to one another.

Allow me to be cheeky but I think the Indian categorical framework is far closer to how we really think --- the mind thinks by association. The Western way is reductionist which is an artificial way of looking at things. Now, before I go into another crazy tangent, I will tell you how I think the points I made are related:

Mentioning the racism of early indologists: To let you know the climate in which AIT/AMT was produced, what were the motivations, the underlying assumptions and how the theory was used

Gandhi: I mentioned Gandhi only in reference to Winston Churchill's comment on the Bengal Famines. This was to give you an idea of the Nazi-like hatred the British colonialists had against India. Now, with all due respect, we do not take anything the Nazi's said and theories about Jews as valid today, so why the double standards with what the colonial scholars theories about Indians. I think this is where you betray some discomfort, and it is not just you, but it is a sentiment I have heard from many English on British were as bad as the Nazis to the Indians.

Egypt connection: I mentioned this to give you an idea of the faulty scholarship that was prevalent, they were already imposing invasion narratives on India even before William Jones discovered the Aryan connection. They were of the opinion that Indian people were not capable of developing their own civilisation without the help of foreign invaders. This is an internalised narrative today when you study Indian history, even in India, Indian history is portrayed through invasions, even the idea of 'India' is a controversial topic. The history books in India used in academic study are written by Marxist Historians.

Atlantis: You took this completely the wrong way, and I think you still are even after my clarification. I never said Atlantis existed and we should take Plato's Timeus or Ramayana as proof it existed. I said they 'had the same story' to show that the Greeks(Yavanas - Ionians) actually share the same mythology, because they were once originally in India before they migrated later. The period before 800BCE is a dark age in Greek history, but we know the early Greeks migrated into Greece and started Greek civilisation. This is why the Greeks share the same myths with India. This is why the Sanskrit texts mention the Greeks were a Mleccha tribe IN INDIA in 3000BCE and they left from India westwards. This is why Panini mentions Yavanas as being in India. It is all consistent if you drop this idea of arrival of Aryans in India in 1500BCE and accept are indigenous to India.

Sankarcharya Maths: I mentioned this to give you an obvious example of institutional racism. It is understandable the Indians could possibly forget their history during the dark ages of 2000BCE to 1000BCE and any history prior to 1000BCE could in fact be mythology. Granted. However, that they would forget their most recent history too, as recent as 700CE. They would keep records of their first pontiff as being born in 500BCE when he was fact born in 700CE? And their enemies Buddhists, Jains and rival schools of Advaita would not notice that? Absolutely absurd. This is institutionalised racism. It would be the equivalent of Indians invading England and declaring the battle of Hastings was fought in the 19th century century not 1066, and all of the records of England are myth and the English forgot. The fact that I have repeated point several times now and you have not responded to it also betrays discomfort.

A theory should have two features for it to be a good theory. It should 1)Have explanatory power and 2)It should be parsimonious. AIT/AMT has neither of these features. It does not explain all the historical data we have from various areas astronomy(like the Kaliyuga calendar) geology(Saraswati river) All textual records kept by Indians and records kept by Greeks, Chinese, Egyptians and archaeology. In fact rather than explaining them, AIT/AMT tries to explain everything away by multiplying assumption which create bizarre absurdities.

In comparison Indigenous Aryan theory has both explanatory power and is parsimonious. It agrees with the astronomical data, the geological data, the textual data and the archaeological data.

I will respond to the rest of your post later.
 
Last edited:

Kirran

Premium Member
Where are you getting this 'current consensus' idea from? I see no consensus. If there is one, those who have made it aren't including the people with opposing views, which obviously isn't consensus at all. 'Current consensus' feels like false argument to me.

I mean it similarly to how people say that the scientific consensus is that evolution is a real process, or that anthropogenic climate change is indeed in effect. Yes there will be some people who disagree, and some are even professionals in the field, but there's such a consensus that neutral observers basically accept the more widely-held view.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I mean it similarly to how people say that the scientific consensus is that evolution is a real process, or that anthropogenic climate change is indeed in effect. Yes there will be some people who disagree, and some are even professionals in the field, but there's such a consensus that neutral observers basically accept the more widely-held view.
Again, with the 'more widely held view' ? Says who? You? When I did my extensive reading several years back, I arrived at a different conclusion about such 'widely held views'. Please quote from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Again, with the 'more widely held view' ? Says who? You? When I did my extensive reading several years back, I arrived at a different conclusion about such 'widely held views'. Please quote from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

I'd refer you to authors such as Lars Martin Fosse (ARYAN PAST AND POST-COLONIAL PRESENT. The polemics and politics of indigenous Aryanism - The Indo-Aryan Controversy) and Edwin Bryant (The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture) who conduct reviews of existing peer-reviewed literature and examine the providence of Indigenist scholarship.

Also, it throws the whole thing into suspicion from the get-go to me when the vast majority (not all, but close) of those who promote the Indigenous Aryans Theory are of one particular religion or associated with it. Also, you only get it being argued out of the Indian context, you don't get the Central Asian origins of the Indo-European culture questioned from elsewhere, it's all based in India and arguments based on Indian civilisations and literature.

A point of curiosity - are there are any SSC members who accept AMT rather than IAT? Or would that be beyond the pale?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Sankarcharya Maths: I mentioned this to give you an obvious example of institutional racism. It is understandable the Indians could possibly forget their history during the dark ages of 2000BCE to 1000BCE and any history prior to 1000BCE could in fact be mythology. Granted. However, that they would forget their most recent history too, as recent as 700CE. They would keep records of their first pontiff as being born in 500BCE when he was fact born in 700CE? And their enemies Buddhists, Jains and rival schools of Advaita would not notice that? Absolutely absurd. This is institutionalised racism. It would be the equivalent of Indians invading England and declaring the battle of Hastings was fought in the 19th century century not 1066, and all of the records of England are myth and the English forgot. The fact that I have repeated point several times now and you have not responded to it also betrays discomfort.

No discomfort. I am trying to find sources that match your dates. European dark ages obscure very much that which came before them in Europe. Much work has been done to reconstruct and verify historical happenings in this place in that time. I am not so sure this line is as fruitful as you think. Givenjoy the dates you want, we are still not beyond 1k bce. So unless wemail can take it back to 400bce and then say x events must have predated this by you years, the Sankarcharya doesn't get us closers to understanding ivc.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I'd refer you to authors such as Lars Martin Fosse (ARYAN PAST AND POST-COLONIAL PRESENT. The polemics and politics of indigenous Aryanism - The Indo-Aryan Controversy) and Edwin Bryant (The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture) who conduct reviews of existing peer-reviewed literature and examine the providence of Indigenist scholarship.

Also, it throws the whole thing into suspicion from the get-go to me when the vast majority (not all, but close) of those who promote the Indigenous Aryans Theory are of one particular religion or associated with it. Also, you only get it being argued out of the Indian context, you don't get the Central Asian origins of the Indo-European culture questioned from elsewhere, it's all based in India and arguments based on Indian civilisations and literature.

A point of curiosity - are there are any SSC members who accept AMT rather than IAT? Or would that be beyond the pale?

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with IAT.

Yes, we've read different books then. So that we've concluded separately makes sense. Very few people in SSC would take anything but a passing interest in this sort of thing. Attention is far more on the present sadhanas, rather than scholarly history. I've never asked, and go by what's published in Hinduism Today, but they try hard to do that with some degree of neutrality as well. But as the title indicates, its pro-Hinduism. Usually the way it goes is one person will be given the task of true in-depth research, and then that individual reports back, and the others just accept it, not blindly, but in a general way. We trust our chosen experts. So I've chosen different 'experts' than you have.

Words like 'general consensus' , 'currently accepted theories' and the like are . meaningless. just as some peoples use of the word 'facts' is. It still all boils down to 'My opinion is ......'The diligence one went to in order to arrive at that opinion is another matter altogether.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Sorry, I am unfamiliar with IAT.

Yes, we've read different books then. So that we've concluded separately makes sense. Very few people in SSC would take anything but a passing interest in this sort of thing. Attention is far more on the present sadhanas, rather than scholarly history. I've never asked, and go by what's published in Hinduism Today, but they try hard to do that with some degree of neutrality as well. But as the title indicates, its pro-Hinduism. Usually the way it goes is one person will be given the task of true in-depth research, and then that individual reports back, and the others just accept it, not blindly, but in a general way. We trust our chosen experts. So I've chosen different 'experts' than you have.

Words like 'general consensus' , 'currently accepted theories' and the like are . meaningless. just as some peoples use of the word 'facts' is. It still all boils down to 'My opinion is ......'The diligence one went to in order to arrive at that opinion is another matter altogether.

I guessed most people in the SSC wouldn't really care about this. To be honest, for some reason it's only when you talk about it that I get involved in it myself, I don't know why. I just find it a little mystifying when all the research I've done points to it being essentially a politically-motivated pseudoscience.

As you might have envisioned, I would question the idea that the AMT is "anti-Hinduism"! ;)
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I guessed most people in the SSC wouldn't really care about this. To be honest, for some reason it's only when you talk about it that I get involved in it myself, I don't know why. I just find it a little mystifying when all the research I've done points to it being essentially a politically-motivated pseudoscience.

As you might have envisioned, I would question the idea that the AMT is "anti-Hinduism"! ;)

And I only get involved to confront Aup's talking as if AI is a fact. There needs to be a balance for readers. AMT itself isn't anti-Hindu as much as some of the proponents are. McAuley was decidedly anti-Hindu, for example.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
And I only get involved to confront Aup's talking as if AI is a fact. There needs to be a balance for readers. AMT itself isn't anti-Hindu as much as some of the proponents are. McAuley was decidedly anti-Hindu, for example.

I reject the Aryan Invasion Theory as much as you do! That's basically the version touted a century ago by such old-school Indologists as Muller. The state of Indian academia is that in many cases more up-to-date scholarship is less widely available, so stuff from a hundred years ago is still out in its 15th etc editions!
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
"Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads"

Only Vedas are revealed, all others don't form the revealed scripture and belong to Post Veda Period and are un-revealed. Please

Regards

Those are the Vedas. The Vedas are not revealed.

The Vedic hymns themselves assert that they were skillfully created by Rishis (sages), after inspired creativity, just as a carpenter builds a chariot.[10]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas

Do we have to go through this again?
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
I was not fed a picturesque colonial ruled India story. Past horrors are not hard for me to hear. And I have no trouble understanding how civilizations emerging only a century from the dark ages with extremIsrael religious beliefs would rewrite history to fit their worldview. That said, we have motive at that time and as that motive shrank, a newer motive (the same that fueled the slave trade and eventually eugenics) replaced the old, and now with those motives gone, you point toward politics. I see these points but they are not pertinent to what we believe we know. They are part of a recent history and while they may serve to help obscure our understanding they can not take away from the facts we have.

I am glad you personally haven't been fed a picturesque colonial ruled India, but I know I was when covering history at school and I have spoken to my friends who studied history, and they indicated the same. Only just recently the Indian MP Shashri Tharoor caused a storm at the Oxford Society of Debating when he mentioned the economic exploitation that was done to India, a lot of people were hearing for the first time that the British actually forced the de-industralisation of India, for example the hand loomers had their looms taken away from them and and cut of their fingers so they could not weave again, to move business to Manchester. In similar manner they destroyed every industry in India, rendering the country and the country men poor. It has been described as an "economic genocide" because by taking away the livelihood of the people, people started to starve to death and started dropping like flies, and then to compound matters, the British levied exorbitant taxes on the people, taking away their food grain(lagaan) and forcing them to grow cash crops even in times of draught, and effectively killing tens of millions of Indians in man-made famines. The brutal rape of the Indian resources, was also accompanied by daily brutal physical rape of Indian women, in broad daylight in front of their parents to humiliate them further, and the one to actually complain about these rapes was a British person himself. It was a brutal regime and the fact that so few people know about it, is actually a wee bit disgusting.

However, this thread is not about decrying colonialism, I am only pointing it out to situate you in the climate of colonial thinkers and type of scholarship they were doing. I will repeat again does anybody take the scholarship of the Nazi's on Jews seriously today? Do we still read 'Jews and their lies' and 'Mein Kamph" as respectable books on Jewish scholarship? No, we do not. But we do still read Mills's "History of India" We still accord respect to Muller, Jones et al for their early scholarship on India, and if you study Indian history, their works are required reading. It it like making Jews read Nazi scholarship as required reading.

I think for a lot of rational people, when they learn exactly how the 1500BCE date was arrived at, they instantly reject it. Remember I cited earlier a current leading Indigenous Aryan supporting Greek scholar, he was a former AIT/AMT proponent and defended it for most of his life, but when he himself found out how it was created, he rejected it. When I found out how it was created, I also rejected it. A lot of new generations of Indians who are finding out about it are rejecting it. Scientists are rejecting it.

Heck, even Muller disowned it later.

However, please mind the bluntness of the question, but why are you not rejecting it, even despite knowing how it was created? You seem to be under this naive impression that the "motive is gone" and we have since backed it up with further research. In fact both are untrue. Neo-colonial orientialism such of the type the early indologists practised is still going on, but the HQ has moved from Oxford to Harvard. The new breed of Jones et al are Wendy Doniger, Micheal Witzel, Kripal, and the methods they use are far more sophisticated based on modern psychoanalysis, sub-altern studies. But this time the Hindus have a voice so we can fight back --- and we have and we have won the first few battles(See California textbooks controversy)

There is further research to back up the 1500BCE arrival of Aryans into India. The date has just been maintained because it has been repeated. It has been repeated in a chain from Muller to present day scholars. There is no further research it back it up. The ones blindly repeating this date, themselves don't know how it was arrived at.
I have so far presented you evidence for the Indian case of OIT/Indigenous Aryans, but now I will ask you to also put your money where your mouth is, give me the evidence. I want evidence that backs up this 1500BCE arrival date of Aryans into India. Actually using real methods this time(not the bible) justify this date to me.


We find sanskrit 1380 in Syria. And then again in hitite lands in 1350bce. The oldest language we find relating to sanskrit is in Turkey and from 1800bce. We find more sanskrit speckled throughout Asia that dates between 400bce and 400ad.

And this is exactly what AMT/AMT always fall back on, historical linguistics and linguistic speculation. All this proves that Sanskrit was in Syria in 1380BCE, in Hittie lands in 1350BCE and in Turkey in 1800BCE. In linguistics, the terms they use for this is called 'attested' It does not prove 'origin' and it does now show us which direction the Indo-European tribes travelled from. If it there is some method that can 100% ascertain that, please do tell me.

In Nyaya logic I would charge here with a formal fallacy of the counter-balanced. That is that the same linguistic data you are offering to prove AIT/AMT, I can use offer to support OIT. Around 1900BCE, the Saraswati river had dried up completely, most of the IVC settlements were alongside the river, and backed up by Rig Veda 'O Saraswati, mighty river, all our settlements are alongside you' This would have caused mass migrations of tribes from India to settle in new locations. This is also backed up by Rig Veda, "O Saraswati, mighty river, may you never spurn us, or we will migrate to distant lands" The very fact that the earliest Sanskrit speaking people we find happens between 2000BCE and 1000BCE as far as West Asia, is completely consistent with what OIT expects.

So now you have the burden of proof to prove to me that Aryans arrived in India in 1500BCE from Turkey. I eagerly await this evidence that I have not yet found in my years of research, and nor did that Greek scholar.


You would have people believe that this civilization was Hindu as has been preserved today. But we do not see evidence of that.

Yes we do, I have already posted a very long summary of all the IVC features that match the janaprada period of Hindu history. I showed there was a near 100% match. This shows the IVC shows the development of later Hinduism, or what is called "Post-Vedic" which means the Vedic phase preceded the IVC. Hence why I place it in the Megarh phase. A lot of scholars now acknowledge actually that Hinduism is as old as the IVC.
 
Last edited:

Curious George

Veteran Member
I am glad you personally haven't been fed a picturesque colonial ruled India, but I know I was when covering history at school and I have spoken to my friends who studied history, and they indicated the same. Only just recently the Indian MP Shashri Tharoor caused a storm at the Oxford Society of Debating when he mentioned the economic exploitation that was done to India, a lot of people were hearing for the first time that the British actually forced the de-industralisation of India, for example the hand loomers had their looms taken away from them and and cut of their fingers so they could not weave again, to move business to Manchester. In similar manner they destroyed every industry in India, rendering the country and the country men poor. It has been described as an "economic genocide" because by taking away the livelihood of the people, people started to starve to death and started dropping like flies, and then to compound matters, the British levied exorbitant taxes on the people, taking away their food grain(lagaan) and forcing them to grow cash crops even in times of draught, and effectively killing tens of millions of Indians in man-made famines. The brutal rape of the Indian resources, was also accompanied by daily brutal physical rape of Indian women, in broad daylight in front of their parents to humiliate them further, and the one to actually complain about these rapes was a British person himself. It was a brutal regime and the fact that so few people know about it, is actually a wee bit disgusting.

However, this thread is not about decrying colonialism, I am only pointing it out to situate you in the climate of colonial thinkers and type of scholarship they were doing. I will repeat again does anybody take the scholarship of the Nazi's on Jews seriously today? Do we still read 'Jews and their lies' and 'Mein Kamph" as respectable books on Jewish scholarship? No, we do not. But we do still read Mills's "History of India" We still accord respect to Muller, Jones et al for their early scholarship on India, and if you study Indian history, their works are required reading. It it like making Jews read Nazi scholarship as required reading.

I think for a lot of rational people, when they learn exactly how the 1500BCE date was arrived at, they instantly reject it. Remember I cited earlier a current leading Indigenous Aryan supporting Greek scholar, he was a former AIT/AMT proponent and defended it for most of his life, but when he himself found out how it was created, he rejected it. When I found out how it was created, I also rejected it. A lot of new generations of Indians who are finding out about it are rejecting it. Scientists are rejecting it.

Heck, even Muller disowned it later.

However, please mind the bluntness of the question, but why are you not rejecting it, even despite knowing how it was created? You seem to be under this naive impression that the "motive is gone" and we have since backed it up with further research. In fact both are untrue. Neo-colonial orientialism such of the type the early indologists practised is still going on, but the HQ has moved from Oxford to Harvard. The new breed of Jones et al are Wendy Doniger, Micheal Witzel, Kripal, and the methods they use are far more sophisticated based on modern psychoanalysis, sub-altern studies. But this time the Hindus have a voice so we can fight back --- and we have and we have won the first few battles(See California textbooks controversy)

There is further research to back up the 1500BCE arrival of Aryans into India. The date has just been maintained because it has been repeated. It has been repeated in a chain from Muller to present day scholars. There is no further research it back it up. The ones blindly repeating this date, themselves don't know how it was arrived at.
I have so far presented you evidence for the Indian case of OIT/Indigenous Aryans, but now I will ask you to also put your money where your mouth is, give me the evidence. I want evidence that backs up this 1500BCE arrival date of Aryans into India. Actually using real methods this time(not the bible) justify this date to me.




And this is exactly what AMT/AMT always fall back on, historical linguistics and linguistic speculation. All this proves that Sanskrit was in Syria in 1380BCE, in Hittie lands in 1350BCE and in Turkey in 1800BCE. In linguistics, the terms they use for this is called 'attested' It does not prove 'origin' and it does now show us which direction the Indo-European tribes travelled from. If it there is some method that can 100% ascertain that, please do tell me.

In Nyaya logic I would charge here with a formal fallacy of the counter-balanced. That is that the same linguistic data you are offering to prove AIT/AMT, I can use offer to support OIT. Around 1900BCE, the Saraswati river had dried up completely, most of the IVC settlements were alongside the river, and backed up by Rig Veda 'O Saraswati, mighty river, all our settlements are alongside you' This would have caused mass migrations of tribes from India to settle in new locations. This is also backed up by Rig Veda, "O Saraswati, mighty river, may you never spurn us, or we will migrate to distant lands" The very fact that the earliest Sanskrit speaking people we find happens between 2000BCE and 1000BCE as far as West Asia, is completely consistent with what OIT expects.

So now you have the burden of proof to prove to me that Aryans arrived in India in 1500BCE from Turkey. I eagerly await this evidence that I have not yet found in my years of research, and nor did that Greek scholar.




Yes we do, I have already posted a very long summary of all the IVC features that match the janaprada period of Hindu history. I showed there was a near 100% match. This shows the IVC shows the development of later Hinduism, or what is called "Post-Vedic" which means the Vedic phase preceded the IVC. Hence why I place it in the Megarh phase. A lot of scholars now acknowledge actually that Hinduism is as old as the IVC.
Reading through this it is apparent that you are misunderstanding me.

Have I put forth a claim of either AIT or AMT? Nope. The only claim that I offered was that rigveda was at least in existence in 1500bce. You have proposed otherwise. You have proposed that we do not have evidence to support sanskrit in India in 1500bce. I would assume it was there. But hey, if you want to take that away...fine. I have said that sanskrit existed in Syria in 1380, and in other areas of the ME in 1350. I have also stated that a related language was found in Turkey that dates to 1800bce. I have not laid any claim as to the flow of the language, and if you read my posts more thoroughly, you will find that I am akin to believe that this is more likely to come from an advanced civilisation such as the IVC, but I do not claim that it did, (and I most certainly do not claim that it did not). My phone is about to die, so I will post more later.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
.

I think for a lot of rational people, when they learn exactly how the 1500BCE date was arrived at, they instantly reject it. Remember I cited earlier a current leading Indigenous Aryan supporting Greek scholar, he was a former AIT/AMT proponent and defended it for most of his life, but when he himself found out how it was created, he rejected it. When I found out how it was created, I also rejected it. A lot of new generations of Indians who are finding out about it are rejecting it. Scientists are rejecting it.

Heck, even Muller disowned it later.

However, please mind the bluntness of the question, but why are you not rejecting it, even despite knowing how it was created? You seem to be under this naive impression that the "motive is gone" and we have since backed it up with further research. In fact both are untrue. Neo-colonial orientialism such of the type the early indologists practised is still going on, but the HQ has moved from Oxford to Harvard. The new breed of Jones et al are Wendy Doniger, Micheal Witzel, Kripal, and the methods they use are far more sophisticated based on modern psychoanalysis, sub-altern studies. But this time the Hindus have a voice so we can fight back --- and we have and we have won the first few battles(See California textbooks controversy)

There is further research to back up the 1500BCE arrival of Aryans into India. The date has just been maintained because it has been repeated. It has been repeated in a chain from Muller to present day scholars. There is no further research it back it up. The ones blindly repeating this date, themselves don't know how it was arrived at.

The reason I will not casually dismiss the dating of the Rig Veda to at least 1500bce is that I need to look into it further. Using this date as a minimum for when the text was written is a problem? I fail to see why other than you are easily triggered by the mention of the date. I am not saying Aryans came to India at this date, yet you don't seem to be able to help but readon't just that. I will look further into the dating, that is all I can offer. I am skeptical of all ideas. I am not biased by history, I am not biased by politics, I would like to know, that is all.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Yes we do, I have already posted a very long summary of all the IVC features that match the janaprada period of Hindu history. I showed there was a near 100% match. This shows the IVC shows the development of later Hinduism, or what is called "Post-Vedic" which means the Vedic phase preceded the IVC. Hence why I place it in the Megarh phase. A lot of scholars now acknowledge actually that Hinduism is as old as the IVC.
The Dravidians don't agree with it. Aryan Civilization and the IVC features are different:

The Vedas describe the wheels of the Chariots with spokes, but the wheels that are seen on the seals and vehicles of clay in Indus valley do not have wheels with spokes.2

Following analysation of Sir John Marshall on the Indus Valley Civilization here are given some clues.

1. "The picture of Indo-Aryan society portrayed in the Vedas is that of a partly pastoral, partly agricultural people, who have not yet emerged from the village state, who have no knowledge of life in cities or of the complex economic organization which such life implies, and whose houses are nondescript affairs constructed largely of bamboo.

At Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, on the other hand, we have densely populated cities with solid, commodious houses of brick equipped with a adequate sanitation, bathrooms, wells, and other amenities.

2. The metals which the Indo-Aryans used in the time of the Rigveda are gold and copper or bronze; but a little late, in the time of the Yajurveda and Atharvaveda, these metals are supplemented by silver and iron.

Among the Indus people silver is commoner than gold, and utensils and vessels are sometimes made of stone - a relic of the Neolithic Age - as well as of copper and bronze. Of iron there is no vestige.

Is Indus Valley Civilization Dravidian
And there are many others given on the above link.
Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
The reason I will not casually dismiss the dating of the Rig Veda to at least 1500bce is that I need to look into it further. Using this date as a minimum for when the text was written is a problem? I fail to see why other than you are easily triggered by the mention of the date. I am not saying Aryans came to India at this date, yet you don't seem to be able to help but readon't just that. I will look further into the dating, that is all I can offer. I am skeptical of all ideas. I am not biased by history, I am not biased by politics, I would like to know, that is all.
"I am not biased by history, I am not biased by politics"
That is the right approach. Please
Regards
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
You have proposed that we do not have evidence to support sanskrit in India in 1500bce. I would assume it was there. But hey, if you want to take that away...fine. I have said that sanskrit existed in Syria in 1380, and in other areas of the ME in 1350. I have also stated that a related language was found in Turkey that dates to 1800bce.

I think you have misunderstood the position I am arguing. I have never said there is no evidence for Sanskrit in India in 1500BCE. I said there is no evidence for an arrival of Aryans in 1500BCE. Of course there was in Sanskrit in India in 1500BCE, I am saying it was was Sanskrit in India in 3000BCE and probably 4000BCE too.

So you can see it poses no problem to me that Sanskrit is seen in Turkey in 1800BCE and in Syria in 1380BCE and ME in 1350BCE. I can explain this as migrations from OUT OF INDIA to these areas. Remember what I told you by 1900BCE the Saraswati river had completely dried up, forcing people residing in the settlements alongside it to migrate.

The reason I will not casually dismiss the dating of the Rig Veda to at least 1500bce is that I need to look into it further. Using this date as a minimum for when the text was written is a problem? I fail to see why other than you are easily triggered by the mention of the date. I am not saying Aryans came to India at this date, yet you don't seem to be able to help but readon't just that. I will look further into the dating, that is all I can offer. I am skeptical of all ideas. I am not biased by history, I am not biased by politics, I would like to know, that is all.

I am actually surprised you are not skeptical of this 1500BCE date, even after I told you that it was arbitrary. I will leave you you to gather evidence to justify this date now.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I am actually surprised you are not skeptical of this 1500BCE date, even after I told you that it was arbitrary. I will leave you you to gather evidence to justify this date now.

Again, are you skeptical that the rigveda was around in written form in 1500bce? Why would you want people to be skeptical that the rigveda was around at least in 1500bce? Such a position makes little sense given your previous posts.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Again, are you skeptical that the rigveda was around in written form in 1500bce? Why would you want people to be skeptical that the rigveda was around at least in 1500bce? Such a position makes little sense given your previous posts.

I don't know what you are arguing anymore. So I think we need to clarify what position are you arguing for, because otherwise we are just going to run circles around each other.

My position: Is known as OIT/Indigenous Aryans theory, this states that the original Aryan homeland was India, that the IVC is an Aryan civilisation. According to this the Vedic age started some 10,000 years ago in the Megarh period and the post-vedic urban/republic period started some 4000-3000BCE. The Indo-European tribes(Mlecchas) migrated from out of India, and the causes for this are various, but the chief cause is the drying up the Saraswati iver around 1900BCE, which forced the Aryans to find new distant lands to migrate to. This is why the earliest IE languages you see appearing is actually from 2000BCE to 1000BCE.

The position I am arguing against: Is known as AIT, which is now demoted to AMT, that in 1500BCE the Aryans migrated to India. The Rig Veda was composed in India by 1200BCE. According to this theory IVC is not Aryan, but a Dravidian civilisation. The IE tribes originated in Central Asia as their origin, travelling west over several millennia, go in various directions, and one of those tribes the Indo-Aryans entered India. According to this theory the Vedic age started in 1500BCE and the post-Vedic age somewhere around 800-600BCE dates ,

Now I am not sure entirely which side you are arguing for or against or whether you are even picking a side. However, it seemed like you were arguing for AMT. This is why I asked you to actually provide evidence for this arbitrary 1500BCE arrival of Aryans. I told you exactly how the date was originally arrived at. You seem to be cocksure that this 1500BCE date is backed up by even current research. So I again ask you, show me the evidence.
 
Last edited:

Curious George

Veteran Member
I don't know what you are arguing anymore. So I think we need to clarify what position are you arguing for, because otherwise we are just going to run circles around each other.

My position: Is known as OIT/Indigenous Aryans theory, this states that the original Aryan homeland was India, that the IVC is an Aryan civilisation. According to this the Vedic age started some 10,000 years ago in the Megarh period and the post-vedic urban/republic period started some 4000-3000BCE. The Indo-European tribes(Mlecchas) migrated from out of India, and the causes for this are various, but the chief cause is the drying up the Saraswati iver around 1900BCE, which forced the Aryans to find new distant lands to migrate to. This is why the earliest IE languages you see appearing is actually from 2000BCE to 1900BCE.

The position I am arguing against: Is known as AIT, which is now demoted to AMT, that in 1500BCE the Aryans migrated to India. The Rig Veda was composed in India by 1200BCE. According to this theory IVC is not Aryan, but a Dravidian civilisation. The IE tribes originated in Central Asia as their origin, travelling west over several millennia, go in various directions, and one of those tribes the Indo-Aryans entered India. According to this theory the Vedic age started in 1500BCE and the post-Vedic age somewhere around 800-600BCE dates ,

Now I am not entirely which side you are arguing for or against or whether you are even picking a side. However, it seemed like you were arguing for AMT. This is why I asked you to actually provide evidence for this arbitrary 1500BCE arrival of Aryans. I told you exactly how the date was originally arrived at. You seem to be cocksure that this 1500BCE date is backed up by even current research. So I again ask you, show me the evidence.
My position is that we don't know. But all sources agree whether OIT or AMT that the rigveda and sanskrit was in India at or before 1500bce. Hence, the 1500bce. It is the greatest common denominator. I clearly see how this "conservative" number could be and was tossed around arbitrarily in order to synch up with worldviews and narratives of the time. What I do not see is evidence that sanskrit definitively predates this estimate. We can agree that predating this time period is likely the case for sanskrit in IVC, but I see no reason to jump to such a conclusion. There are many factors we can look to such as the descriptions of flora and fauna, or the description of astronomy, but all this does is show us that the knowledge the IVC had was the likes that would not be seen in the rest of the world for millenia. The knowledge itself speaks seems to speak nothing of the language. Because, even though it is apparent that Hindus had knowledge of both lunar and tropical calendars, mathematics, the spherical shape of the planets, that the sun is a star...etc, and such knowledge would have likely only come from an advanced civilization (the IVC being the only candidate) we still see no sanskrit language in any of the discoveries of the IVC. So, whether it came from the IVC or from outside of the IVC, we are not given any proof or agreement that this language emerged prior to 1500bce. The closest we come to such is that we have a related language in 1800bce in Turkey. Now I agree it is more likely that this language developed from or was influenced by the more advanced civilisation of the IVC, but we don't know that. For all we know, that is what language looked like in the IVC as well and kultepe was a colonial outpost of the IVC. Still no written language from the IVC has been shown to match this either. Is it possible for a civilisation as advanced as the IVC to have existed without language? I doubt it. So we are left to wonder as of now as to what that language looked like. We see Sanskrit and it is natural to assume, we'll this is here so it must have been here. Such is not the case. For all we know, Sanskrit could be an invention of language study in the IVC that was a fad in 1900bce before the river dried up. My stance is we do not know what transpired, but there is agreement that sanskrit existed in 1500bce in southernew Asia. We can agree that IVC was a flourishing civilization (the greatest in the world at the time) for thousands of years before 1500bce. We can also agree that these facts are likely connected and that unraveling the history will require better understanding of the IVC.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
I don't know what you are arguing anymore. So I think we need to clarify what position are you arguing for, because otherwise we are just going to run circles around each other.

My position: Is known as OIT/Indigenous Aryans theory, this states that the original Aryan homeland was India, that the IVC is an Aryan civilisation. According to this the Vedic age started some 10,000 years ago in the Megarh period and the post-vedic urban/republic period started some 4000-3000BCE. The Indo-European tribes(Mlecchas) migrated from out of India, and the causes for this are various, but the chief cause is the drying up the Saraswati iver around 1900BCE, which forced the Aryans to find new distant lands to migrate to. This is why the earliest IE languages you see appearing is actually from 2000BCE to 1000BCE.

The position I am arguing against: Is known as AIT, which is now demoted to AMT, that in 1500BCE the Aryans migrated to India. The Rig Veda was composed in India by 1200BCE. According to this theory IVC is not Aryan, but a Dravidian civilisation. The IE tribes originated in Central Asia as their origin, travelling west over several millennia, go in various directions, and one of those tribes the Indo-Aryans entered India. According to this theory the Vedic age started in 1500BCE and the post-Vedic age somewhere around 800-600BCE dates ,

Now I am not sure entirely which side you are arguing for or against or whether you are even picking a side. However, it seemed like you were arguing for AMT. This is why I asked you to actually provide evidence for this arbitrary 1500BCE arrival of Aryans. I told you exactly how the date was originally arrived at. You seem to be cocksure that this 1500BCE date is backed up by even current research. So I again ask you, show me the evidence.
"My position: Is known as OIT/Indigenous Aryans theory, this states that the original Aryan homeland was India, that the IVC is an Aryan civilisation"

But the Dravidians, Daulits and or Tamils deny it strongly that they are Aryans.
Don't they? Please
They don't own Veda as their scriptures. Do they? Please
Regards
 
Top