Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
me-wonders

Hinduism and Aryan

133 posts in this topic

I think it's the word "invasion" that sets people on edge. It's an old theory but not one holding much weight any longer. I am not well versed on the genetics, but I don't think there's any doubt of gradual migrations of other peoples into India. The linguistic evidence alone is compelling—unless we take the nationalistic Hindu track that Indo-Europeans originated in India, which I don't think any respected scholar would take seriously.

The problem is people who are overly sensitive about such things, as though ancient migration patterns might somehow "diminish" their ethnicities. If that's the case, then we're all diminished for the simple reason that widespread migrations were common the world over in very ancient times. This is the way of things. There's no logical reason for people to take offense at this or, in the other extreme, to try to use it to bolster what they perceive to be some sort of ethnic "purity" or superiority. In other words, we don't need to saddle ancient man with our own senseless racial baggage.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's the word "invasion" that sets people on edge. It's an old theory but not one holding much weight any longer. I am not well versed on the genetics, but I don't think there's any doubt of gradual migrations of other peoples into India. The linguistic evidence alone is compelling—unless we take the nationalistic Hindu track that Indo-Europeans originated in India, which I don't think any respected scholar would take seriously.

The problem is people who are overly sensitive about such things, as though ancient migration patterns might somehow "diminish" their ethnicities. If that's the case, then we're all diminished for the simple reason that widespread migrations were common the world over in very ancient times. This is the way of things. There's no logical reason for people to take offense at this or, in the other extreme, to try to use it to bolster what they perceive to be some sort of ethnic "purity" or superiority. In other words, we don't need to saddle ancient man with our own senseless racial baggage.

I think that's a big part of the problem.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, without a education in how to really read Haplogroups and DNA analysis'es, how can anyone know what is real and what has been spin-doctored?

It's been my experience that the easiest way is to simply ask Cormac! :w00t:

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the intention here was to trash the thread, but rahter shed more light on the source material you supplied that would seem to have some incorrect information and be outdated.

I have toi agree with that as wiki is not a relible sourse of info (i mean I can edit it to say what I wanted it to say).

However this is a great tread and thanks for posting and i look forward to following it,

Anyone that can't think out of their own heads and EGO,

and are threatened by the idea to step out of their comfort zone,

would call SENSE being spoken TROLLING,

it is cowardice and an excuse not to THINK.

Quite often this gets ignored by either those who wish to portray Indians as more than they actually are, or those who wish to portray Indians as somehow being less than they are without the "Aryan Invasion" influence. Both sides of which do a great disservice to the indigenous peoples involved IMO.

cormac

Well the indian gurus are NOTHING WITHOUT THEIR MONEY and westernized beliefs that man is god... aryans must have taught them how to make themselves gods, and how to swindle people... the white man has all the money.... right?!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The professor you're listening to can be as sure as he wants to be but the genetic studies, both mitochondrial and Y Chromosomal DNA, do not support the claim of an Aryan Invasion. It's one thing to speculate based on the facts, it's a whole different thing to speculate while disregarding them. And where genetics are concerned, his 2003 lectures are definitely dated.

cormac

My goodness, let us stop the whole discussion, and ignore all the things we could talk about, and focus exclusively on the DNA issue. If we are not absolutely and undoubtedly correct about the DNA issue the earth might spin off its axis, and then if the professor is correct about major cultural change happening in India, or not, will be a mite matter, compare to the extinction of life as we know it. Actually, this is Thanksgiving and I need to rush off and get busy with the day, so I hope you don't mind, I do not do the necessary investigation in the DNA issue right now. I am looking for fun, and not a fight over an issue that should not be so serious.in a forum like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

focus exclusively on the DNA issue. If we are not absolutely and undoubtedly correct about the DNA issue the earth might spin off its axis, and then if the professor is correct about major cultural change happening in India, or not, will be a mite matter, compare to the extinction of life as we know it.

come again Lady?

the DNA issue?

the activation of the ALIEN DNA, 11:11 or what?

so if the alien kundalini gets activated the END OF THE WORLD IS CERTAIN TO OCCUR?

EH?

THAT'S JUST HORRIBLE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My goodness, let us stop the whole discussion, and ignore all the things we could talk about, and focus exclusively on the DNA issue. If we are not absolutely and undoubtedly correct about the DNA issue the earth might spin off its axis, and then if the professor is correct about major cultural change happening in India, or not, will be a mite matter, compare to the extinction of life as we know it. Actually, this is Thanksgiving and I need to rush off and get busy with the day, so I hope you don't mind, I do not do the necessary investigation in the DNA issue right now. I am looking for fun, and not a fight over an issue that should not be so serious.in a forum like this.

Major cultural change does not automatically equate to supporting the Aryan Invasion Theory. So I guess you're down to throwing a temper-tantrum because the AIT is wrong. Ancient Indian culture did quite well without it.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the indian gurus are NOTHING WITHOUT THEIR MONEY and westernized beliefs that man is god... aryans must have taught them how to make themselves gods, and how to swindle people... the white man has all the money.... right?!

Araxia, I am so aware of your replies here and else where, taking my thoughts to very interesting places. I can not say everything that comes to mind, because it is so much. There is a huge difference between your post and a post that narrows the discussion. You are fun! It is people such as yourself who bring me here. :wub: This is not the place to discuss this, but I think education for technology is killing what you and I doing. I is horribly sad how some people's frantic need for technological correctness, kills discussions and may even kill our civilization, because they can think beyond the point of if a statement is absolutely correct or not. They just don't get the realm of creative thinking. Science forums are really bad for this limited thinking. Back on subject.

I am now listening to the lectures on Hinduism and I have so many mixed feelings. I do not understand any difference between the Hindu caste system and England's former class system. Both assume our destiny is determined by birth. Both explain this with religion. Both provide a rather rigid social order. Both mean privilege is a matter of birth, and both protect a privileged class. Even in the US today, some argue money rightly means privilege, and from here we argue if health care should be a privilege and something a civilization should provide everyone. What is required for people to have equal opportunity? Surely education is one of those requirements, but how much education? Maybe the really good education is rightly the privilege of those who can afford it?

On to the subject of aliens intervening, because this is the subject that really interest me, what would aliens do? Who would they teach and why? How would they create order that might be sustained when they could can no longer maintain order? Many ancient civilizations were fanatic about order. India, Egypt, the Mayans were fanatic about order. Maybe I titled this thread wrong? Like, where did the Aryans learn their ways? Where did any of them learn of order? I am not saying evolved primates could not realize order on their own, but what were the conditions for them doing so? How did we come to magic and is magic different religion? Like would animals come up with ideas so counter to nature? What made humans different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major cultural change does not automatically equate to supporting the Aryan Invasion Theory. So I guess you're down to throwing a temper-tantrum because the AIT is wrong. Ancient Indian culture did quite well without it.

cormac

Hum, I think you have made yourself an untouchable with that disrespectful comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hum, I think you have made yourself an untouchable with that disrespectful comment.

Many others would disagree. Most here speculate based on the facts, not by ignoring them.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Araxia, I am so aware of your replies here and else where, taking my thoughts to very interesting places. I can not say everything that comes to mind, because it is so much. There is a huge difference between your post and a post that narrows the discussion. You are fun! It is people such as yourself who bring me here. :wub: This is not the place to discuss this, but I think education for technology is killing what you and I doing. I is horribly sad how some people's frantic need for technological correctness, kills discussions and may even kill our civilization, because they can think beyond the point of if a statement is absolutely correct or not. They just don't get the realm of creative thinking. Science forums are really bad for this limited thinking. Back on subject.

I am now listening to the lectures on Hinduism and I have so many mixed feelings. I do not understand any difference between the Hindu caste system and England's former class system. Both assume our destiny is determined by birth. Both explain this with religion. Both provide a rather rigid social order. Both mean privilege is a matter of birth, and both protect a privileged class. Even in the US today, some argue money rightly means privilege, and from here we argue if health care should be a privilege and something a civilization should provide everyone. What is required for people to have equal opportunity? Surely education is one of those requirements, but how much education? Maybe the really good education is rightly the privilege of those who can afford it?

On to the subject of aliens intervening, because this is the subject that really interest me, what would aliens do? Who would they teach and why? How would they create order that might be sustained when they could can no longer maintain order? Many ancient civilizations were fanatic about order. India, Egypt, the Mayans were fanatic about order. Maybe I titled this thread wrong? Like, where did the Aryans learn their ways? Where did any of them learn of order? I am not saying evolved primates could not realize order on their own, but what were the conditions for them doing so? How did we come to magic and is magic different religion? Like would animals come up with ideas so counter to nature? What made humans different?

Me-wonders, I understand you started this thread for the sake of fun. Bear in mind, however, that this is a discussion forum, so what you present will indeed be discussed—and invariably that means not everyone will agree with you. That is the nature and purpose of UM and message boards like it.

Creative thinking has its place even in professional historical research, but only in so far as it abides by extant evidence. That is, any approach to historical research must be framed by what the evidence can tell us. If we step beyond what the extant evidence realistically reveals, we have left historical research and have wandered into the realm of speculation. The two are vastly different in scope and purpose. Historical research serves to aid us in understanding the peoples and events of history, while speculation serves to promote only a thought experiment, to coin a term used by another UM poster.

What you call "technological correctness" is in fact reflective of the protocols which must be followed by researchers in their professional studies. This is the same approach advocated by cormac, me, and numerous other conservative UM posters. Stepping too far outside the box is the approach favored by fringe writers like Erich von Däniken. I mention him specifically because he is particularly notorious for twisting historical evidence and advancing unsupported themes about ancient history—aliens most of all.

But as I recall, von Däniken is one of the fringe writers who has favored the idea of ancient nuclear war in what's now the region of Indian and the Hindu Kush. You touched on this topic in a previous post. As popular as this topic is in fringe circles, there is no basis for it in archaeology and philology. There really is no mention of such a thing in the Vedic tradition, but it's part of inaccurate and deceitful translations on the internet. The archaeological site to which von Däniken and others point as "proof" of ancient nuclear war is Mohenjo-daro, in the Indus Valley. This site far precedes the emergence of the Vedic tradition, but von Däniken and others have habitually misrepresented the actual archaeology of the site. There simply is no evidence for ancient nuclear war here. That is a fact.

I also noticed your mention of a TTC lecture. I am a huge fan of The Teaching Company. At present I've purchased almost thirty lectures from them. I listen to them during my long commutes to and from work, which helps to keep me sane in the general insanity of Chicago traffic. I've noticed the lecturers make mistakes on occasion, but it's understandable. These professors are often caused to present material that otherwise lies outside their own expertise. For example, in what is otherwise a wonderful lecture series on Mesopotamia, the professor, Alexis Castor, mentions that Flinders Petrie was the discoverer of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922. She can be forgiven for this obvious error, but it was worth a chuckle for me. Right now I'm listening to a terrific 48-lecture set called "Daily Life in the Ancient World." I am a loyal TTC subscriber, indeed.

In any case, what's the lecture series you were listening to in which the professor was talking about migrations into India? There's a chance I have the same lecture set. Pertaining to an earlier post I contributed, I'm wondering if the professor stressed not invasions on the part of Indo-Europeans coming into ancient India, but gradual migrations. The idea of invasions is considered outdated nowadays, but gradual migrations of these people into ancient India is almost a near-consensus among historians today.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many others would disagree. Most here speculate based on the facts, not by ignoring them.

cormac

I forget who it was, but at least one Athenian saw the problem with writing, was that people could then read what was said and appear to know something, but not actually have knowledge of the subject. You may know of arguments against the Aryan gene studies, but this is not the whole picture. I would have better impressed if you had asked what were the major cultural changes the professor spoke of, and you had been willing to look at this matter from a different point of view. It is your demonstrated unwillingness to examine other facts, and that lead to me giving you a back off message, and reacting to the back off message by saying I was having a temper tantrum, that made me think, this is the behavior of a rapist, and perhaps you are not the kind of person I want to engage with. Like not only are you ignoring other facts, but you attack when someone says this has gone too far.

Even if you knew everything, behaving like a rapist, intentionally backing someone into a corner, and insulting the person who says back off, causes a red warning sign to flash. Knowing facts is not enough. Social behavior and communication skills are equally important.

The more I look into the matter of Aryan existence and migration, the more amazed I am about what an emotional topic this is. I regret even opening this can of worms with all the emotion tied to Aryans. For sure their story is not a clean cut story of origin and migration, and for sure people react more emotionally to Aryan migration than the migrations of elk or geese. Personally, I have no emotional attachment to Aryans. But the makers of this U tube sure are emotionally attacked them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me-wonders, I understand you started this thread for the sake of fun. Bear in mind, however, that this is a discussion forum, so what you present will indeed be discussed—and invariably that means not everyone will agree with you. That is the nature and purpose of UM and message boards like it.

Creative thinking has its place even in professional historical research, but only in so far as it abides by extant evidence. That is, any approach to historical research must be framed by what the evidence can tell us. If we step beyond what the extant evidence realistically reveals, we have left historical research and have wandered into the realm of speculation. The two are vastly different in scope and purpose. Historical research serves to aid us in understanding the peoples and events of history, while speculation serves to promote only a thought experiment, to coin a term used by another UM poster.

What you call "technological correctness" is in fact reflective of the protocols which must be followed by researchers in their professional studies. This is the same approach advocated by cormac, me, and numerous other conservative UM posters. Stepping too far outside the box is the approach favored by fringe writers like Erich von Däniken. I mention him specifically because he is particularly notorious for twisting historical evidence and advancing unsupported themes about ancient history—aliens most of all.

But as I recall, von Däniken is one of the fringe writers who has favored the idea of ancient nuclear war in what's now the region of Indian and the Hindu Kush. You touched on this topic in a previous post. As popular as this topic is in fringe circles, there is no basis for it in archaeology and philology. There really is no mention of such a thing in the Vedic tradition, but it's part of inaccurate and deceitful translations on the internet. The archaeological site to which von Däniken and others point as "proof" of ancient nuclear war is Mohenjo-daro, in the Indus Valley. This site far precedes the emergence of the Vedic tradition, but von Däniken and others have habitually misrepresented the actual archaeology of the site. There simply is no evidence for ancient nuclear war here. That is a fact.

I also noticed your mention of a TTC lecture. I am a huge fan of The Teaching Company. At present I've purchased almost thirty lectures from them. I listen to them during my long commutes to and from work, which helps to keep me sane in the general insanity of Chicago traffic. I've noticed the lecturers make mistakes on occasion, but it's understandable. These professors are often caused to present material that otherwise lies outside their own expertise. For example, in what is otherwise a wonderful lecture series on Mesopotamia, the professor, Alexis Castor, mentions that Flinders Petrie was the discoverer of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922. She can be forgiven for this obvious error, but it was worth a chuckle for me. Right now I'm listening to a terrific 48-lecture set called "Daily Life in the Ancient World." I am a loyal TTC subscriber, indeed.

In any case, what's the lecture series you were listening to in which the professor was talking about migrations into India? There's a chance I have the same lecture set. Pertaining to an earlier post I contributed, I'm wondering if the professor stressed not invasions on the part of Indo-Europeans coming into ancient India, but gradual migrations. The idea of invasions is considered outdated nowadays, but gradual migrations of these people into ancient India is almost a near-consensus among historians today.

I considered buy the Daily Life lectures. Are they worth the price? Not that it matters as I spent my budget plus some. Sometimes I really like the lectures, and sometimes I am disappointed and wish I made other choices.

As for having too much faith in a professor's knowledge, I had a psychology professor who told the whole class women who are raped, want to be raped. Not exactly what a professor should be saying to a room full of young men, barely able to control their hormonal urges. I could list several other outrageous things professors have said. Don't worry, I do not have undying faith in what professors say. I mentioned the professor to argue my argument was not based on an outdated, fringe web site, but an up to date, highly respected professor's lectures. This professor never mentioned gene research but cultural change. I posted several links, all saying different things, and I am not arguing any of them is God's truth. So what if the gene link is wrong. I think I posted the argument against it. Okay, lets move on.

As for archeological evidence of a nuclear war, I hope I posted that, so I don't have to go to a lot of work finding it again. May be I should be very, very, very sure that any link I post is the absolute, unquestioned truth, (if there is such a thing) and come to these forums with the seriousness a of professional who is afraid her career will be destroyed, if I post something that is doesn't meet the highest standards? Nah, if I have to be that up tight in these discussions, I will stop coming because you don't pay me enough for all that stress. :lol: What does "alternative history" mean? I thought it meant something that is more speculative and light hearted rather than the intense of arguments of professional historians. If I am wrong, well I will stop posting here, okay? Just clarify the standard of "alternative history". I want fun, not a lot of stress and everything else that goes with being a professional.

This may be nonsense, but it is presented as archeological evidence of a nuclear war. If you want to give alternative explanations for those radio active bodies, in a respectful way, that is playing this game in a fun way. If you want to rip into me for giving bad information, I am out of here. http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/historys-lost-lesson-ancient-nuclear-war-among-indus-valley-civilizations It is not just information that is important, but if you are fun to be with or not.

Edited by me-wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forget who it was, but at least one Athenian saw the problem with writing, was that people could then read what was said and appear to know something, but not actually have knowledge of the subject. You may know of arguments against the Aryan gene studies, but this is not the whole picture. I would have better impressed if you had asked what were the major cultural changes the professor spoke of, and you had been willing to look at this matter from a different point of view. It is your demonstrated unwillingness to examine other facts, and that lead to me giving you a back off message, and reacting to the back off message by saying I was having a temper tantrum, that made me think, this is the behavior of a rapist, and perhaps you are not the kind of person I want to engage with. Like not only are you ignoring other facts, but you attack when someone says this has gone too far.

Even if you knew everything, behaving like a rapist, intentionally backing someone into a corner, and insulting the person who says back off, causes a red warning sign to flash. Knowing facts is not enough. Social behavior and communication skills are equally important.

The more I look into the matter of Aryan existence and migration, the more amazed I am about what an emotional topic this is. I regret even opening this can of worms with all the emotion tied to Aryans. For sure their story is not a clean cut story of origin and migration, and for sure people react more emotionally to Aryan migration than the migrations of elk or geese. Personally, I have no emotional attachment to Aryans. But the makers of this U tube sure are emotionally attacked them.

[media=]

[/media]

You rather crossed the threshold between fiction and reality with posts such as these:

Because this thread is sort of coming from the Ice age thread, which involves a question of aliens. it might be fun to speculate about if the ancient writing speaks of a nuclear war between aliens? Then identify the area on earth where such a war could have occurred.

and

More interesting to me is the possibility that Vedic literature tells of nuclear war, and the scientific evidence that this is possible.

So one would either have to not know or completely ignore what is actually known concerning the claim of nuclear war in India. The alleged radioactivity does not originate in Mohenjo-Daro, nor is it ancient nor are there even radioactive skeletons strewn along the streets of Mohenjo Daro. So any speculation as to such is based on a lie from those who made it up to begin with.

It is your demonstrated unwillingness to examine other facts...

The facts we have concerning Ancient India either greatly pre-date or post-date the alleged Aryan Invasion Theory, so what is there to examine in light of it? It's wrong and was an idea which no longer serves a meaningful purpose.

There is gene research that does prove the Aryans did invade.

This is your own claim and as I've shown it is incorrect.

You may know of arguments against the Aryan gene studies, but this is not the whole picture.

This is enough of the picture that we can see there was never an invasion from a genetic standpoint. Which means that even if there were a peoples known as Aryans who migrated into India, they had no significant genetic impact on the indigenous peoples there and are therefore indistinguishable from same. So once again, the Aryan Invasion Theory is moot.

Alternative History:

a genre of fiction in which the author speculates on how the course of history might have been altered if a particular historical event had had a different outcome

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alternative+history

So is that what you're trying to do, create fiction? If so, then it obviously has nothing to do with reality.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this site outdated or fringe? Please tell me how you determine this.

http://library.think...ta/history1.htm

I can see the date on the following site and 2011 is not outdated information.

http://robertlindsay...s-of-the-vedas/

Now while all the people who say it is the Aryans who carried the Vedic culture may be wrong, it is not a fiction I am creating. There are sites that argue for Aryan theory and against the Aryrans theory. I conclude there is not agreement.

I am not sure if I posted this before, but I think I did. http://www.arshabodh...anMigration.pdf

It argues there was no Aryan invasion, but suggest the Aryans may have carried Vedic culture to other regions. :rofl: Reminds me of two kids fighting over a toy. "I had it first." "No you didn't. I was playing with it." In other words, who bloody cares? How important is it who was first? I think this must be guy thing. Like what is the grand prize for being first?

A long time back there was another discussion about India and a different civilization and a question of the flow of concepts and who influenced whom. Maybe I can refined this information? Where an idea originates and under what conditions and where the concept travels and how it is changed through the travel, fascinates me. But who was first, doesn't hold much meaning to me. How do I say, what you are stressing on, just doesn't seem important to me. In the meantime we aren't talking about all the fun things.

We can throw this into the argument. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882867/posts Persia wants its claim too.

Edited by me-wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this site outdated or fringe? Please tell me how you determine this.

http://library.think...ta/history1.htm

I can see the date on the following site and 2011 is not outdated information.

http://robertlindsay...s-of-the-vedas/

Now while all the people who say it is the Aryans who carried the Vedic culture may be wrong, it is not a fiction I am creating. There are sites that argue for Aryan theory and against the Aryrans theory. I conclude there is not agreement.

I am not sure if I posted this before, but I think I did. http://www.arshabodh...anMigration.pdf

It argues there was no Aryan invasion, but suggest the Aryans may have carried Vedic culture to other regions. :rofl: Reminds me of two kids fighting over a toy. "I had it first." "No you didn't. I was playing with it." In other words, who bloody cares? How important is it who was first? I think this must be guy thing. Like what is the grand prize for being first?

A long time back there was another discussion about India and a different civilization and a question of the flow of concepts and who influenced whom. Maybe I can refined this information? Where an idea originates and under what conditions and where the concept travels and how it is changed through the travel, fascinates me. But who was first, doesn't hold much meaning to me. How do I say, what you are stressing on, just doesn't seem important to me. In the meantime we aren't talking about all the fun things.

We can throw this into the argument. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882867/posts Persia wants its claim too.

The first link is not professional by any stretch of the imagination and as the title shows are part of "Projects by Students for Students". A website build by students from Half Hollow Hills High School West, Dix Hills, NY, United States (or any other High School) is not evidence that the AIT is correct.

The personal views of a Journalist, which is what Robert Lindsey is, are not evidence of an Aryan Invasion and nowhere in what he wrote is the Aryan Invasion Theory ever mentioned.

I conclude there is not agreement.

I conclude then that you've not been paying attention. Because while the Aryan Invasion Theory itself has been shown to be dead wrong the peoples of the Indus Valley Civilization and India, particularly Northern India, have shown a great deal of inter-relatedness culturally and genetically. The genetics doesn't support the AIT, but it does suggest that Northern India was diverse over many, MANY haplogroups. None of which came from north of Persia.

In other words, who bloody cares?

Only those people who DON'T wish to be fooled by a lie.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first link is not professional by any stretch of the imagination and as the title shows are part of "Projects by Students for Students". A website build by students from Half Hollow Hills High School West, Dix Hills, NY, United States (or any other High School) is not evidence that the AIT is correct.

The personal views of a Journalist, which is what Robert Lindsey is, are not evidence of an Aryan Invasion and nowhere in what he wrote is the Aryan Invasion Theory ever mentioned.

I conclude then that you've not been paying attention. Because while the Aryan Invasion Theory itself has been shown to be dead wrong the peoples of the Indus Valley Civilization and India, particularly Northern India, have shown a great deal of inter-relatedness culturally and genetically. The genetics doesn't support the AIT, but it does suggest that Northern India was diverse over many, MANY haplogroups. None of which came from north of Persia.

Only those people who DON'T wish to be fooled by a lie.

cormac

You know I would really enjoy this discussion if you spoke in a different tone of voice. Post should not about the posters but, I think you are attacking, and being insensitive, so that is what I am going to address.

I love chasing after facts. We can assume whoever comes here loves a mystery and digging into the facts. It is one thing to question the facts, and another to put people on defensive. If we all question the facts together, things are fun and exciting. On the other hand if we start insulting people, nothing good can come out of this. Your approach reminds me of the NAZI's and this is far worse than having the wrong information. Your intolerance and arrogance makes this thread an unpleasant experience. That would be true for me, no matter who you were correcting. If we do not want to go the way Germany went, we have to be conscious of how it went it that way. Intolerance and pushing when someone says stop, is not healthy.

Secondly, this is the alternative history thread. What does that mean? What does "alternative" mean? Doesn't it mean an alternative to actually happened? We might want to correct in what we say, but that is not the requirement of alternative history. Go do whatever you do to lighten up and lighten up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I would really enjoy this discussion if you spoke in a different tone of voice. Post should not about the posters but, I think you are attacking, and being insensitive, so that is what I am going to address.

I love chasing after facts. We can assume whoever comes here loves a mystery and digging into the facts. It is one thing to question the facts, and another to put people on defensive. If we all question the facts together, things are fun and exciting. On the other hand if we start insulting people, nothing good can come out of this. Your approach reminds me of the NAZI's and this is far worse than having the wrong information. Your intolerance and arrogance makes this thread an unpleasant experience. That would be true for me, no matter who you were correcting. If we do not want to go the way Germany went, we have to be conscious of how it went it that way. Intolerance and pushing when someone says stop, is not healthy.

Secondly, this is the alternative history thread. What does that mean? What does "alternative" mean? Doesn't it mean an alternative to actually happened? We might want to correct in what we say, but that is not the requirement of alternative history. Go do whatever you do to lighten up and lighten up.

My posts are about the facts, not what I want them to be. That you don't like what is known about the Aryan Invasion Theory and its irrelevancy isn't my problem. It's yours. Besides, you crossed the line between alternative and reality when you claimed that genetics proved the AIT correct. It didn't. On top of which you want to play both ends against the middle in that you want to speculate from an alternative viewpoint but also want to dig into the facts. It's one or the other, so make up your mind already. You can't play "what if" and then claim to be relevant to reality. It doesn't work that way.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My posts are about the facts, not what I want them to be. That you don't like what is known about the Aryan Invasion Theory and its irrelevancy isn't my problem. It's yours. Besides, you crossed the line between alternative and reality when you claimed that genetics proved the AIT correct. It didn't. On top of which you want to play both ends against the middle in that you want to speculate from an alternative viewpoint but also want to dig into the facts. It's one or the other, so make up your mind already. You can't play "what if" and then claim to be relevant to reality. It doesn't work that way.

cormac

But your facts are limited, and you are ignoring some facts. Last night I began listening to college lectures about conversation, and one studied indicated that men are more apt to lead conversations with women, because women pay attention to what the man is saying, and respond to what he is saying. While men will do what you are doing. Fail to pick on what is being said, and remain narrowly focused. This forum is not a serious one, and you are being overly serious, like a religious fanatic! It is like you think found a stick you can beat me with, and are thumbing on your bible of right facts. I did something that justifies your behavior? Come on, when you first objected to the gene research, I acknowledge the disagreement about Aryans. It is now time to move on, and I question why you are having a problem with that? What is your intent?

You are behaving like a young male, or a fanatical old one, and this is not the best behavior for these forums. Stop ignoring the rest of the discussion if you are sincerely interesting in the subject.. You remind me of a oung man who caused me to leave another forum. His avatar was of man pointing a gun, clearly announcing his intent to find victims and shot to kill. That appears to be what you are doing, cruising the forums for some logic you can attack, and treating these discussion as win/loose events. Generally the moderators are also males who agree with this challenge to logic and are insensitive to the insults, but this is not a science forum. Unexplained Mysteries invites discussions that are speculative and not hard science, and your behavior ruins the fun. It may be fun for you to win the argument, but it is no fun for anyone else. You have dominated this thread and I don't see other posters engaging in the discussion. The arguing has been unpleasant. Yes, there are arguments against the Aryan theory and there are arguments supporting the Aryan theory and this is what makes a mystery. We are here to explore these mysteries, not to insult people and attack them. Male domination has its benefits and its draw backs, and if you insisting on fighting, I will continue to point out the problems with your behavior, and hopefully a more mature and educated male will step in and provide some desirable leadership.

Edited by me-wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Aryans/Indo-Europeans in India. This quote puts then appearing approximately 1 500 BC

"According to earlier research, India’s initial settlers arrived around 60,000 years ago. Speakers of Dravidian languages arrived roughly 5,000 years ago, followed by Indo-European speakers approximately 3,500 years ago. If the new analysis holds up, these early populations wouldn’t have contributed to modern mainland India’s genetic makeup. And founding populations of today’s Indian groups wouldn’t have reached South Asia until well after Indo-European speakers"

Link to the source of quote

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/09/24/dna-points-to-indias-two-pronged-ancestry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Aryans/Indo-Europeans in India. This quote puts then appearing approximately 1 500 BC

"According to earlier research, India’s initial settlers arrived around 60,000 years ago. Speakers of Dravidian languages arrived roughly 5,000 years ago, followed by Indo-European speakers approximately 3,500 years ago. If the new analysis holds up, these early populations wouldn’t have contributed to modern mainland India’s genetic makeup. And founding populations of today’s Indian groups wouldn’t have reached South Asia until well after Indo-European speakers"

Link to the source of quote

http://www.usnews.co...ronged-ancestry

Which means that the Aryans (genetically) have nothing to do with the modern Indians who came after them. Since we know what genetic groups were involved in early India, both the indigenous as well as the inward migrating groups, this still invalidates the AIT.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your facts are limited, and you are ignoring some facts. Last night I began listening to college lectures about conversation, and one studied indicated that men are more apt to lead conversations with women, because women pay attention to what the man is saying, and respond to what he is saying. While men will do what you are doing. Fail to pick on what is being said, and remain narrowly focused. This forum is not a serious one, and you are being overly serious, like a religious fanatic! It is like you think found a stick you can beat me with, and are thumbing on your bible of right facts. I did something that justifies your behavior? Come on, when you first objected to the gene research, I acknowledge the disagreement about Aryans. It is now time to move on, and I question why you are having a problem with that? What is your intent?

You are behaving like a young male, or a fanatical old one, and this is not the best behavior for these forums. Stop ignoring the rest of the discussion if you are sincerely interesting in the subject. You remind me of a oung man who caused me to leave another forum. His avatar was of man pointing a gun, clearly announcing his intent to find victims and shot to kill. That appears to be what you are doing, cruising the forums for some logic you can attack, and treating these discussion as win/loose events. Generally the moderators are also males who agree with this challenge to logic and are insensitive to the insults, but this is not a science forum. Unexplained Mysteries invites discussions that are speculative and not hard science, and your behavior ruins the fun. It may be fun for you to win the argument, but it is no fun for anyone else. You have dominated this thread and I don't see other posters engaging in the discussion. The arguing has been unpleasant. Yes, there are arguments against the Aryan theory and there are arguments supporting the Aryan theory and this is what makes a mystery. We are here to explore these mysteries, not to insult people and attack them. Male domination has its benefits and its draw backs, and if you insisting on fighting, I will continue to point out the problems with your behavior, and hopefully a more mature and educated male will step in and provide some desirable leadership.

What facts? The Aryan Invasion theory has been proven to be wrong, no matter how many times you claim it's still debatable. There is no radioactivity at Mohenjo Daro nor are there radioactive skeletons strewn throughout the streets there.

Where genetics is concerned, there is no disagreement about the AIT. Except by die-hard believers who wouldn't believe the sun is up even if they were staring straight at it.

What discussion? You started out with a faulty premise to begin with and have taken exception to the fact that it's faulty. You've presented no actual facts while claiming, repeatedly, that the AIT is a matter of debate. It's not, it's defunct. As well as presenting other known fabrications, concerning Mohenjo Daro and radioactive skeletons, as if they have any merit when they don't. Do you have something to show that the AIT actually IS valid and that there actually were radioactive skeletons at Mohenjo Daro?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay here are some facts. Please read them.

http://tanmoy.tripod...ngal/races.html

In India, from anthropometric studies, one used to find traces of seven races of humans who intermixed to create the Indian race. Modern studies within regional contexts are still rare; so one mostly has to look back to the global genetic studies. Northwest India shares with west Asia and eastern Europe (and pockets in Africa and South East Asia) the maximum heterozygosity known among world populations, with means between 0.35 and 0.37; and the rest of India (and Europe) is only slightly lower: 0.33 to 0.35. This shows the vast amount of admixture that has gone on in these regions: to be contrasted against Australia which has a homozygosity of less than 0.25. It is currently accepted that at least four strata are visible in the populations in different parts of India.

  1. An australoid-veddoid substratum.
  2. A migration from the east of Austrasiatic and sino-tibetan language speaking groups.
  3. Neolithic migrations from western Iran, probably proto-Dravidian.
  4. The aryan expansion from north of Caspian sea via Turkmenia and Northern Iran.

Thus, for example, some researchers have concluded that the most likely synsthesis of different lines of evidence is that

  1. the Austric language speakers came to India c. 50–65 Ka BP from the northeast
  2. the Dravidian speakers c. 8–4000 BC from the mideast with knowledge of wheat cultivation and cattle, sheep, and goat domestication (all middle eastern developments around 8000 BC),
  3. the Indo-europeans in several waves since 4000–1500 BC with horses (domesticated c. 4000 BC around Ukraine; appears to move from northwest India in about 1900 BC to southeast India in 100 BC) and/or iron (used around 3000 BC in Anatolia; also appears to move from North West India in 900 BC to South East India in 400 BC; iron and horses were almost certainly distinct cultural traits which were not associated with one another), they had distinctive burial styles and may have performed cremation, the painted grey ware pottery associated with these people fits the iron users more than the horse riders;
  4. and in this mix, the Sino-Tibetans joined in in several waves since 8–6 Ka years BP bringing in rice cultivation (if it is not of separate origin in the Indian region, it may have started in south-east Asia around 8 Ka BP).

Edited by me-wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay here are some facts. Please read them.

Most of this is what I've been saying from the start. This, however, is known to be wrong and shouldn't have been included:

4. The aryan expansion from north of Caspian sea via Turkmenia and Northern Iran.

Sounds like whomever wrote this is just can't let go of a dead premise. The rest is pretty solid.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What facts? The Aryan Invasion theory has been proven to be wrong, no matter how many times you claim it's still debatable. There is no radioactivity at Mohenjo Daro nor are there radioactive skeletons strewn throughout the streets there.

Where genetics is concerned, there is no disagreement about the AIT. Except by die-hard believers who wouldn't believe the sun is up even if they were staring straight at it.

What discussion? You started out with a faulty premise to begin with and have taken exception to the fact that it's faulty. You've presented no actual facts while claiming, repeatedly, that the AIT is a matter of debate. It's not, it's defunct. As well as presenting other known fabrications, concerning Mohenjo Daro and radioactive skeletons, as if they have any merit when they don't. Do you have something to show that the AIT actually IS valid and that there actually were radioactive skeletons at Mohenjo Daro?

cormac

You are sounding like a record stuck in a grove. I have a child to watch and have to sign out, but here is an explanation of genetics and the caste system that might meet your standards? At least everyone else can see there is disagreement with the position you have taken. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/11/6/994.full

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.