Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 5th, 2012, 02:23 AM   #251

antocya's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Iraq
Posts: 3,357

The incompetent God?
antocya is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 5th, 2012, 03:09 AM   #252
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 169

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilcar View Post
Einharja you need to relax, your ways of communicating are poor at best and you use alot of disrespectful language. You claim there are no evidences for OIT but there are.

As people dont seem to be fond of reading articles around here anymore and its just attack each other, here is the conference lecture that was done by Nicholas Kazanas, a greek linguist and indologist. A former AIT and then a OIT supporter:

The collapse of Aryan Invasion Theory and the prevalence of Indigenism. (1/3) - YouTube (part 1)

The collapse of Aryan Invasion Theory and the prevalence of Indigenism. (2/3) - YouTube (part 2)

Not sure if people have already viewed this but its interesting arguements for OIT.
If people want to actually get to the truth i suggest it be done by debating on one point at a time and once resolved or agreed to disagree (as it seems things can be interpreted differently with equal justification in some places).

Regards
Have you already read the comments on Kazanas theory?

I guess no, otherwise you would not have posted these videos.

And I need to relax? I think the people accusing me of being dishonest and throwing other Ad Hominems at me should relax.
Oh and someone believing in Indian exceptionalism and ranting against everything "western scolarship " has proposed is not an Indian nationalist?

Sheesh.

It still stands Joshua can´t back up his claims, and that in more than thread.
Because he failed to present sufficient evidence , and repeats the same stuff like a Tibetan prayer wheel, this discussion is over for me.
Einharja is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 04:58 AM   #253
Academician
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: UK
Posts: 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by Einharja View Post
Have you already read the comments on Kazanas theory?

I guess no, otherwise you would not have posted these videos.

And I need to relax? I think the people accusing me of being dishonest and throwing other Ad Hominems at me should relax.
Oh and someone believing in Indian exceptionalism and ranting against everything "western scolarship " has proposed is not an Indian nationalist?

Sheesh.

It still stands Joshua can´t back up his claims, and that in more than thread.
Because he failed to present sufficient evidence , and repeats the same stuff like a Tibetan prayer wheel, this discussion is over for me.
I have seen that video too, but the questions were poorly asked also so i rather people here ask their own.
Which point on Kazanas discussions did you particularly not agree with that you would like to address first?
Perhaps his support of the identified sarasvati river and why there and not in afghanistan? We could discuss on this point first as it is a point you have made clear that you see no basis for identifying with as the dried up river east of the indus and west of the ganges/yamuna?
Hamilcar is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 05:04 AM   #254
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Tatarstan
Posts: 200

Quote:
Originally Posted by antocya View Post
The incompetent God?
I wanted to write: "to accept a title of God not subject to anybody". The online translator translated so that forced you to be surprised.
ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 05:18 AM   #255
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 169

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilcar View Post
I have seen that video too, but the questions were poorly asked also so i rather people here ask their own.
Which point on Kazanas discussions did you particularly not agree with that you would like to address first?
Perhaps his support of the identified sarasvati river and why there and not in afghanistan? We could discuss on this point first as it is a point you have made clear that you see no basis for identifying with as the dried up river east of the indus and west of the ganges/yamuna?

I am not talking about the questions asked in the video, but the reactions of scholars to Kazanas theories.
Have you read them?
I have yet to watch the talk in its entirety, but I have already seen some grave errors in his talk and the visual reprensentation of the standart model of the spread of IE languages. Either he was not knowing what he was talking about the standart model, or he showed wrong stuff knowingly, but I assume good faith.
We have already covered the Saraswati in this thread and elsewhere, making a mythological river the pivotal point of the whole matter is blatantly biased.
But as you have shown you have either not read the whole thread or understood its argumentation. There is more than one Saraswati and multiple concepts of it. This is not 1+1=2 but much more complicated.

And I still have yet to see someone propose a proper model for the OIT and archaeological proof that reinforces this model. I only have seen people posting walls of text crying that the OIT is proven without answering my questions. Either those people should answer those themselves and give proof for their answers and repeat the old unsubstantied phrases I have heard before. I am not playing that game.
Einharja is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 05:23 AM   #256
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Tatarstan
Posts: 200

Notice, dear sirs: Very first Catholic and orthodox missionaries took root into the intresting countries. The word "missionaries", certainly, needs to be bracketed, because Catholic "missionaries" were engaged in recruitment of agents among tribes and the people of that state which natural resources they planned to grasp. What God? What belief in god those someone was engaged in purely applied and ordinary things can have: 1) Introduction of agents of influence in society which they wanted to DISORGANIZE. 2) Creation of a network of agents for military and political espionage. 3) Creation of the "сhristian" communities which members became the fifth column for state-victim disorder from within. And you speak God, Belief and Ten precepts... What 10 precepts??? These HERETICS and the first letter don't know from the PRECEPT word.
ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 07:20 AM   #257
Academician
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: UK
Posts: 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by Einharja View Post
I am not talking about the questions asked in the video, but the reactions of scholars to Kazanas theories.
Have you read them?
I have yet to watch the talk in its entirety, but I have already seen some grave errors in his talk and the visual reprensentation of the standart model of the spread of IE languages. Either he was not knowing what he was talking about the standart model, or he showed wrong stuff knowingly, but I assume good faith.
We have already covered the Saraswati in this thread and elsewhere, making a mythological river the pivotal point of the whole matter is blatantly biased.
But as you have shown you have either not read the whole thread or understood its argumentation. There is more than one Saraswati and multiple concepts of it. This is not 1+1=2 but much more complicated.

And I still have yet to see someone propose a proper model for the OIT and archaeological proof that reinforces this model. I only have seen people posting walls of text crying that the OIT is proven without answering my questions. Either those people should answer those themselves and give proof for their answers and repeat the old unsubstantied phrases I have heard before. I am not playing that game.
You do exactly what you claim others do, how can people take you seriously then. I have not seen any archaeological evidence presented for the AIT in over 100 years of its force feeding.
With regard to the saraswati, how can it be mythical when the video itself supplied references to the research, which is done not by historians but by field/discipline experts. From the data shown and the archaeological evidence we can see that there was a major river that ran this course, also the fact that there is evidence for many settlements on the banks of where a major river has been mapped is further evidence that there was such a massive river here.
Now the rig veda provides geographical references; the ganges, the indus, yammuna and so on can all been verified within it. The fact it places the saraswati where we now find evidence of a major dried up river is evidence attributing the the discovered river to the saraswati river in the rig veda. The fact that it has dried up also is supported by research and the rig veda itself.
What is your counter arguement here?
Hamilcar is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 07:33 AM   #258

Clemmie's Avatar
Ye olde librarian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Florida
Posts: 3,357

Quote:
Originally Posted by Einharja View Post
I am not talking about the questions asked in the video, but the reactions of scholars to Kazanas theories.
Have you read them?
I have yet to watch the talk in its entirety, but I have already seen some grave errors in his talk and the visual reprensentation of the standart model of the spread of IE languages. Either he was not knowing what he was talking about the standart model, or he showed wrong stuff knowingly, but I assume good faith.
We have already covered the Saraswati in this thread and elsewhere, making a mythological river the pivotal point of the whole matter is blatantly biased.
But as you have shown you have either not read the whole thread or understood its argumentation. There is more than one Saraswati and multiple concepts of it. This is not 1+1=2 but much more complicated.

And I still have yet to see someone propose a proper model for the OIT and archaeological proof that reinforces this model. I only have seen people posting walls of text crying that the OIT is proven without answering my questions. Either those people should answer those themselves and give proof for their answers and repeat the old unsubstantied phrases I have heard before. I am not playing that game.
I think y'all have done an excellent job (and Midas too, sorry if I've forgotten sombody, its a long thread) proving your point. I agree with the person who said that I've learned a lot about India from LoG, but he's always been lacking in sources in his various posts. A theory based mostly on a river, isn't a strong theory. And there was no proof given by L0G other than his "belief" that the Vedas were originally written in Sanskrit. No one can prove one way or the other as of now, the origin or language of the original vedas. Possibly LoG is right, but he can't really prove it. The fact that a river mentioned in the Vedas may or may not have existed when the Vedas were written in Sanskrit doesn't matter; he never truly answered the question about the chariots mentioned in the Vedas but nonexistent in IVC.

I think most of us do not really understand linguistics. I don't. I have purchased one of the works mentioned in this thread by Midas. One about the wheel, cart, etc. (don't remember and don't want to look up the specific title). I intend to do my own reading and research.

What I look for in threads like these are additional works I can read for myself and make up my own mind. The more sources that participants give, I think forum members are better served. It doesn't mean that I agree with one side of the other, I would just like the chance to do my own reading and research and make up my own mind. I wish posters who posit theories and hypothesis understood this, especially LoG. I want to read more about the OOI theory as well as the steppe theory. Give me something to read! I printed all of the sources the Finnish gentleman (sorry, left you out) gave to read.

Again, a very enjoyable thread. Thanks for the sources some of you have provided. I would like to see LoG post more sources so I can explore his ideas more thoroughly as well.

I would also appreciate someone suggesting some elementary linguistics books as well. Thanks.


Last edited by Clemmie; December 5th, 2012 at 07:48 AM.
Clemmie is online now  
Old December 5th, 2012, 08:06 AM   #259
Academician
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: UK
Posts: 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemmie View Post
I think y'all have done an excellent job (and Midas too, sorry if I've forgotten sombody, its a long thread) proving your point. I agree with the person who said that I've learned a lot about India from LoG, but he's always been lacking in sources in his various posts. A theory based mostly on a river, isn't a strong theory. And there was no proof given by L0G other than his "belief" that the Vedas were originally written in Sanskrit. No one can prove one way or the other as of now, the origin or language of the original vedas. Possibly LoG is right, but he can't really prove it. The fact that a river mentioned in the Vedas may or may not have existed when the Vedas were written in Sanskrit doesn't matter; he never truly answered the question about the chariots mentioned in the Vedas but nonexistent in IVC.

I think most of us do not really understand linguistics. I don't. I have purchased one of the works mentioned in this thread by Midas. One about the wheel, cart, etc. (don't remember and don't want to look up the specific title). I intend to do my own reading and research.

What I look for in threads like these are additional works I can read for myself and make up my own mind. The more sources that participants give, I think forum members are better served. It doesn't mean that I agree with one side of the other, I would just like the chance to do my own reading and research and make up my own mind. I wish posters who posit theories and hypothesis understood this, especially LoG. I want to read more about the OOI theory as well as the steppe theory. Give me something to read! I printed all of the sources the Finnish gentleman (sorry, left you out) gave to read.

Again, a very enjoyable thread. Thanks for the sources some of you have provided. I would like to see LoG post more sources so I can explore his ideas more thoroughly as well.

I would also appreciate someone suggesting some elementary linguistics books as well. Thanks.

have you watched those videos on Kazanas's lecture yet? It will provide the responses you ask in regards to chariots and horses. If you want something to read, the video also references several papers he has written on the subject.

Regarding the river, it is not the only argument for OIT, but it is a discussion that needs to be cleared. Whether the vedas were origionally written in sanskrit or not is speculation, the facts we have show a vedic sanskirt was used for the vedas, also sanskrit is the most complete of all the IE languages and the oldest attested known IE language. Mr Kazanas is a linguist by the way.
The river is relevant as it gives us some framing tools for identifying when the rig veda was composed and when these people were in these lands,It is far better than how the AIT had estimated the migration of 'aryans' into the area to be.
If you cant see this it is because you are blind by your bias.
Hamilcar is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 08:08 AM   #260
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 169

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilcar View Post
You do exactly what you claim others do, how can people take you seriously then. I have not seen any archaeological evidence presented for the AIT in over 100 years of its force feeding.
With regard to the saraswati, how can it be mythical when the video itself supplied references to the research, which is done not by historians but by field/discipline experts. From the data shown and the archaeological evidence we can see that there was a major river that ran this course, also the fact that there is evidence for many settlements on the banks of where a major river has been mapped is further evidence that there was such a massive river here.
Now the rig veda provides geographical references; the ganges, the indus, yammuna and so on can all been verified within it. The fact it places the saraswati where we now find evidence of a major dried up river is evidence attributing the the discovered river to the saraswati river in the rig veda. The fact that it has dried up also is supported by research and the rig veda itself.
What is your counter arguement here?

What Do I do?
I posted several sources in this thread and others, so you better keep quiet.
If you have not seen any Archaological evidence, then you obviously have not read this thread, it is pretty clear thatpeople of the Andronovo Horizon inteminglled with those of the BMAC.
Later we find pottery with affinity to BMAC pottery in India.
Not an Invasion but people spreading over a collapsed civilazation and mixing with them. The same happened in Europe and elsewhere.

There have been posted multiple explanations for the Saraswati(which exist in more then one meaning, even in the RV.)
If you cannot find them or are too lazy I cannot help you.
If you do not accept them, fine, but then you are pretty idiosyncratic.
Iranian myths place the Saraswati elsewhere, and then there is the deity Sarasvati. Local myths mix with new ones and get adapted into the canon, where is the problem? It happened elsewhere.

You only grasp at the straw that is the Saraswati, which is mentioned with multiple meaning in a collection of liturgic writings that have been written down after hundred of years of oral tradition. The RV is not a historical record but contains stories of which we do not know how exactly they happened.


As I said, please come with evidence yourself, I am not here to serve you.
Where is your Archaeological proof that people from the IVC migrated to Europe multiple times?
If you can give me a proper answer and not some hogwash, then we can discuss further.
If not, I will ignore any further correspondence with you.
Einharja is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
indoeuropean, languages, originate


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where do the Hebrews originate from? Nick Ancient History 43 March 20th, 2014 11:34 PM
When and where did the Star of David Originate? Salah General History 5 March 18th, 2010 11:41 AM
The Etruscan’s are the founding Romans. Where did they originate? laketahoejwb Ancient History 9 February 21st, 2010 10:16 PM
Salutations from an Indo-Canadian Lord_of_Gauda New Users 15 November 30th, 2009 07:06 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.