Origins of Aryans

Mar 2019
1,809
KL
My bad, I misread your comment.

But aside from the fact that what you say about the Avestan is wrong, the Rig Veda has the problem that the oldest extant copies of the text date to the 1st millennium CE, not 1500 BCE or anytime around then. So how do we know that the text wasn't corrupted in the intervening 2500+ years? In fact, how do we even know the original composition date of the Rig Veda when the oldest surviving copies are thousands of years later? Isn't the idea the Rig Veda dates to ~1500 BCE and that it has remained relatively unchanged ever since originally a product of Western linguistics? Isn't Western linguistics wrong and racist and full of anti-Hindu/Indian biases?
because the oral tradition survived and so did the written tradition, that was not the case with avestan.

regards
 
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
One group went further south into India ('Indo-Aryans'), another west to Iran .
the irony in your post is evident since the indo aryan mitanni names are also attested in syria turkey border. If indo aryan went to india how indo aryan words are attested in mitanni inscriptions in the same mythical migration period? do mitannis claim themseles to be aryans as well?

secondly you are trying to mix the religion with the race/linguistics, the race theory has been abandoned ages ago and there is no scientific evidence to support such theories. Did mitanni call themselves aryan or is the word attested in their document? there is also nuristani group which is problematic in your delusional theories as well, if indo iranian broke into indo aryan and iranian group than nuristani group seems to challenge such theories as well.

We would never know the lanugages spoken in central asia because of the lack of inscription and without it, we cannot be sure if the BMAC spoke indo iranian or what ever language.

regards
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth
Aug 2017
253
USA
because the oral tradition survived and so did the written tradition, that was not the case with avestan.

regards
Says who? You're dodging the question, since obviously some oral tradition survived. How do you know the surviving oral tradition was itself not corrupted over time? The oldest surviving copy of the Rig Veda dates to around the 1st millenium CE and transcribes the oral tradition, so how do you know nothing changed with the oral tradition for the past few thousand years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: specul8
Aug 2017
253
USA
the irony in your post is evident since the indo aryan mitanni names are also attested in syria turkey border. If indo aryan west to india how indo aryan words are attested in mitanni inscriptions in the same mythical migration period? do mitannis claim themseles to be aryans as well?
He also said some went West to Iran, so how does the existence of the Mitanni contradict the prevailing hypothesis? Is it impossible for migrating steppe peoples to spread throughout Eurasia? Do speakers of languages within the same branch of a language family always have to refer themselves uniformly with the same label? If so, what's the proof?

secondly you are trying to mix the religion with the race/linguistics, the race theory has been abandoned ages ago and there is no scientific evidence to support such theories.
Who says this? You? What's the "race theory"? How do you know there's no scientific evidence?

Did mitanni call themselves aryan or is the word attested in their document? there is also nuristani group which is problematic in your delusional theories as well, if indo iranian broke into indo aryan and iranian group than nuristani group seems to challenge such theories as well.
What is the subfamily of the IE language family the Nuristani languages fall under? How do the existence of these languages/peoples debunk the prevailing theories?

We would never know the lanugages spoken in central asia because of the lack of inscription and without it, we cannot be sure if the BMAC spoke indo iranian or what ever language.

regards
What does it mean to identify an archaeological complex or civilization as Indo-Iranian? Does one need direct written evidence from the time period in question or can one draw reasonable inferences from archaeological remains and later literary evidence?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: specul8
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
Says who? You're dodging the question, since obviously some oral tradition survived. How do you know the surviving oral tradition was itself not corrupted over time? The oldest surviving copy of the Rig Veda dates to around the 1st millenium CE and transcribes the oral tradition, so how do you know nothing changed with the oral tradition for the past few thousand years?
we dont have any surviving texts of the ancient greeks and the chinese before 1st mil AD, so if we argue that all manuscripts which dont have surviving copies from the date of their composition, all of them can be declared as forgeries.

regards
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
He also said some went West to Iran, so how does the existence of the Mitanni contradict the prevailing hypothesis?
mitanni evidence actually contradicts the aryan migration hypothesis, since it postulated that indo aryan went east, iranians went west, so mitanni must have been iranian not indo iranian. If aryan migration happened in 1500 BC, the mitanni indo aryan must have not attested in such an early period, since indo aryan must have first settled in india an then went west. If we assume that mitanni went went before separation of indo iranian it must have not been an indo aryan but some third branch of indo aryan.

regards
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
mitanni evidence actually contradicts the aryan migration hypothesis, since it postulated that indo aryan went east, iranians went west, so mitanni must have been iranian not indo aryan. If aryan migration happened in 1500 BC, the mitanni indo aryan must have not attested in such an early period, since indo aryan must have first settled in india an then went west. If we assume that mitanni went immediately after separation of indo iranian it must have not been an indo aryan but some another branch of indo iranian.

regards
correction made
 
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
What does it mean to identify an archaeological complex or civilization as Indo-Iranian? Does one need direct written evidence from the time period in question or can one draw reasonable inferences from archaeological remains and later literary evidence?

no, we cannot attribute a proto language without inscriptions, we may say that BMAC was iranian based on current demographics but may may not say that they were indo iranian and make AMT based on the whole premise. BMAC may have spoken a completely different IE language just like tocharian or any non IE language like georgian or Burushaski. Similarly without deciphering the harappan inscriptions we cannot declare them as proto dravidian or non indo aryan without any proof.

regards
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
What is the subfamily of the IE language family the Nuristani languages fall under? How do the existence of these languages/peoples debunk the prevailing theories?
nuristani languages with nuristani people practising animism proves that there was no proto aryan or proto indo iranian religion, if that was the case, these nuristani kafiristan people would not be practising animism but religion similar to vedic or zoroastrianism. It proves that linguistics has nothing to do with religion.

regards
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
Who says this? You? What's the "race theory"? How do you know there's no scientific evidence?

A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.[1] The term was first used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations. By the 17th century the term began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][2]
Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[3] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[4] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[5][6][7][8][9]
Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[10] While some researchers use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[5] or simplistic way,[11] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and (as far as applicable) subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[12][13]
Since the second half of the 20th century, the association of race with the ideologies and theories of scientific racism has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic.[14] Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and loaded terms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.[15][16]