Questions for those who believe that Aryans came out of India

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,115
New Delhi, India
How did that commonality come about?
For Aatreya, the answer is simple. The victorious Hindus went from India to Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Central Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, that is why these cultures and lnguages show INDIAN influence. Sanskrit is the mother of all these languages. It is not for any other reason that those powerful mythological emperors were called 'Chakravarti' or 'Samrat' (ruling over all lands). They conducted 'Ashvamedha' yajnas during which their signal horse roamed from India to Central Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, and returned through Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Is that not true, Aatreya? :)
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,412
USA
For Aatreya, the answer is simple. The victorious Hindus went from India to Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Central Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, that is why these cultures and lnguages show INDIAN influence. Sanskrit is the mother of all these languages. It is not for any other reason that those powerful mythological emperors were called 'Chakravarti' or 'Samrat' (ruling over all lands). They conducted 'Ashvamedha' yajnas during which their signal horse roamed from India to Central Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, and returned through Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Is that not true, Aatreya? :)
@Aup, if you can imagine the Central Asians coming to India and composing Vedas, I can very well imagine Aryas from India doing Ashwa Medha in foreign lands. Forget Mitanni?
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,412
USA
I have no inclination either way. I was simply trying to make judgements based on merit, and your argument fails on many counts.


No, thank you. If you had a case, you could have made it using your first example.

I am still curious to know your explanation for the commonality among IE languages.
You are very welcome. As I said, it doesn't bother me a bit if you are not interested in what I said. I am very clear about my understanding and have no hesitation in saying that the reconstructed PIE is a monumental lie.

It is not as if I gave you the second case because the first case was weak.

As to the reasons behind commonality among IE languages, I could think of:

1. Spread of people from heavily populated areas to the neighboring areas. This is a gradual spread.
2. A very ancient homogenous population that could have been using a language in a wide area.
3. Invasion of a an advanced tribe that totally decimates the languages in the conquered area.
4. A very heavy religious influence that could impart lot of common vocabulary to the receivers.
5. The spread may be a link kind of a phenomenon, i.e. A->B->C->D. A might not have contact directly with C, but enough contact with B ensures that C is impacted as well.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,412
USA
i do agree on persian since even the numerals are the same, it may be due to heavy borrowing from the avestan which i think is just a dialect of sanskrit so avestan may be an indo aryan language rather than iranian, i also dont see linguists relating avestan with the present iranian languages, one linguist tried relating avestan with pashto but even that was rejected given pashto's proximity with the indo aryan speaking lands, the linguists seem to be mixing dialects with the separate languages for instance, in urdu we replace the Hindi J with Z which is very similar deviation of indo aryan with iranian, we also replace hindi F with P but urdu is never classified as an iranian language based on iranian influenced dialects?, this doesnt really mean a separate language, my arguments are based on a comment by an indian who knows sanskrit and told me that he can understand avestan completely and avestan seems merely a different sanskrit dialect, if this is true that avestan clearly is an indo aryan language which got its dialect modified as it travelled westwards into iranian plateau.

i dont consider BS like proto indo iranian as well, it seems like a complete BS, either the vedic religion got influenced by the iranian religions, or the vice versa, but both sharing a proto ancestory seems concocted, because there seems to be zero proof, only hypothesis, the avestan geography also matches with the region of indus valley, hilmand, bactria etc, and even during historic periods we know that indian religions ruled that region for a long time in the form of buddhism, hinduism etc, and zoroasterianism is also thought to have originated in the same region. One comment made by shrikant talageri really struck me, he said that avestan geography talks about seven rivers/sapta sindhu as one of the parts of ariana along with parts of afghanistan and bactria, this clearly indicates a common ground and not some proto religion to be honest, since vedic texts have more ancient background and thought to be much older with more antiquity compared with avestan, i think that vedic religion gave birth to iranian religions which gave birth to zoroasterianism later.

it maybe possible that avestan was heavily influenced by sanskrit as we see in leguna copper plate inscriptions, if you follow a certain religion your language is bound to be influenced by the language which is providing those scriptures, so either avestan was heavily influenced by saskritic vocabulary, just like old malay, or avestan was a mere dialect of sanskrit which got corrupted after travelling west. i also fail to understand if avestan and vedic sanskrit have dialectical differences then why are they not declared as proto indo iranian languages?, in some portions of wikipedia i read that vedic sanskrit itself is very close to proto indo aryan language which seems odd since proto indo aryan would be an earlier version of vedic sanskrit and not the proto language itself, then avestan must be proto iranian language itself but its not the case, all this dichotomy doesnt make any sense to me, honestly.

regards
I have a concrete example of why Avestan is later than Vedic. It is possible that the Avestan we read today may have been what the scribes did to the Vedic language in Iran in later ages.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,412
USA
In continuation due to Word Limits:

The shorthand to my position is simply this. We can rage and complain about American and European domination of our thought processes as much as we want. But have we ever considered by there are over a hundred American and European Universities which not only look at their own history but also Indian history. We in contrast, don't have more than 2/3 departments of "African Studies" or European or American studies, and even those are tiny institutions. Our Departments of History, Sociology, Economics - they simply don't bother with Non-Indian and related subjects for the most part. In contrast, even non-top tier American Universities (so not Ivy league, but places such as the numerous campuses of the University of California, which are excellent universities but don't have the name recognition of Princeton or Harvard or Yale) will have relatively large and competent faculties dedicated to Indian History. And not JUST Indian History, but histories of Africa, the Middle East, The Far East, Latin America... the world as a whole. You know how many historians specializing in non-Indian History we have in the Universities of Delhi, JNU, AMU, Jamia Milia Islamia, BHU, Ashoka and Jindal (These are literally the cream of the crop in our subject) we have? Less than in a single faculty of any major American University you can think off. Doesn't even have to be Princeton. Pick up UC Davis. Or UTexas at Austin. Or UMichigan at Ann Arbor!

The fact is, we aren't nearly as good as we'd like to think we are. And this isn't about blind subservience to the west. There are cogent reasons and explanations for our flaws and shortcomings, though only some of them are outside our control. The rampant anti-intellectualism that runs through our country is as much to blame as our political apathy and academic corruption. This thread is an amazing example of how poorly informed we all are. I am not standing outside of this community as I blame it. I'm part of this! But everytime I see someone post on this thread about how the "theories" of non-indians are "nonsense" all I feel is a deep well of pity. In our determination to throw out our colonial vestiges, we appear to have adopted the blind centrism and insular outlook that lay at the core of colonialist and imperialist thinking! So determined are we to toss out our "Western Masters" who we absolutely know are clueless about the facts we hold forth on (while we ourselves don't have a single person who could speak Latin or Greek, while we challenge Europeans and Americans who speak Sanskrit as fluently as any of us) that we don't consider that we're simply chaining ourselves to new masters, rather than emancipating ourselves.

I have zero expectations that my rant here will change any opinions on this thread. Heck I realized long ago that opinions aren't altered on this forum (and honestly, I haven't seen mine alter except in a single instance where I was initially convinced that some posters were on the money when they argued that Indian Historical chronology has been foreshortened, but later realized they were batshit). Its just something I've wanted to articulate, especially after reading EternalWay's excellent questions, which as far as I can tell still haven't been answered. And won't be, as they will be drowned in a continuous exchange of inanities and barbs, as has been the case of literally EVERY OTHER thread on this subject as well. And there have been so many now that it really is beyond pointless to even list them. Between this, and the seemingly endless "Who does the IVC belong too" nationalism, I can't decide which debate is more fruitless.
The simple reason for not having enough focus on linguistics, etc.. in India is because most of us aspire to make money by becoming engineers or doctors.

Don't paint all people in one broad stroke. You do not have to feel pity for the ignorance of others. If any, you should feel pity about yourself for you have no independent assessment of both sides of the argument. Anybody who claims to be impartial and what not, should first open the book of the Vedic literature and see what they have to tell us. At the very least you owe that being an Indian. What use is it to simply writing reams and reams of opinions without having the real knowledge?
 
Likes: hansolo
Jul 2012
2,855
Dhaka
You are very welcome. As I said, it doesn't bother me a bit if you are not interested in what I said. I am very clear about my understanding and have no hesitation in saying that the reconstructed PIE is a monumental lie.

It is not as if I gave you the second case because the first case was weak.

As to the reasons behind commonality among IE languages, I could think of:

1. Spread of people from heavily populated areas to the neighboring areas. This is a gradual spread.
2. A very ancient homogenous population that could have been using a language in a wide area.
3. Invasion of a an advanced tribe that totally decimates the languages in the conquered area.
4. A very heavy religious influence that could impart lot of common vocabulary to the receivers.
5. The spread may be a link kind of a phenomenon, i.e. A->B->C->D. A might not have contact directly with C, but enough contact with B ensures that C is impacted as well.
Nice, at least you have acknowledged the mechanics of AMT.

Let's get more specific. How come there's so much similarity between Sanskrit and ancient Greek, e.g. Illiad/Odyssey, composed circa 8th century BCE. Just so you don't fall into the pitfall, Alexander happened 5 centuries later.
 
I have a concrete example of why Avestan is later than Vedic. It is possible that the Avestan we read today may have been what the scribes did to the Vedic language in Iran in later ages.
it is proposed by some people that avestan is the translation into pahlavi from the sassanid periods and i have also read some similar stuff on some article, if that is true than avestan cannot be taken as an authentic source as an archaic iranaian language at all, if its structure has been messed around. Avestan also has zero inscription to be authenticated as well to be honest. It is a bit funny that an iranian some where arguing on mittani being indo aryan disputed that mitanni maybe proto iranian since proto iranian may have many preserved features of vedic sanskrit just because he thinks that there are certain deviations which support iranian origin of mittani, but mitanni has been already declared indo aryan neither proto iranian nor proto indo iranian. all this proto business is just to mess around with someone's history and make confirmation bias and nothing else, still western european linguists unable to digest that indians were there in west asia during the period of ''aryan migration'' equipped with prakrit innovaitons as well. i think one way or another the persian user was confirming himself that persian/avestan had close resemblence with vedic sanskrit/indo aryan if pushed back further in time.

regards
 
Nice, at least you have acknowledged the mechanics of AMT.

Let's get more specific. How come there's so much similarity between Sanskrit and ancient Greek, e.g. Illiad/Odyssey, composed circa 8th century BCE. Just so you don't fall into the pitfall, Alexander happened 5 centuries later.
mitanni script i think solves all the archaeological requirements of how some european languages may have indian influences, some bigots even suggest that indian philosophy and greek philosophy emerged from caucasus, which is absurd, we can clearly see the trend here, meaning indian knowledge moving to greece and vice versa from antiquity, we even have ascetic movements from india to egypt and greece, some indian ascetic probably also died immolating himself in greece, the similarities in culture were even acknowledged in mauryan courts accoirding to your own greek historians, indian arts probably went to greece and became classical arts or the minoan arts, harrapan statue clearly shows examples of classical greek statuary, the greek historians have also admitted that pythagoras travelled to egypt which had substantial indian presence and evevntually to india and hence his vegetarian theories, which i also think doesnt originate from proto source, i think if we stick to archaeology and history it would be a better sense than concocting any ''proto'' theories, we know that a short alexander stay cannot result in a kingdom called indo greek, so greek flow to the east and the indian flow to the west must be happening since antiquity, we know that greeks were part of persian army when it crossed the kabul river. The ancient world may have been more fluid then you think. greeks clearly borrowed mitra god from india into their pantheon, and mitra has presence in west asia since mitannis so there is also no question of persian borrowings.

regards
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,115
New Delhi, India
@Aup, if you can imagine the Central Asians coming to India and composing Vedas, I can very well imagine Aryas from India doing Ashwa Medha in foreign lands. Forget Mitanni?
Nothing wrong in imagining things, but the problem comes when you have to provide evidence, which is lacking in the OIT.
It is possible that the Avestan we read today may have been what the scribes did to the Vedic language in Iran in later ages.
No Vedic language in Iran. Say IE, pre-Vedic or pre-Zoroastrian (that is before the bifurcation). Sure, there are many levels in Avestan, old, middle and late; like we have in Sanskrit too Old Vedic, Vedic and modern Sanskrit. That is why 'niruktikaras' were necessary, Aupamanyava, Yaska and Sayana.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions