Questions for those who believe that Aryans came out of India

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,412
USA
#31
So, it looks like no OOI proponent can clearly answer the questions .

In any case, I have seen them answer these questions before and the answers and ideas are full of holes and do not really stack up against all the other evidence that comes together to form the currently accepted theory.

That might change if more evidence comes to light .
Quite easy, what are your counter arguments against what I wrote (I know I am asking for too much)?
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,099
New Delhi, India
#32
Oh yes, there was a one-way block near the North West of India, people could not go out.
Few come back, most take citizenship of the more prosperous or profitable country. That is why you find naturalized Indians in Hong Kong, Singapore, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Australia, New Zealnd, Europe, UK, USA, Canada, etc., or in Antigua, Barbados , Malta, Cyprus, Canary Islands, etc.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,099
New Delhi, India
#33
So, we should assume the modern Western interpretations of Vedas have no bias? We should also assume everybody other than AMT/AIT champions are biased.
No, we should not assume that without checking. Check and check again. That is how we can separate chaff from the grain. Even at home we give a second look to rice or lentils before putting it in the bowl for cooking.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,099
New Delhi, India
#34
The point was that saying Vedic is similar to Vedic does not make any sense. Did you understand?
No. No one understands but only you. You are confusing between pre-Vedic and Vedic. For Vedic to exist, there must have been a pre-Vedic. It is from pre-Vedic that Old Avestan arose. Two daughter of pre-Vedic - Vedic and Old Avestan. They were followed by New Avestan and Classical Sanskrit. But you would not understand this. You have your biases to battle with.
 
Likes: specul8
Jun 2012
7,067
Malaysia
#35
To begin, I would like to note that the popular term "Out-of-India Theory" (OIT) is quite misleading, for it gives the impression that all of India existed as one entity in the distant past and that Aryans were indigenous to the entire subcontinent. The more accurate term should be "Out-of-Sapta-Sindhu Theory" (OSST), since there is absolutely no evidence that the people who composed the early Vedic literature like Rig Veda had any significant awareness of places like Tamil Nadu, Orissa, or Assam (which are part of the geographical region known as "India"), much less that they regarded the peoples living in those areas as fellow Aryas.
That kind of makes sense.

Avestan (Iranian):
Ýô ýatha puthrem taurunem
Haomem vañdaêta mashyô
Frâ âbyô tanubyô
Haomô vîsâite baêshazâi

Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan):
yō yathā putram taruṇam
sōmam vandēta martyaḥ
pra ābhyas tanūbhyaḥ
sōmō viśatē bhēṣajāya

Tamil (Dravidian):
oru meṉmaiyāṉa makaṉ
sōma paruttu eṉa muṉṉum
piṉṉumāka pōṉṟa naparkaḷ uṭalkaḷ
sōma kuṇamaṭaiya varukiṟatu yār.
Wud be good if you cud provide an English translation.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,099
New Delhi, India
#36
Your posts about skin and eye colors are enough proof of your insecurity. Don't claim what you are not (ex. claiming that you are a JIvanmukta, utterly laughable).
I can't do much about my skin color or eyes. And for a 'jeevanmukta', your protestations are nothing other than amusing. It is fun reading through your posts.
 
Jun 2012
7,067
Malaysia
#37
People tend to interpret the data with their own bias, which will not do any good. This also includes the governments. For example, a huge unexplained delay in publishing in Rakhigarhi DNA findings. But rest ensure "Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."
One difference, though. The truth can often be dressed up. Or dressed down.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,099
New Delhi, India
#38
Wud be good if you cud provide an English translation.
Here: "Who as a tender son caresses Haoma, forth to the bodies of such persons Haoma comes to heal." AVESTA: YASNA: (English)
Aatreya also gave a very similar translation of the Sanskrit verse:
"He who takes care of Soma the way he takes care of his tender son, has his body rested and healed by the good flowing Soma."

More about the Zoroastrian concept of Haoma (Skt. Soma), here: Haoma Hom Homa
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
3,270
Des Moines, Iowa
#39
First, your objection to using OIT instead of OSST should first be raised against the use of the word "Aryan" in all the theories AIT and AMT. How on earth did these people take liberty to use that word? The only peoples that used Arya in the right sense of it (the word Arya derives from the word "Arya" meaning the "Lord", which meant Indra) were the Vedic people. What is wrong in saying OIT while people talk of Out of Anatolia? How old is the word Anatolia?
My objection is based on geographic grounds. My saying "Out-of-India," you give the impression that the entirety of the Indian subcontinent was the Aryan homeland, when in fact even the so-called OIT posits only Sapta-Sindhu as the Aryan homeland (since that is where the early Vedas are situated). This means that you still need to account for how Indo-Aryan cultural and linguistic expansion occurred in the 90% of India that lies outside of Sapta-Sindhu.


Now tell me how is the English translation any closer to Vedic than the Kannada translation is.
No one claimed that English would be closer to Sanskrit than Kannada (or any other heavily Sanskritized Dravidian language). The point is that even after thousands of years of Sanskritic influence on Kannada and other Dravidian languages, the difference between Kannada and Sanskrit is still far greater than the difference between Sanskrit and ancient Iranian languages. What this demonstrates is that mere cultural and religious influence cannot account for the Indo-Aryan expansion throughout Eurasia, because even if Vedic Hindus had some great cultural and religious influence throughout Eurasia (for which there is absolutely no evidence), the most that we could expect from such influence is a Sanskritized language like Kannada. It cannot explain the wholesale replacement of pre-existing languages and the emergence of Iranic and other Indo-European languages throughout western and central Asia.


There are many Dravidian languages in the heartland of Indo-Aryan languages. How do you think they survived even after being rules by so many clans that you mentioned?
What languages are you talking about? I am not aware of any Dravidian languages existing "in the heartland of Indo-Aryan languages." Dravidian languages in the northern half of the subcontinent only exist in peripheral areas, such as the Brahui in Balochistan (western Pakistan), and they are heavily influenced by their neighbors. It's also likely that they are recent migrants, rather than the remnants of some ancient Dravidian population.


The split between Vedic and Southern languages could have occurred further back in time than posited. There could have been some kind of isolation between the regions that allowed the Southern languages to grow outside the influence of Vedic/Sanskrit until again they met. On the other hand, the North Indian region was probably having some kind of dialects that were less removed from Vedic/Sanskrit, and so the transformation was easy.
You are simply shifting the goalposts.

1. If the split between the Vedic and Southern languages happened "further back in time," how do you propose that initial expansion took place? How was it qualitatively different from the later Aryan expansion?

2. If the Aryans had already expanded throughout India in the past, why didn't they demonstrate any basic awareness of the larger Indian subcontinent in the early Vedas? In the Classical Hindu epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana, there is a clear awareness of the Indian subcontinent as a wider entity. Where is the awareness in the early Vedas? Why don't we have mentions of regions like Bengal, Kalinga, or Andhra in the Rig Veda, if the people who wrote Rig Veda had already spread their languages throughout India?


What would have been the impetus for people from Fertile Crescent to move to Europe? Why would people from such a fertile land, with agriculture fully developed need to go to Europe that did not have farming? When the climatic conditions of the Saraswati valley worsened, people had options to move in many possible directions. While many chose East, others may have chosen to go West. Or in another possibility, this movement may not have been during the time of collapse of IVC at all, and could have been more ancient.
Europe is one of the most fertile continents in the world, and Mediterranean Europe in particular (which received the heaviest migrant flow from Fertile Crescent) has hosted dense agrarian populations since antiquity. In contrast, central Asia and eastern Iran have never been densely-populated by agrarian populations at any point in history, as environmental conditions have not permitted the creation of an enduring agrarian civilization in this area. The peoples who successfully spread their languages throughout the central Asian region, such as the Turkic peoples, could do so because they were highly warlike, nomadic, horse-riding peoples, and they were not looking for farmlands.


As per traditional records, Rishi GOtama went to the East from the Saraswati valley to the banks of Gandaki. At that time, the area was full of forests, and the AryAs made use of fire (VaishwAnara Agni) to clear forests and institute agriculture in that region. Another account says that AmAvasu the son of PurUravas moved West from the Saraswati Valley.
People made a big deal of how chariots were not found in India (forgetting the fact that they were not found even from the later times) until they discovered buried chariots in Baghpat. We may find many evidences that tell us that there were the Arya warriors that possibly went West. What is Mitanni? One must be really blind to not see the Prakrit kind of transformation of Vedic language. How do you think they reached the place?
The case of Mitanni is proof against OSST, not proof in favor of it, because the Mitanni expansion was not accompanied by any linguistic shift whatsoever. In fact, it was the Mitanni themselves who adopted the local Hurrian language. Thus, wherever the Mitanni came from and whatever the Mitanni were doing, it was insufficient to explain the kind of transformation that we see throughout Eurasia by Indo-Europeans. The nature of the Indo-European expansion must necessarily be far above and beyond the Mitanni expansion. Moreover, unlike in the Middle East, the steppes of central Asia already had horses and chariots for centuries. Do you propose that it was Indo-Aryans who introduced horses and chariots to the peoples of central Asia?


It is funny how you claim evidence for Hinduism or Vedic religion in Central Asia, while the AMT/AIT champions are so eloquent in quoting hymn after hymn of Rig Veda and citing archaeological evidence in those regions. While most of those claims arise due to pedestrian knowledge of Rig Veda, it seems that there was some amount of influence.
If Indo-Aryans had dominated all of central Eurasia and spread their languages throughout this region, we should certainly expect to see religious traditions directly derived from Vedic religions in this area (as opposed to simply sharing a common ancestor with Vedic religion). Where is the evidence of such religious traditions?
 
Likes: specul8

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
2,656
Australia
#40
Do you need help for understanding some points? Ask, and I will be glad to help you out. The point was that saying Vedic is similar to Vedic does not make any sense. Did you understand?
I rarely understand what you are on about due to what and they way you express it. The above ^ is a good example .
 

Similar History Discussions