Origins of Aryans

Sep 2016
611
天下
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
Patently untrue. In China, apart from texts which were copied over millennia of which we know even their original publication date, we also have a wealth of excavated inscriptions, incomplete and complete texts written on bamboo and silk dating long before the first millennium confirming the authenticity of the modern versions.
 
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
we also have a wealth of excavated inscriptions, incomplete and complete texts written on bamboo and silk dating long before the first millennium confirming the authenticity of the modern versions.
do you mean you have original manuscripts of every documents from their respective periods which existed before CE? do ancient greeks also have their original manuscripts from before CE as well?

regards
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth
Sep 2016
611
天下
do you mean you have original manuscripts of every documents from their respective periods which existed before CE?

regards
If you read carefully what I wrote you wouldn't have to ask this question. What's important is that:
A. There's not one version, but several collaborating it.
B. The older excavated version are almost never 100% identical to the received version. Sometimes the difference is in wording, sometimes there are passages missing or inserted, sometimes whole chapters are different.

As such, any theory based on such very late source is gonna be flawed and open to serious doubts.
 
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
If you read carefully what I wrote you wouldn't have to ask this question. What's important is that:
A. There's not one version, but several collaborating it.
B. The older excavated version are almost never 100% identical to the received version. Sometimes the difference is in wording, sometimes there are passages missing or inserted, sometimes whole chapters are different.

As such, any theory based on such very late source is gonna be flawed and open to serious doubts.
do you have original manuscripts of all the chinese texts which have been authenticated?

regards
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth
Sep 2016
611
天下
do you have original manuscripts of all the chinese texts which have been authenticated?

regards
If you want to claim that since original is not extant (even it it was, most likely it would be impossible to authenticate it as such) the copy from 4th century BCE is as equally valid as copy from 16th century, then well, that's not gonna hold.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
5,029
India
thats why the ocean was interpreted as ''lake'' lake because of the confirmation bias.

regards
Samudra means sea/ocean, samudra never referred to pond or lake. Even in modern Indian languages samudra or samandar is used for sea/ocean. Samudra as lake is just someone's whim and fancy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
5,029
India
Ok, so isn't this also a theory? How do you know they were written before the drying of the Ghaggar-Hakra? How do you know the Sarasvati is to be identified with the Ghaggar-Hakra? Does the Rig Veda say the Ghaggar-Hakra is the one and the same as the Sarasvati?



According to whom and what studies? Cite them. How are their results are to be reconciled with those of the studies I cited?

Absolutely, dating methods utilizing the half-lives of isotopes and archaeology is more robust than mere "theorizing". So what about the three recent studies I mentioned which involve these methods and do not support tectonic activity theories? What about the results of these studies which show that the Ghaggar-Hakra was not a mountain-fed river but a monsoon-fed one well before the IVC, contradicting the Rig Veda's descriptions of the river?
Even before the discovery of Indus valley civilzation, all major colonial era British era geologists have themselves confirmed that Ghaggar-Hakra is Rigvedic Saraswati, infact that river is locally as know as Sarsuti in course in many places in North-Western India. Now, all was going well until the carbon dating spoiled everything. The ancient riverbed still exists.

If you want to know the result of studies kindly google it, everything in this world can be doubtful. Even flat earth theory was considered as a undeniable truth once.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,498
Australia
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?
Wot ?

Did you even read what I actually wrote ?

That is the 'irony' here .

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.
How on earth does race or religion have anything to do with the quote you extracted from my post and then tried to criticize ?

You keep making these strange and obscure interlocutions .


You seem confused about the 3 classifications ; Indo Iranian, Indo Aryan and Iranian .

I dont suppose you even glanced at the reference link I cited .
 
Last edited:

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,498
Australia
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

BMAC was not Iranian based . It was an independent development . Even if it was that is not the 'base of the whole premise' of AMT .

What on earth made you think that I thought IE was Iranian and that this was the whole premise that AMT is based on ?

I think you read posts ... then your mind runs away with what you thought you read and then you comment on your own thoughts, mistakingly thinking thats what others wrote in the first place .