New thread on Aryans in Central Asia

Mar 2019
1,751
KL
Before the rise of the Cholas, inscriptions from Java, Indonesia, mention only the Kalingas as foreign visitors from the eastern coast of India. In 1021 AD an inscription added Dravidas to the list of maritime powers, and they were then replaced by the Colikas (Cholas), in the year 1053 AD.[2] The Kalinga traders (of modern Orissa) brought red colored stone decorative objects for trade. Kalinga was also an important source of cotton textiles to Southeast Asia at an early date.[3] In the Tamil Sangam classic, Chirupanattuppadai (line 96), there is a mention of blue Kalingam. Fine garments of high quality cotton imported from Kalinga country into the Tamil country were called Kalingam, which shows that Kalinga was an exporter of cotton at an early date.[4][5]
Trade guilds of South India - Wikipedia

so here, the dravidas are different where as tamils/cholas are different people. probably the pallavas are called dravidas, the orissa people are also called kalingas as well.

the history alone debunks this stinking theory, not to mention archaeology.

if andhras were not satavahana btw, the pallava would have been called andhras and not dravidas, it also suggests that dravida was a native name not the one given by north indians.

regards
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,751
KL
i have found a discrepancy in the vedic map

1559273471332.png

1559273518540.png

Kikata Kingdom - Wikipedia

Kikata was an ancient kingdom in what is now India, mentioned in the Vedas. It is believed that they were the forefathers of Magadhas. It lay to the south of Magadha Kingdom.

A section in the Rigveda (RV 3.53.14) refers to the Kīkaṭas (Hindi:कीकट), a tribe which most scholars have placed in Bihar (Magadha).[1]

Zimmer has argued, in referring to Yaska, that they were a non-Aryan people. According to Weber, they were a Vedic people, but were sometimes in conflict with other Vedic people.[2]
the true rigvedic map would place kikatas in Bihar, isnt it?

1559273787777.png

why is eastern indian tribe mentioned in RV placed near haryana?

1559274874766.png

not arya would probably mean here, not honourable

The Vedas

regards
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,751
KL
i have found a discrepancy in the vedic map

View attachment 20208

View attachment 20209

Kikata Kingdom - Wikipedia



the true rigvedic map would place kikatas in Bihar, isnt it?

View attachment 20211

why is eastern indian tribe mentioned in RV placed near haryana?

View attachment 20212

not arya would probably mean here, not honourable

The Vedas

regards
it is interesting that Kikata/magadh is mentioned earlier in rigveda, even earlier than saptasindhava/ Punjab

Sapta Sindhavah, is referred to only in the Late Books, while place names of the East, Kikata, etc., are referred to in the Early Books),
The Rigveda and the Avesta
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,751
KL
1559300195046.png
1559299568138.png
1559299521757.png
1559300147927.png

Rig-Veda Sanhitá a Collection of Ancient Hindú Hymns Translated from the Original Sanskrit by H.H. Wilson


interesting anarya kikatas are nastikas

Āstika (Sanskrit आस्तिक IAST: āstika) derives from the Sanskrit asti, "there is, there exists", and means “one who believes in the existence (of a soul separate from the material world, Brahman, etc.)” and nāstika means "an unbeliever".[1] These have been concepts used to classify Indian philosophies by modern scholars, and some Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina texts.[2][3][5] Āstika has been defined in one of three ways; as those who accept the epistemic authority of the Vedas, as those who accept the existence of ātman, or as those who accept the existence of Ishvara.[6][7] In contrast, nāstika are those who deny the respective definitions of āstika.[6]

The various definitions for āstika and nāstika philosophies has been disputed since ancient times, and there is no consensus.[6][8]Buddhism is considered to be nāstika, but the Gautama Buddha is considered an avatar of Vishnu in some Hindu traditions.[9] The most studied Nāstika schools of Indian philosophies, sometimes referred to as heterodoxschools, are four: Buddhism, Jainism, Cārvāka, and Ājīvika.[10][11]

Āstika and nāstika - Wikipedia
that is commentator on vedas from vijayanagar btw

Sayana - Wikipedia

again, no racial garbage here, pure religious.

regards
 
Last edited:

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,579
USA
it is interesting that Kikata/magadh is mentioned earlier in rigveda, even earlier than saptasindhava/ Punjab



The Rigveda and the Avesta
The idea of early books and late books in Rig Veda is the mischief of those "me too" European translators. All mandalas contain hymns by Rishis from various times. Let's not fall into the trap that these agenda-driven people have laid. And no, in no way the Kikata region was known earlier than Sapta Sindhava.
 
Mar 2019
1,751
KL
Full text of "The Rig Vedic Culture And The Indus Civilisation"

some indian scholars have even refused to accept that kikatas maybe from magadh and insist, its a hilly region in indus valley civilization and later applied to magadh, if we go in this direction, then probably every region was renamed probably from central asia as well, as argued by the western sanskritists/AMT proponents.

the kikatas mentioned early is btw stated by OIT proponent Shrikhant G talageri himself, so probably the OIT proponents also disagree with each other.

thousand mouths thousand theories.

“Kikata”, which, at a later date, referred
to the South Magadha is, however, mentioned. During
Vedic times) ‘Kikata’ was possibly a hilly part of the
Indus valley and not South Magadha, as no place has been
mentioned in the Rig Vedas, which has to be crossed to
reach this place. If they knew Magadha, they must have
known Matsya, Panchala, Kogala and other nereby places
which has not been mentioned.
a lot of BS has been made btw on the stuff not being mentioned. As some user already stated pointing arts, an absence of evidence doesnt mean negative evidence.

regards
 
Last edited:

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,579
USA
Full text of "The Rig Vedic Culture And The Indus Civilisation"

some indian scholars have even refused to accept that kikatas maybe from magadh and insist, its a hilly region in indus valley civilization and later applied to magadh, if we go in this direction, then probably every region was renamed probably from central asia as well, as argued by the western sanskritists/AMT proponents.

the kikatas mentioned early is btw stated by OIT proponent Shrikhant G talageri himself, so probably the OIT proponents also disagree with each other.

thousand mouths thousand theories.



a lot of BS has been made btw on the stuff not being mentioned. As some user already stated pointing arts, an absence of evidence doesnt mean negative evidence.

regards
Shrikant Talageri has read a translation of Rig Veda of.Ralph Griffith for God's sake! He definitely does not know which hymn is more ancient and which is not. He tried to use Witzel's (mis)analysis and turned it in favor of OIT.