Origins of Aryans

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,498
Australia
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.
Very good .

Now, what does 'sea' mean ?


1575317724874.png


Hmmmmm ?


And you are saying it never meant 'pond' as well . Do you mean to say the mighty river sung about in ancient times in hyms that carried across the centuries

DID NOT end in a pond ? Well, goodness me !

I shall have to change my views on this . Here I was thinking that the mighty Sarasvati finally ended in a ...


1575318285072.png


:D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Juggernaut
Aug 2017
253
USA
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
Aside from the fact that what you say about surviving ancient Greek/Chinese texts is utterly wrong and betrays how ignorant you conspiracy theorists are about history, you're again dodging the question. How do you know the surviving Rig Vedic oral tradition was itself not corrupted over time prior to when it was first written down thousands of years later? Answer this question.

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
How do you know this is what the aryan migration hypothesis states? Did you poll all the people who do research in this area and is this what the majority of them said? Is it possible that the migration hypothesis is more general than what you stated? Is it perhaps even the case that it simply says that ethnolinguistic groups speaking languages of the Indo-Iranian (sub)family introduced such languages to South Asia, Iran, and the Middle East? If so, is there actually any inconsistency?

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
Why can't we never attribute a particular archaeological complex or site with the speakers of a particular set of languages? Who says the BMAC is central to the Migration Hypothesis? Can you provide evidence that it is in fact central to the Migration Hypothesis?

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
How do you know the Nuristani people practiced animism? How do you know they did not practiced a form of the ancient Indo-Iranian religion before their conversion to Islam like the Kalash? Who says that and where did you get this information from?

You're again dodging my questions. How do you know that linguistics and peoples (I never mentioned races) are never linked? Have you read about most of the major population movements within the last 10000 years (like I have) and determined for yourself whether or not this is the case? Can you go through every such population movement and show me that linguistic shifts are never associated with population shifts?
 
Last edited:
Aug 2017
253
USA
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.
You are dodging my questions. How do you know that? Can you show me evidence that it never changed meaning over the last few thousand years? Even if it did mean ocean or sea, how is the inconsistency between the monsoon-fed behavior of the Ghaggar-Hakra for the past 10000+ years and its description in the Rig Veda as a mountain-fed river supposed to be resolved?

Is the Rig Veda always a 100% accurate recollection of old places and events? If so, can you prove this is indeed the case? Is it a remote possibility to you that the composers of the RV might have recorded some of their geography erroneously, with poetic license, with composite cultural memories, etc?

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.
You are dodging my questions. Who are all the major colonial era geologists and did they really unanimously affirm this? If so, how did they come to their identification? Cite them, just as I took the liberty of citing studies earlier. How are their geological studies to be reconciled with the latest evidence that has been globally accepted regarding the Meghalayan age and the monsoon-fed nature of Ghaggar-Hakra?
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
How do you know the Nuristani people practiced animism? How do you know they did not practiced a form of the ancient Indo-Iranian religion before their conversion to Islam like the Kalash? Who says that and where did you get this information from?
i can give you many examples of people who are iranian but they practice animism or a religion other than ''indo iranian''

for instance religion of ossetian, again, iranian speaking group practising non ''aryan'' religion


why do Varli people practice animism despite being indo aryan?

saying kalash people practice an ancient form of indo iranian religion when its quite clear that they practice animist religion is laughable.

regards
 
  • Like
Reactions: Juggernaut
Jun 2017
583
usa
So now people are trying to twist the meaning of words to fit their assumptions?
Pond in Sanskrit has various names none of which is Samudra.

Samudra means sea.
This is ridiculous and this is exactly how the AIT proponents have pushed through with their bogus theory, with mistranslations, misrepresentations.
Writing essays on this forum does not make your argument any more credible.
Rig veda might have a few changes over the years but for the most part it is unchanged and is more reliable and more credible than all the pathetic linguistic assumptions made to fit AIT/AMT.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Devdas

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,618
USA
The texts are written in different languages (Sanskrit and Avestan) which split off from earlier proto-Indo-Iranian, and they both use the same term (arya). Aryan also has cognates in other Indo-European languages.

"The Sanskrit term comes from proto-Indo-Iranian *arya-[8][note 1] [20][21] or *aryo-,[22][note 2] the name used by the Indo-Iranians to designate themselves.[23][8][note 3][22] The Zend airya 'venerable' and Old Persian ariya are also derivates of *aryo-,[22] and are also self-designations.[5][24][note 4]" Aryan - Wikipedia
Dude, the original meaning of Arya is not "venerable". The original meaning of that term is in Rig Veda, and the meaning is "one who worships arya or Indra". Arya is a derivative of the word "arya" (Notice the difference between A and a in the two words). Arya got a meaning of noble only later.

Vedic is the PIE, and India (Haryana region) is the homeland of all IE languages.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,618
USA
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?
Did you read this?:


The latest on Saraswati.

Rig Veda's nadi sUkta mentions rivers in an East to West order, and there is no reason for one to believe that only Saraswati was somehow not in order. Since it is mentioned between Yamuna and Shutudri (Sutlej), there are strong reasons to believe that Saraswati and Ghaggar might be the same.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,618
USA
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?
Because the oral tradition of teaching Vedas has several different ways of committing the text (pada pATa, ghana pAta, etc..), and several branches (shAkha) of VedAs always have checks against each other, the margin of error is less.

There is no guarantee that even a text may not be corrupted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth
Aug 2017
253
USA
i can give you many examples of people who are iranian but they practice animism or a religion other than ''indo iranian''

for instance religion of ossetian, again, iranian speaking group practising non ''aryan'' religion


why do Varli people practice animism despite being indo aryan?

saying kalash people practice an ancient form of indo iranian religion when its quite clear that they practice animist religion is laughable.

regards
Since you dodged all my questions again, I'll repeat them here:

1) How do you know the surviving Rig Vedic oral tradition was itself not corrupted over time prior to when it was first written down thousands of years later? In particular, how do we know its still a useful source of information for the Vedic age, that its underlying language is an archaic one?

2) How do you know what you accused the AMT of stating is actually what it states? Did you poll all the people who do research in this area and is this what the majority of them said? Is it possible that the migration hypothesis is more general than what you stated? Is it perhaps even the case that it simply says that ethnolinguistic groups speaking languages of the Indo-Iranian (sub)family introduced such languages to South Asia, Iran, and the Middle East? If so, is there actually any inconsistency?

3) Why can we never attribute a particular archaeological complex or site with the speakers of a particular set of languages? Who says the BMAC is central to the Migration Hypothesis? Can you provide evidence that it is in fact central to the Migration Hypothesis?

4) How do you know that linguistics and peoples (I never mentioned races) are never linked? Have you read about most of the major population movements within the last 10000 years (like I have) and determined for yourself whether or not this is the case? Can you go through every such population movement and show me that linguistic shifts are never associated with population shifts?

What is animism? What are common features of the ancient Aryan/Iranian/Indo-Iranian religions? How do you know the Kalash practice animism and not a form of the religion(s) characteristic of the early Indo-Iranian branch? Who says that and where did you get this information from?

Who said that language and religion are one and the same? Where? Is it impossible they can still be strongly correlated? Can religions and traditions diverge to varying degrees? Does everyone of the same language group have to be of the exact same religion with no variation?
 
Last edited:
Aug 2017
253
USA
So now people are trying to twist the meaning of words to fit their assumptions?
Pond in Sanskrit has various names none of which is Samudra.

Samudra means sea.
This is ridiculous and this is exactly how the AIT proponents have pushed through with their bogus theory, with mistranslations, misrepresentations.
Writing essays on this forum does not make your argument any more credible.
Rig veda might have a few changes over the years but for the most part it is unchanged and is more reliable and more credible than all the pathetic linguistic assumptions made to fit AIT/AMT.
So now people are trying to twist the Rig Veda to fit their assumptions?

This is ridiculous and this is exactly how the OIT proponents have pushed through with their bogus theory, with mistranslations and misrepresentations.

Writing terse comments and denying logic and science does not make your argument any more credible.
AIT/AMT might have a few changes over the years but for the most part, the underlying model is unchanged and is more reliable and more credible than all the pathetic assumptions made to fit the OIT.

Because the oral tradition of teaching Vedas has several different ways of committing the text (pada pATa, ghana pAta, etc..), and several branches (shAkha) of VedAs always have checks against each other, the margin of error is less.

There is no guarantee that even a text may not be corrupted.
This does not answer my question. Given that the RV was committed to writing thousands of years later and the oldest surviving manuscript is dated to the first 1 millennium CE, how do we know that the RV was not "corrupted" prior in the sense that we can still rely on the RV to yield insights about Vedic era India?

Did you read this?:


The latest on Saraswati.

Rig Veda's nadi sUkta mentions rivers in an East to West order, and there is no reason for one to believe that only Saraswati was somehow not in order. Since it is mentioned between Yamuna and Shutudri (Sutlej), there are strong reasons to believe that Saraswati and Ghaggar might be the same.
I did not, but thank you for showing me yet another study that supports the fundamental conclusions of the studies I've already linked to.

The studies I previously listed were all aware of the Ghaggar-Hakra's well known alternating capture by the Yamuna and the Sutlej, both of which are fed by Himalayan glaciers, so it is not surprising such sediments are found in the Ghaggar-Hakra. What IS interesting to me is that the Ghaggar-Hakra was not nearly as weak after the onset of the Holocene as was initially thought and the study says this was primarily due to its capture by the Sutlej (until around 4.5 kya). I did find the idea that Harappan settlements sprung along a seasonal riverbed odd, so the scenario proposed in the paper makes more sense by far.

Of course, it would be interesting to see what the rest of the scientific community's responses are and how the differences between the studies are to be reconciled. This is the beauty of science, that it continually corrects and improves upon itself unlike the conspiracy theories pushed in this forum.

Since the Rig Veda states that the Sutlej and the Beas flow together, this is more evidence that its composition post-dates the disconnection of the Sutlej with the Ghaggar-Hakra. The question of why it mentions the Sarasvati as a mighty river powerful enough to crush mountain ridges and flowing through the high mountains still needs to be resolved, but I have already discussed a class of hypotheses involving the idea that the RV incorporates several layers of references to different Sarasvati rivers.
 
Last edited: