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

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....t/11/6/994.full

From your own link:

A comparison of haplogroup-M haplotypes from East Africa and India has suggested that this southern route may have been one of the original dispersal pathways of anatomically modern humans out of Africa (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999a). Together, these data support our previous suggestion (Kivisild et al. 1999) that India may have been inhabited by at least two successive late Pleistocene migrations, consistent with the hypothesis of Lahr and Foley (1994). It also adds to the growing evidence that the subcontinent of India has been a major corridor for the migration of people between Africa, Western Asia, and Southeast Asia (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

None of this validates the Aryan Invasion Theory, the original claim of which deals with a (north) Central Asian origin.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay here are some facts. Please read them.

Just a note or two on your "facts".

1) The author of your source would appear to be rather anonymous.

2) From a bioanthropological perspective, the concept of "race" is somewhat outdated. We are all of the human race. Will defer from further elaboration due to time constraints. That said, and generally for the purposes of such aspects as law enforcement identification, certain morphological characteristics that have (in the past) evolved amongst certain large population groups are utilized. These fall into the rather commonly conceived categories of Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. Within these categories there is enough individual skeletal variation to lay rest to the concept of "race". Am quite unaware of any credible source that would propose the concept of seven "races" on a global and/or a regional level.

3) From your "reference":

At this stage of this project, I do not provide references to the original articles as I am concentrating more on finishing an overview. This lack of verifiable references to the original sources means one should not take these pags as serious historical writing, just my musings on the origins and development of a culture and a people. (Emphasis added).

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

Thus, one may wish to be a bit more circumspect in regards to their sources of data.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a nation does not have to be genetically changed in order to be Invaded. Look at the English in 1066. Their noble population changed, but not the commoner/peasent population. Yet, the language was changed immensely.

Also Japan, post WW2. There is very little genetic change amoung the Japanese, yet their culture changed tremendously from Eastern agricultural to Western industrial almost overnight. That was an influence of the conquoring of Japan by the Allies.

So couldn't the Arayan Invasion of India be an invasion of philosophy and leadership, rather then a horde of barbarians?

I've read that the Castes of India have genetic traits that are caste dominant. So that each caste is kind of a tribe that stays to themselves genetically. One theory on the Aryans is that the Brahmans are the decendants of the invaders. And supposedly they are even more genetically distinct then the other castes, and have more in common with the nations to their west then any other group in India.

Food for discussion...

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a nation does not have to be genetically changed in order to be Invaded. Look at the English in 1066. Their noble population changed, but not the commoner/peasent population. Yet, the language was changed immensely.

Also Japan, post WW2. There is very little genetic change amoung the Japanese, yet their culture changed tremendously from Eastern agricultural to Western industrial almost overnight. That was an influence of the conquoring of Japan by the Allies.

So couldn't the Arayan Invasion of India be an invasion of philosophy and leadership, rather then a horde of barbarians?

I've read that the Castes of India have genetic traits that are caste dominant. So that each caste is kind of a tribe that stays to themselves genetically. One theory on the Aryans is that the Brahmans are the decendants of the invaders. And supposedly they are even more genetically distinct then the other castes, and have more in common with the nations to their west then any other group in India.

Food for discussion...

That's not really the same thing DieChecker, since the various peoples in and around England and vicinity shared many of the same haplogroups/subgroups anyway due to closeness in geography. This would not be true of the Aryan Invasion Theory, particularly since it's presented as originating from Central Asia. We know, with a decent degree of accuracy, what groups that would have involved yet they do not show up in the genetics of India. The closest to the AIT that one could get, outside of the Indus Valley Civilization or India, is a genetic relationship with Persia or the Middle East.

We're not talking about over some 67 years though, but over a timeframe of some 3500 years. One wouldn't find a genetic difference over the former, but would over the latter, particularly if there was a male dominated invasion involved which is the basis of the AIT.

And that's the crux of the problem with the AIT, they have more in common with the nations of the west meaning Persia and the Middle East. This again doesn't support the AIT as presented, neither in time nor location of origin. Which as I said earlier makes the Aryan Invasion Theory meaningless.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not really the same thing DieChecker, since the various peoples in and around England and vicinity shared many of the same haplogroups/subgroups anyway due to closeness in geography.

Just pointing out that an Invasion does not necessarily mean a tidalwave of soldiers and settlers. It can be philosophical, religous or technological. One topic that is used to support an Aryan Invasion is the introduction of the Chariot. Supposedly the northern nations/tribes had the chariot and its use spread into India around the time of the AIT. Just because there is no Genetic markers indicating a great migration does not mean that the existing society was not "invaded" and radically changed during the timeframe in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just pointing out that an Invasion does not necessarily mean a tidalwave of soldiers and settlers. It can be philosophical, religous or technological. One topic that is used to support an Aryan Invasion is the introduction of the Chariot. Supposedly the northern nations/tribes had the chariot and its use spread into India around the time of the AIT. Just because there is no Genetic markers indicating a great migration does not mean that the existing society was not "invaded" and radically changed during the timeframe in question.

Doesn't necessarily have to be military, but still would constitute a large influx of peoples over a short time. And where the AIT is being used to supposedly substantiate the Vedic Texts concerning wars and such then yes, genetics would be involved. What you're talking about is really a migration and not an invasion, which is still not evidenced c.1500 BC which is the specific date given for the AIT. The theory pretty much does itself in without any outside help, since we see migrations into India both a good deal before this date as well as long after this date.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Almost every lecture set I've purchased from TTC has been worth the price. I stress "almost" because a couple of them failed to engage my interest from start to finish. That's hardly an indictment of TTC, however, when you consider I've purchased 28 different lecture sets from them and am bound to purchase more. I'm about a third of the way through the Daily Life lectures and am enjoying them a lot. Yes, I consider them worth the expense. Just the same, I have never purchased a lecture set at its full price. TTC runs sales all the time, so if there's a particular set in which you're interested, it's bound to be on sale sooner rather than later. Also, I exclusively purchase the audio downloads as m4b files for my iPod, and this tends to be less expensive than alternatives like the DVDs.

The experience with this professor of yours is regrettable. I would've gotten up and walked out of the room. No one is saying professors are infallible, and indeed every field or profession has its share of nut cases, but they're the exception to the rule. I've personally worked with a number of Egyptologists, anthropologists, and other specialists, and while I'd consider a couple of them to be eccentric, they're all terrific people.

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://theextinction...civilizations It is not just information that is important, but if you are fun to be with or not.

I know you're being kind of tongue-in-cheek here, but you're likely not going to like my response: Yes, you need to be careful with your sources. My own view is that the internet is extremely limited as a legitimate research tool, and in my experience, for every website representing sound and reliable research, there must be twenty or more that range between rather questionable and outright junk. That's why I've always preferred books, papers, and articles written by vetted and respected professional historians: their names carry a certain weight, and their work is properly researched, peer-reviewed, and cited. So when we look closer at the issue of nuclear war in ancient India, we see it sourced by the likes of Erich von Däniken and Ancient Aliens. When we look at professionally researched analyses, however, we see absolutely no agreement with ancient nuclear war in India.

No one is telling you to stop posting, me-wonders. Just because folks like cormac and I might hold your feet to the fire when you post certain information, does not mean we're targeting you as an individual. We're targeting only your information. What I'm seeing is that you seem to be taking a lot of this personally, which you should not. I admit I made the same mistake when I was new at UM and encountered some particularly poorly informed, aggressive fringe posters. When I learned to brush it off, not take it personally, and just stick to my own strengths, it no longer bothered me. I confess some fringe posters still know how to push my buttons and I tend to lose my cool on occasion, but it doesn't happen much.

So remember: no one here is making this personal against you. However, if you post something with which cormac or I or someone else disagrees, we're going to stand up and reply. That is the nature of UM and other message boards like it, as I mentioned to you in an earlier post. Without that give and play and the spirit of debate, message boards would be pointless.

As for "alternative history," it is merely a descriptor for a hypothesis that lies outside conventional historical explanations. David Rohl and his manipulation of timelines in the ancient Near East is a classic example. Extreme examples are Zecharia Sitchin and Erich von Däniken. I suppose the term is interchangeable with "fringe." I tend to use both terms, myself. The idea of nuclear war in ancient India is a very good example of alternative history.

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.

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.

These two posts give me some degree of concern, me-wonders. It's clear you and cormac disagree on most issues under discussion here, but cormac is not attacking you personally. He is targeting specific information in your posts.

But in the first reply above you liken cormac's approach to Nazi Germany and in the second...well, I'm not quite sure. Male chuavinist? An abuser? I don't know, but I consider both replies to border on inappropriate. My first inclination was to remove them but I'll let them stand. Address the points cormac is making and avoid making this personal.

If you find debate to be unpleasant, then perhaps this isn't the place for you. UM is a place for debate, plain and simple. That will not change. I'm hoping you'll discover the spirit of debate because believe it or not, it is fun for people like cormac and me. You keep mentioning having fun—it comes in all sorts of packages.

You made a remark about the Mods here at UM. Several of them are women. Gender has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These two posts give me some degree of concern, me-wonders. It's clear you and cormac disagree on most issues under discussion here, but cormac is not attacking you personally. He is targeting specific information in your posts.

But in the first reply above you liken cormac's approach to Nazi Germany and in the second...well, I'm not quite sure. Male chuavinist? An abuser? I don't know, but I consider both replies to border on inappropriate. My first inclination was to remove them but I'll let them stand. Address the points cormac is making and avoid making this personal.

If you find debate to be unpleasant, then perhaps this isn't the place for you. UM is a place for debate, plain and simple. That will not change. I'm hoping you'll discover the spirit of debate because believe it or not, it is fun for people like cormac and me. You keep mentioning having fun—it comes in all sorts of packages.

You made a remark about the Mods here at UM. Several of them are women. Gender has nothing to do with it.

Almost every lecture set I've purchased from TTC has been worth the price. I stress "almost" because a couple of them failed to engage my interest from start to finish. That's hardly an indictment of TTC, however, when you consider I've purchased 28 different lecture sets from them and am bound to purchase more. I'm about a third of the way through the Daily Life lectures and am enjoying them a lot. Yes, I consider them worth the expense. Just the same, I have never purchased a lecture set at its full price. TTC runs sales all the time, so if there's a particular set in which you're interested, it's bound to be on sale sooner rather than later. Also, I exclusively purchase the audio downloads as m4b files for my iPod, and this tends to be less expensive than alternatives like the DVDs.

The experience with this professor of yours is regrettable. I would've gotten up and walked out of the room. No one is saying professors are infallible, and indeed every field or profession has its share of nut cases, but they're the exception to the rule. I've personally worked with a number of Egyptologists, anthropologists, and other specialists, and while I'd consider a couple of them to be eccentric, they're all terrific people.

I know you're being kind of tongue-in-cheek here, but you're likely not going to like my response: Yes, you need to be careful with your sources. My own view is that the internet is extremely limited as a legitimate research tool, and in my experience, for every website representing sound and reliable research, there must be twenty or more that range between rather questionable and outright junk. That's why I've always preferred books, papers, and articles written by vetted and respected professional historians: their names carry a certain weight, and their work is properly researched, peer-reviewed, and cited. So when we look closer at the issue of nuclear war in ancient India, we see it sourced by the likes of Erich von Däniken and Ancient Aliens. When we look at professionally researched analyses, however, we see absolutely no agreement with ancient nuclear war in India.

No one is telling you to stop posting, me-wonders. Just because folks like cormac and I might hold your feet to the fire when you post certain information, does not mean we're targeting you as an individual. We're targeting only your information. What I'm seeing is that you seem to be taking a lot of this personally, which you should not. I admit I made the same mistake when I was new at UM and encountered some particularly poorly informed, aggressive fringe posters. When I learned to brush it off, not take it personally, and just stick to my own strengths, it no longer bothered me. I confess some fringe posters still know how to push my buttons and I tend to lose my cool on occasion, but it doesn't happen much.

So remember: no one here is making this personal against you. However, if you post something with which cormac or I or someone else disagrees, we're going to stand up and reply. That is the nature of UM and other message boards like it, as I mentioned to you in an earlier post. Without that give and play and the spirit of debate, message boards would be pointless.

As for "alternative history," it is merely a descriptor for a hypothesis that lies outside conventional historical explanations. David Rohl and his manipulation of timelines in the ancient Near East is a classic example. Extreme examples are Zecharia Sitchin and Erich von Däniken. I suppose the term is interchangeable with "fringe." I tend to use both terms, myself. The idea of nuclear war in ancient India is a very good example of alternative history.

Okay, I am out of here. At least for awhile, you do not pay me enough to take things seriously.

Genome Research is an international, continuously published, peer-reviewed journal that features outstanding original research providing novel insights into the genome biology of all organisms, including significant advances in genomic medicine. The journal also provides high-quality reviews and perspectives written by respected leaders in the field and reports cutting-edge computational biology and high-throughput methodologies

I think it is quite clear no one here is an authority on this subject, especially when good sources are not recognized.

Edited by me-wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I am out of here. At least for awhile, you do not pay me enough to take things seriously.

I'm sorry to hear that, me-wonders. No one is telling, asking, implying, or suggesting that you leave, so this is entirely your choice. I'm just concerned that other posters might see your choice as the fault of others, which it is not. Frankly I enjoy discussing topics with you, but you really do take all of this too personally.

If you post a topic at UM, the discussion of it will be taken seriously (unless it's obviously meant for humor's sake, which happens on occasion). Why post a topic otherwise? In any case, I hope you come back soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to hear that, me-wonders. No one is telling, asking, implying, or suggesting that you leave, so this is entirely your choice. I'm just concerned that other posters might see your choice as the fault of others, which it is not. Frankly I enjoy discussing topics with you, but you really do take all of this too personally.

If you post a topic at UM, the discussion of it will be taken seriously (unless it's obviously meant for humor's sake, which happens on occasion). Why post a topic otherwise? In any case, I hope you come back soon.

I had an intense emotional reaction to several the post, and reacted without thinking. I am still dealing with emotions. I think being told I am creating a lie, is a personal attack. If there is not agreement on this, I should not come back. Here is an explanation of why I think I should not come back.

Your explanation of this forum is like the science forums where people are invited to discuss religion and God, only so the atheist can beat them up, and if the poor victim of this trap doesn't realize this, s/he will eventually be banned, and the attackers are playing a game to win, and are not sincerely interested in the subject. It seems evident some posters are not knowledgeable of the subject, because even known experts in the field are not recognized, and what is challenged is not want these respected people say, but the idea that they are fringe, unknown, and not worthy of reading. There is a saying. "Do not argue with ignorance". Seriously it is very foolish to argue with someone who is only looking for something to attack, and is ignoring the facts when they are presented. This person is not really interested the subjec6t, but like the atheist in the science is only playing a game to win. Please understand, ignorance should not mean not knowing something, but actually ignoring facts when they are presented. That is what is happening here. People who are not knowledgeable of the subject have attacked and attacked and attacked, without reading and attempting to understand what is said in the links. To be different, a reply would say, so and so says, this and that, but this other source says something else, and there would be a question about why different people have said different things. Not attack, after attack, after attack, attacking me, attacking the links for being out dated or fringe, attacking anything the attacker believes can be attacked, without expressing a real interest in the subject. Yeap, just the religion forums in a science forum, set up to attract and beat up on the unsuspecting the poster. And then playing innocent and denying what is being done, crosses the line.

Edited by me-wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that todays view is that Aryans didnt invade but imigrate to India peninsula. I wonder only on what evidence is that concluded since all others IE invade their new territory. Why would India be exception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that todays view is that Aryans didnt invade but imigrate to India peninsula. I wonder only on what evidence is that concluded since all others IE invade their new territory. Why would India be exception?

I have to wonder what you're basing that on, even though it's not true. Indo-Europeans, which science has determined originated in Anatolia, didn't invade Europe. They migrated with early farmers into Europe. There was no invasion.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder what you're basing that on, even though it's not true. Indo-Europeans, which science has determined originated in Anatolia, didn't invade Europe. They migrated with early farmers into Europe. There was no invasion.

cormac

Antaloia theory is accepted by minority of historians. Big number of historians believe in ....this is my post from other thread.

Hi Parsec,

I think its because language barrier. I read your previous post again, Now I understand what you mean by leaving Slavic.

I see Gimbutas hypothesis rather as old european agricultury based culture taken by violent livestock nomadic horse riders which came in three waves.

But there are people who didnt agree with her. For example Collin Renfrew, British archaeologist, set Anatolian hypothesis which tells that Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Neolithic Anatolia. Gimbutas thought that IE conquer Europe in 3500 BC and destroy old European culture. Renfrew claim that it was peacefull migration not invasion.

Gimbutas claim that nomads bring horses, new metal weapon and chariots around 3500 BC.

And I agree nothing more interestingly then study history of history and Im glad that I can remind on you on some things.

I try to connected IE to civilization from America to India because Jung hypothesis could only lead to Schauberger quote.

I dont think that IE was our mystery civilization. But origin, maybe? What I want to tell is that they probably didnt have that big centralized state.

That some symbols as swastika and others we mention so far in this thread originate from IE. Were they advanced? IE? Defenetly no according archaeological sites.

But sites in Varna (which beside Gibekli Tepe and few others realy amazed me) and Vinča culture can tell us that IE were real people. They possibly traded with Varna as many historians argued.

So we have Proto IE language. We have Swastikas. We have polygonal walls. Four faced Gods as religious belief. And sadly we have none of material from them.

Also I dont think that we need to find synchronicity because, althugh his view are debunked,English historian Arnold J. Toynbee in 1922 travel trough Bulgaria and notice that Burlagian villagers wear same "fox fur hats" smilar to Xerxes soldiers in Greeco Persian wars. He concluded that in history we have continuity.

Matrice that doesnt change. From that thought he wrote 12 tomes-Study of history. Cycle rise and fall of civilization. He research 26 civilization and so on. What I ment is Toynbee view on Cycle rise and fall of civilization was debunked none historian ever stressed out that he wasnt right when he said that matrice doesnt change at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....rgan_hypothesis

Kurgan hypothesis is widely accepted hypothesis about IE. Renfrew Anatolian hypothesis is streched almost as Ancient alien hypothesis.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antaloia theory is accepted by minority of historians. Big number of historians believe in ....this is my post from other thread.

The minority view is decisively supported by the present analysis in this week's Science. This analysis combines a model of the evolution of the lexicons of individual languages with an explicit spatial model of the dispersal of the speakers of those languages. Known events in the past (the date of attestation dead languages, as well as events which can be fixed from archaeology or the historical record) are used to calibrate the inferred family tree against time.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/957.full.pdf?keytype=ref&siteid=sci&ijkey=9%2FI0UU0.eTrdQ

Which means that the majority view, your "Big number of historians" are not supported by the evidence.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sciencema...y=9/I0UU0.eTrdQ

Which means that the majority view, your "Big number of historians" are not supported by the evidence.

cormac

I cant agree on this. To me evidences are all on Gimbutas side rather then Anatolia hypothesis.

They are both hypothesis. But Gimbutas idea are sharp and brilliant comparing to Renfrew.

I spoke to two univerity proffesors of history. One is expert on Chalcolithic period for Balkan and central Asia. They have had lectures about Kurgan theories. To me Anatloia hypothesis is rubbish.

It contradicts all common views on history.

Tell me cormac do you support then Jean Jacques Rousseau or Thomas Hobbes?

Hobbes and Renfrew doesnt get along.

But if you are Rousseau follower I can understand your view.

I like to think that Rousseau is right. That Thomas went wrong. But when I study the history I took what most historians agree with.

Ofcourse we can study other ideas. Even import a new ones. Especially in place like UM.(Thats why I like be here.)

When IE become noble savages? To me Collin Renfrew should stay on digging and leave historians to judge on archaeological findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay lets say that no one know for sure and that chances are 50 % for each hypothesis. Lets took for second that Marija Gimbutas was right.

How would that fit in Aryan migration? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant agree on this. To me evidences are all on Gimbutas side rather then Anatolia hypothesis.

They are both hypothesis. But Gimbutas idea are sharp and brilliant comparing to Renfrew.

I spoke to two univerity proffesors of history. One is expert on Chalcolithic period for Balkan and central Asia. They have had lectures about Kurgan theories. To me Anatloia hypothesis is rubbish.

It contradicts all common views on history.

Tell me cormac do you support then Jean Jacques Rousseau or Thomas Hobbes?

Hobbes and Renfrew doesnt get along.

But if you are Rousseau follower I can understand your view.

I like to think that Rousseau is right. That Thomas went wrong. But when I study the history I took what most historians agree with.

Ofcourse we can study other ideas. Even import a new ones. Especially in place like UM.(Thats why I like be here.)

When IE become noble savages? To me Collin Renfrew should stay on digging and leave historians to judge on archaeological findings.

I don't follow any particular person. I follow where the evidence leads. And it doesn't lead to the Kurgan Hypothesis as seen from your own Wiki link:

A study published in 2012 states that "R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought, expansions from the Pontic Steppe, bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India." However, this study does not in any way conflict with the hypothesis of expansions from the Pontic Steppe, since the study does not take into account the early wave of the Indo-European speaking people. Even today the R1a1a7-M458 are very rare, almost absent, in the area of the Indo-European origins between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea; the R1a1a7-M458 marker first started in Poland 10,000 years ago (KYA), and arrived in the western fringes of the Pontic steppe 5000 years ago and the eastern fringes only 2500 years ago, while the first Indo-European wave (4500–4000 BC Early PIE) began up to 4000 years before this.

The second sentence tries, and fails, to reinterpret what the first sentence said which was that there was no expansion from the Pontic Steppe bringing IE to India. It goes on further to say that R1a1a7-M458 originated in Poland, which is evidenced, and travelled east. Meaning that the haplogroup involved in this case was Central European in origin and NOT Central Asian.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

You can know about did early wave occurs or not from south Russia to India for example.

You can all say that you dont believe in it same as you believe in Anatolia hypothesis.

Furthermore you must be follower of one of those two guys above if you study history.

But lets stay with Kurgan and Aryan migration and please can you answer my previous post question. In your view hypothetical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rousseau believed that our ancestors were noble. That they were peacefull. Judging on evidences we have about early wars. 200 000 or 100 000 years of humanity and only recent with very big time gaps we have wars. He concluded that we get corrupted in the way. More civilazied we become more wars we made. In sense its true. Hint: Mesopotamia.

Hobbes refuted this viw and his view is now more accepted among historians was that early humans were brutal war like. That we lived short and brutal. That there wasnt peacefull migration. Only invasions. Dominations. No sharing goods with newcommers in any sense. When you came in new populated area. Fight or run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can know about did early wave occurs or not from south Russia to India for example.

You can all say that you dont believe in it same as you believe in Anatolia hypothesis.

Furthermore you must be follower of one of those two guys above if you study history.

But lets stay with Kurgan and Aryan migration and please can you answer my previous post question. In your view hypothetical.

From a genetics and archaeological standpoint, to support an Aryan Invasion circa 1500 BC, then no, it didn't occur.

Good.

I'm a follower of the genetics studies and the archaeology involved, neither of which support the Aryan Invasion Theory. Something I've said many, MANY times now.

Gimbutas' hypothesis is irrelevant since the genetics and archaeology involved do not support a kurgan-based invasion into India c.1500 BC.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Language support her view. One of my earliest post. How term IE was coined. Its coined based on language.

...Furthermore Thomas Young 1813 physicist, doctor and Egyptologists who was involve in deschiphering Rosseta stone first used term Indo European.He used it describe work Mithridates of Prussian philologist Johann Christoph Adelung where he try to connect European languages and Indian .Adelung knew there is connection between European languages and Southeast Asia languages. Source of them is Indo European language in Euroasia 6000-4000 BC.

That people is mystery. We can give name to those people but those people arent like anyother ancient people.

They are uncatchable. From them languages emerged which half people on Earth used it.No texts. No material legacy.

Beside many cultures which are linked to IE according to Kurgan hypothesis.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Language support her view. One of my earliest post. How term IE was coined. Its coined based on language.

Beside many cultures which are linked to IE according to Kurgan hypothesis.

No it doesn't. Go back and read the entire article I linked in Post #66 again.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ofourse Kurgan hyothesis have holes thats why is called hypothesis. But historian belive its most likely what happened. And just dont get itone more thing.

When IE become noble savages? Were they spiritual advanced civilization? Or simply Hobbes was right and they were like many others people in history. Warlike and brutal. Conquerers. Thats also what most historians are agreed about.

Then how come that Aryans were exception? :blink:

Then we have isolated case here.

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.