Virendra
Ambassador
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,697
- Likes
- 3,041
Not always. That is when you migrate by choice, not when you move out of necessity/opposition.One is justified in challenging AIT, but not justified in making claims like Kshatriyas migrated out of India and went to Syria. Even Mesopotamia lies on the way from India to Syria. Why did the Kshatriyas not settle in Mesopotamia, and instead go to Syria, a less fertile region? People are more likely to migrate to fertile lands from desert regions, than the other way around. Surely you don't believe in that, or do you?
It is not the author who structured it in Claim vs. Truth manner as in the post. I did it that way. I wouldn't have to repeat it if you had seen the review link I gave.There is no such thing as irreversible truth, and the opening post's author does exactly that - writes 'truth' everywhere. How do I know what he is saying is the truth?
Although the review author hasn't used "may be", "could be". He seems more confident of standing scrutiny.
If his review was bogus, he would've received a fitting reply, which I don't see anywhere in the academic circles.
I don't mind leftists using "may be" "could be" if they don't know what exactly happened. For some things no body knows exactly what happened.
But when the same hypothesis is used to reach at convenient conclusions and people gulp it down as gospel truth, it virtually mixes theories and facts. From what I know in a subject like history you can't easily undo once the damage is done.
If they're not sure what happened, why sell it as history?
Hey this is a good idea by the way. Anyone could become a historian. Just put together some mumbo jumbo conjecture and say "You know we're not sure what happened but at least we're being honest by using "may be" and "could be"
Sati was practiced by the section of the society who the invaders targeted with utmost priority. They had it as the first goal to completely destroy and humiliate the ruling class. Because more than the logistical it had a psychological effect as the ruling class is a symbol of the prevailing system.Sati was probably practiced by a section of the society, but to claim that only the Royalty practised sati as a 'practical' purpose is ridiculous! How was it practical - any explanations?
Invaders would either butcher the helpless peasantry wholesale or leave them if they need the peasantry and lower classes to labor for them. Focus of their lust was the royal women and that is where maximum Sati recurrence is.
Sati was may have been practiced on an individual level even in the lower classes or peasantry. But there is nothing to tell that it was an organized tradition as in the women of ruling classes and was as furious/frequent.
Attacking the country side villages where peasantry/lower caste lived, would lead to abandoning and villagers would disperse into hideouts/hills/forests.
Attacking the cities and forts where the Kingdom's army makes its last stand would be a different scenario and flight is not the norm we've seen. In those cases the army and royals are trapped for fight till death.
The few plausible scenarios where I could see peasantry doing Sati includes Chittor, where peasantry had gathered in the fort for protection.
37 Skeletons in an unconventional grave. What are we trying to be prove by it? AIT? AMT?Thirty-seven skeletons found in a state of unplanned interment at Mohenjo Daro were put forth as evidence of a massacre at the hands of the Aryans (Wheeler 1968). Dales and others have since pointed out that the stratigraphic location of these skeletons in the residential area, rather than in the "citadel," and in levels of post-site abandonment, indicate that the "victims" were Post Harappan squatters. A full seven feet of debris separated the "victims" and the true Harappan occupation levels (Dales 1964). More conclusively, detailed skeletal analysis has shown that the "victims" were biologically different from true Harappans.
Yes there could've been n number of squatting tribes roaming around, who strolled up till that region. Question is - what can be said about them (in graves) without using the famous "may be" and "could be"? Dales also says that there are no signs of violent contact at that site. They could be anyone, a small tribe that came in touch with the last Harappans of IVC/SSC.
There is no evidence of major genetic influx into Indian gene pool during or around the stipulated centuries of AIT/AMT.
Excavation Sites in Rajasthan - Archaeological Survey of IndiaIs there any picture of a fire altar? I have not seen one. Fire worshiping is also practiced in former Soviet Central Asia. What is the point here? What does it prove or disprove?
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/indology/kalibangan-fire-altars.jpgBesides the above two principle parts of the metropolis there was also a third one-a moderate structure situated upwards of 8O m e. of the lower town containing four to five fire altars.
So the point is of cultural continuity. If there was a distinct external culture that replace Harappans, present days Indian wouldn't be worshiping by fire exactly the way Harappans did.
How does any of it support Thapar's stand that there were considerate migrations from Persia to Indus valley?Avesta has borrowed nothing from the Vedas. The Vedas and Avestha incorporated philosophies that were common among the peoples of that region (Central Asia). Both the Vedas and Avestha borrowed from the prevailing philosophies. The fact that there is an attempt to make the Avestha subordinate to the Vedas reeks of RSS propaganda.
While there is no evidence for west to east movement (as for Persia to Indus Valley), there are verses (quoted already) to suggest east to west migrations emanating from IVC/SSC region.
Then in what?Rig Veda was not written in Sanskrit.
First prove your hypothesis that Aryans were native to Central Asia.The elephant is not native to Central Asia, so it is more likely that elephants were new to the Aryans.
Argument was of Hindu attacks on Buddhists/Jains. Anyway, proof please.Hindus did carry out large scale attacks and massacre on Hindus, especially on the instructions of the then Shankaracharya.
Ok humble beginnings, fine. Was Mahabharata war itself a petty feud?Mahabharata started with cattle-theft. Cattle-theft and cattle-raids were probably prevalent all over the country.
Sure, here goesSwami Vivekananda openly challenged AIT? Or did he cast doubts? Any quotes?
Satisfied?There are patriotic Englishmen who think that the Aryans were all red-haired. Others, according to their idea, think that they were all black-haired.
If the writer happens to be a black-haired man, the Aryans were all black-haired.
Of late, there was an attempt made to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes.
I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole.
Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends.
( ~ Vol.3, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda )
Aryans couldn't take a direct Kingfisher flight from their (supposed) lebensraum to thousands of miles away in north west India.Afghanistan gets its name from Ashwakayana, and Ashwa means horse, because, Aryans are believe to have crossed the Hindu Kush on horses as they invaded or migrated (whatever floats your boat).
Such movements of people happen slowly and there would be numerous staging areas where the population stays before moving further.
The point was - why we do not find horse remains in any of the staging areas of IVC/SSC such as the BMAC.
At least the review author and others have detailed elaborate methods to reach at the correct date Silappadikaram, before directly giving the verdict like Thapar. As far as evidence is concerned, there is enough covered in the methods given above (such as the astronomical data).Claim-
Silappadikaram dates to 5th century A.D.
No evidence either way.
Regards,
Virendra