Historum - History Forums  

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

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 28th, 2017, 05:43 AM   #31
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2017
From: Bharatvarsh
Posts: 91

1) Aryan Migration to India is proved by Recent genetic studies on various Indian castes.

2) Horses are native to central Asia.

3) major Brahman and kshatriya tribes can trace their origin in central Asia as well. major chunk of north Indian Brahmans noted their their origin in near Mount meru mountain. mount Meru is located in Pamir Region according to some Historians.

4) Sanskrit and Avastan are mirror Languages which proves that some Aryan tribe migrated to India as well.

5) presence of Aryans all over Southern Part of Asia such as Kurdistan, Iran, Lars, Pashtuns, Dardics, Baloch, Tajiks, Pamiris etc proves that Aryans did migrated from Central Asia (kazakstan) to Southern Asia and indic-iranic split happen near Afghanistan.

6) presence of Iranian Neolithic in North west India/Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan and Aborigine Races in all over India alone Destroys remote possibilities of Aryans and Indo-Europeans origin location in India.

almost all Accepts that Aryan migration did happen to Southern Asia and its considered Fact as well, i have noticed that some People who belongs to Right wing Hindu Parties and other Nationalists of India alone denies this Theory.

maybe because they know that they are not Pure Anymore ?

Regards.
Chacha Ji is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 28th, 2017, 05:57 AM   #32
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2017
From: Bharatvarsh
Posts: 91

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vidyapati View Post
I agree with everything except this. Can you provide some sources for this please? It seems very far-fetched that Brahmins will be able to trace direct ancestors from Central Asia.
Namaskar,

Sure, if you follow my current Research on Kaushikas,Vishwamitras,Bhargawas/bharadwajas, Shandilyas, Haradyas etc clans than you will realize what i was talking about.

here,
http://historum.com/search.php?searchid=4996176
Chacha Ji is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 06:29 AM   #33
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

[QUOTE=Aupmanyav;2864148]Now that is a problem. How come the Yaz culture is dated at 1,500-1,000 BC, the BMAC is dated 2300–1700 BC, Sintashta-Petrovka-Arkaim, Southern Urals, northern Kazakhstan, 2200–1600 BC and Yamna is dated 4000–2300 BC? How is it that the Indo-European cultures get older as they go away from India? The river seems to be going backward to the mountains. If the Slavs exited India then it should have been the other way round.[QUOTE]

Because there were other people inhabiting those areas before Indo-Europeans arrived, and lived in those areas.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 06:31 AM   #34
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
What the debate is about: Did the proto-indo-europeans originate in the eurasian steppes, and not knowing any words for elephant came to India and learned them from indians, (or from Phoenician (compare Hamitic elu "elephant," source of the word for it in many Semitic languages) or as my opponent says, all indo-europeans came from India and forgot what elephant is and started to call the camels elephants.
According to your case, the Germans and Slavs not knowing the elephant, would've entered India, learned the word for elephant (variation of "ibha"), and then went back to Europe with the same word, but later transferred it to camel?

Or, in my case, the ancestors of Germans, Slavs, and Hittites were in north India where the elephant does exist and had the word for elephant, then after exiting India they applied the word to the next largest thing on the way out, the Bactrian camel.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 06:33 AM   #35
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Pygmy mammoth is different from the woolly mammoth.
Pygmy mammoth didn't exist in Europe, but only North America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_mammoth

Also went extinct around 10,000 BCE.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 06:41 AM   #36
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
Really? So if the Ancient Indians were riding Indian Donkeys (Wild Ass), then that's the same as a horse? When you use Horse in common parlance, its in reference to a single species. Ferus Caballus. Sivalensis is no more a horse than hemionus khur. There really is no getting around this
And the Caballus isn't native to India. There's no dearth of literature on its native spread. Or its biology for instance. Its predominantly an animal suited to large open grass or grass like plains, if I remember my biology correctly. You don't have vast spreads of that in India. In contrast the wild ass is native to India. One way to gauge spread is to look at where populations of wild horse have existed. Do you find any in India? Have any historical records of this as such?


Aaah yes, that vedic Horse nonsense. You have evidence of the Sivalensis being domesticated? Ridden? Indeed even actually coexisting with neolithic populations? Heck, do you have anything to suggest that the Sivalensis looks close enough to a horse, that it conflated with it. Its a separate species. It needs to look so close to the horse that it gets conflated with it by historical populations. If its visual profile is merely close to that of a horse, then its the same issue - Donkeys are Horses if you're going to confuse species. Does Talageri have this evidence?

This has been debated and debunked on this forum before. Please look up the Great Injustice to Indian History thread. Stretching to absurd lengths to try and link extinct animals to the Vedic Aryans. An Animal that isn't found in the Haryana-Sindh region I might add, going by the fossil record, and largely went extinct around 10k BCE.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...lensis&f=false
If you want basic biological info on the horse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse

Also, maybe you can also postulate that the Indians rode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparion. That too existed regions overlapping with the Sivalensis.
I am not claiming they rode donkeys, you are putting words in my mouth.

What you are trying to do is limit the word "horse" to "caballus" to try to support your claim that India had no horses, but this is biologically incorrect because there are many species of horses, for example Przewalski's horse and the recently extinct Tarpan . All of those are "horses", so now you have 2 other species of horses that aren't "Caballus", which means that the horse isn't just the "caballus".

Now, I quoted that large paragraph in a previous reply, which you probably ignored, that shows evidence of horses and horse domestication all throughout India going back thousands of years, which supports that horses also did exist in India.

Horses indeed do thrive on plains, and guess what, north India does have plains, so the geography is suited for horses.

Therefore, the horse is native to India.

Do you have any evidence to suggest the horse was not native?
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 06:42 AM   #37

Immchr's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Western India
Posts: 632

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
Yes of course, I do not debate where the words for elephant originated. They of course probably come from the place where there are elephants.

What the debate is about: Did the proto-indo-europeans originate in the eurasian steppes, and not knowing any words for elephant came to India and learned them from indians, (or from Phoenician (compare Hamitic elu "elephant," source of the word for it in many Semitic languages) or as my opponent says, all indo-europeans came from India and forgot what elephant is and started to call the camels elephants.
Here is how the argument works.

According to the linguists Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, Elephant was known to the people who spoke PIE because a PIE word can be re-constructed for it.

According to them,

Quote:
Despite the restricted dialect distribution of cognates, a word for 'elephant; ivory' can be reconstructed as *yebh• (or *Hebh-), going back to an early stage of dialect unity and reflected in a number of archaic words from only two dialects: Lat. ebur 'ivory; elephant', Skt. ibha-h 'elephant'. Like the other animal names listed above, it is an evident Near Eastern migratory word, found in a number of ancient Near Eastern languages, including Afroasiatic: Egypt. 3bw 'elephant' (Erman and Grapow 1955:1.7; on the evidence of Coptic ebou, ebu a protoform *(j)ebu can be reconstructed), Hebr. sen habbim 'elephant tusk' (lit. 'tooth': sen).
Quote:
In the same semantic sphere, an ancient migratory term for 'ivory' is found in other Indo-European dialects: Myc. Gk. e-re-pa, gen. e-re-pa-to 'ivory', adj. e-re-pa-te-jo 'made of ivory', Horn. elephas, gen. elephantos 'ivory',elephanteios 'made of ivory'. The word can be compared to Hitt. lahpa-, in one text with Glossenkeil: ~ la-ah-pa-as u-nu-wa-an-du 'let them decorate [it] with ivory', KUB XXXVI 25; in a trilingual Sumerian-Akkadian Hittite text lahpas corresponds to Sumerian zu and Akkad. sinnu in the sense 'elephant tooth
'

Quote:
Thus two words for 'elephant' can be reconstructed for archaic Indo-European dialect groupings, both in all likelihood of general Near Eastern origin: *yebh- - *Hebh- and *lebh-onth- (possibly *leHbho-, taking into account the Hittite-Luwian form). Comparison of the two protoforms suggests that they may ultimately be related to each other through a single Proto-Indo-European word for 'elephant', a form reminiscent of other words for 'elephant' in languages of the ancient Near East.
Similarly, Mallory & Adams (The Oxford Introduction to the PIE and the PIE World),

Quote:
Words associated with the elephant receive some attestation, i.e. *(y)ebh-
‘elephant’ (Lat ebur, Skt ı´bha-) and *lebh- ‘ivory’ (Myc e-re-pa, Grk el´pha¯s and Hit lahpa-). There are those who would claim that they are both Proto-Indo- European (and indicate an Asian homeland), but the word for elephant is close enough to the Egyptian word (3bw) to suggest a Wanderwort and objects of ivory were widely traded in the eastern Aegean during the Bronze Age, and borrowing is usually, and surely correctly, suspected here as well.
So, both the groups of authors try to argue that the word for Elephant, while of PIE attestation is nevertheless a borrowing from Near Eastern Languages.

The problem with this line of argument is that the Elephant is not native to the Near East. It is native to Africa and to South & SE Asia & China. Out of all these regions, it is only in South Asia where we know the Indo-European language being attested from the earliest times.

In case the PIE homeland is the steppe, there are following problems with the data :-

1. If PIE people already knew of the Elephant, it means by about 4000 BC or thereabouts, the PIE people of the steppe were already trading with the Near Eastern people, among other things, in Elephant Ivory. But, the problem is that even by 3000 BC, within the Near East itself, there is very little evidence of trade in Elephant ivory. So how could it even reach the steppe and leave such an impact that we can even recostruct the PIE word for it ? The question of the steppe people having knowledge of a real Elephant looks even more improbable.

2. Again, according to Gamkrelidze & Ivanov,

Quote:
Evidently the speakers of individual Indo-European dialects who settled new territories and encountered camels for the first time transferred the word for 'elephant' to the unfamiliar large animal.
Even if we accept the unlikely scenario that in 4000 BC the PIE speakers on the steppe were trading in Elephant ivory with the Near East it is still a long way from proving that these steppe people knew what an actual elephant looked like. But what little they knew about the Elephant, one can be sure that they knew of the Elephant as being an animal with large tusks.

Therefore, speakers of the Northern IE (NIE) langauges like the Germanic & Slavic should have in theory no reason to use any word derived from the PIE form for Elephant to describe the camel, which surely has no tusk. It makes very little sense. It could only make sense, if these NIE speakers at one point of time had seen Elephants frequently enough to remember it as a large animal. However, this certainly could not have been the steppe.

It may also be noted here that the modern Slavic world for Elephant 'Slon' is a borrowing from the Eastern Asiatic Languages.

3. If indeed, the PIE homeland was the steppe and the PIE word for Elephant was coined or borrowed on the steppe, it still does not explain as to how when the steppe Indo-Aryans migrated to South Asia, they did not borrow the term for Elephant from the IVC people, who were living in Elephant territory for millenia and who were already by the 3rd millenium BC, making sophisticated artifacts from Elephant Ivory and also spreading this expertise in Central Asia and elsewhere - https://www.academia.edu/34596109/Ma..._Turkmenistan_

Why would the Indo-Aryans coming from the steppe, where the knowledge would have been tenuous at best, retain the PIE word for Elephant and impose it on the IVC people rather than borrow the term for Elephant from the native IVC people whose familiarity with the large pachyderm was probably unmatched in the Bronze Age ?

The situation is so hopeless that even the later term for Elephant 'Hastin' in Indo-Aryan is of IE origin and not a borrowing from some suppossed non-IE IVC language.

------------------

Therefore, the explanation for the PIE evidence for Elephant, from the perspective of the steppe PIE homeland theory is extremely difficult to make.
Immchr is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 06:42 AM   #38
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

[QUOTE=TupSum;2864153]You see the most ancient word for potatoe originates in Haiti, then all indo-european languages come from Haiti. It is as good as any claim.
[QUOTE]

The arguments for the Indian homeland are not based on one single argument that elephants are in India, but rather one significant piece of evidence among dozens.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 06:48 AM   #39
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chacha Ji View Post
1) Aryan Migration to India is proved by Recent genetic studies on various Indian castes.

2) Horses are native to central Asia.

3) major Brahman and kshatriya tribes can trace their origin in central Asia as well. major chunk of north Indian Brahmans noted their their origin in near Mount meru mountain. mount Meru is located in Pamir Region according to some Historians.

4) Sanskrit and Avastan are mirror Languages which proves that some Aryan tribe migrated to India as well.

5) presence of Aryans all over Southern Part of Asia such as Kurdistan, Iran, Lars, Pashtuns, Dardics, Baloch, Tajiks, Pamiris etc proves that Aryans did migrated from Central Asia (kazakstan) to Southern Asia and indic-iranic split happen near Afghanistan.

6) presence of Iranian Neolithic in North west India/Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan and Aborigine Races in all over India alone Destroys remote possibilities of Aryans and Indo-Europeans origin location in India.

almost all Accepts that Aryan migration did happen to Southern Asia and its considered Fact as well, i have noticed that some People who belongs to Right wing Hindu Parties and other Nationalists of India alone denies this Theory.

maybe because they know that they are not Pure Anymore ?

Regards.
1) There are many, contradictory genetic studies. They are unreliable.
2) Horses also existed in India, the geography is suitable for them too.
3) Afghanistan is part of the Indo-European homeland, along with India. You do realize the claim is that Aryans migrated from Ukraine.
4) The Rig Veda is older than the Avestan, which shows they came from India.
5) Most of the central Asian and European tribes are mentioned in the Battle of 10 Kings in the Rig Veda, which is older than all the other Iranian and European civilizations.
6) You do realize Eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan are still within the Indian subcontinent! Besides, what in the world is the "aboriginal" race of India?

"Pure" race, what do you mean?
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 06:51 AM   #40

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 834

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharadwaja Brahmin View Post
According to your case, the Germans and Slavs not knowing the elephant, would've entered India, learned the word for elephant (variation of "ibha"), and then went back to Europe with the same word, but later transferred it to camel?

Or, in my case, the ancestors of Germans, Slavs, and Hittites were in north India where the elephant does exist and had the word for elephant, then after exiting India they applied the word to the next largest thing on the way out, the Bactrian camel.
The germans and the slavs got their word for camel from the Phoenicians from Africa. The slavs got the word from elephant from somewhere else althogether, which you continue to ignore, the word slon.

What I have been referring to is the sanskrit. Yes, indo-europeans, who got to india and remained there have 10+ words for elephant they learned from various indigenous tribes.

The ones who never got there have only one and it is the wrong one on top of everything. This is NOT the case with cow per example. For cow there is one and only one word for slavs, germans, sanskirt etc and this is because they did know this animal from the beginning.

It is a very simple and reasonable logic. You can continue to pull all kinds of far fetched theories, but they don't seem very convincing to me.
TupSum is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
homeland, india, indoeuropean, north



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How were Arabia, South India and North Africa able to resist the Indo Europeans Theseus General History 47 January 26th, 2018 03:15 PM
Which is the "more European" language group? Finno-Ugric or Indo-European? Refrigerator European History 14 December 26th, 2017 10:51 AM
Proto-Indo-European fakirbakir Ancient History 68 December 6th, 2014 08:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.