'Indian history was distorted by the British'

[Mad Indian]

Ok I realise another huge flaw in your theory! If harappan adopted the language, did the Europeans adopt it too??


Also, you still have not provided evidence that the languages existed only from 1500bce and not before. How did you come to the conclusion that the language which existed in India was was spoken with continuous change from their origin in 45000bce ? And similar case with European language.

Also, the nomadic theory you proposed would have shown evidence based on genetic because they would ave had to cover Europe and India and tat is not possible without any genetic material staying back.


And no inequality said any thing about language spreading from India to Europe in 1500 bce btw. That notion itself was a stupid concept introduced by Britards thinking world as only 6000yrs old. The genetic evidence is that the Indians and Europeans split into two groups heading towards India and Europe at 60000-50000 bc, most likely from te indo-Iranian plain or central Asia. So much more likely hypothesis is that both developed their own writing and culture but similar sounding engages. This is a natural conclusion from evidence without a need for a magical tribe spreading culture and language to India and Europe without leaving a trace.



Also, provide proof for your assertion from a non aryan britard source. Indo European dominating harappan my ass

 

[Das ka das]

Ok I realise another huge flaw in your theory! If harappan adopted the language, did the Europeans adopt it too??


Also, you still have not provided evidence that the languages existed only from 1500bce and not before. How did you come to the conclusion that the language which existed in India was was spoken with continuous change from their origin in 45000bce ? And similar case with European language.

Also, the nomadic theory you proposed would have shown evidence based on genetic because they would ave had to cover Europe and India and tat is not possible without any genetic material staying back.


And no inequality said any thing about language spreading from India to Europe in 1500 bce btw. That notion itself was a stupid concept introduced by Britards thinking world as only 6000yrs old. The genetic evidence is that the Indians and Europeans split into two groups heading towards India and Europe at 60000-50000 bc, most likely from te indo-Iranian plain or central Asia. So much more likely hypothesis is that both developed their own writing and culture but similar sounding engages. This is a natural conclusion from evidence without a need for a magical tribe spreading culture and language to India and Europe without leaving a trace.



Also, provide proof for your assertion from a non aryan britard source. Indo European dominating harappan my ass

His "theory" reminds me of Romila Thapar's new theory about an "Aryan elite" dominating the native population. The only difference is his "Aryans" come from Afghanistan while Thapar's "Aryans" come from southern Russia.

 

[Subramanian]

Romila Thapar is a random bullshit merchant.

 

[A chauhan]

AIT/AMT/IE mix upt= Hearsay !

Genetic studies = Conclusive proof !

 

[civfanatic]

Ok I realise another huge flaw in your theory! If harappan adopted the language, did the Europeans adopt it too??

Yes, most likely.

Also, you still have not provided evidence that the languages existed only from 1500bce and not before. How did you come to the conclusion that the language which existed in India was was spoken with continuous change from their origin in 45000bce ? And similar case with European language.

We don't know what language the Harappans spoke, because the Harappan script hasn't been deciphered. If someone could decipher the script, it could answer a lot of questions.

As for the existence of IE languages in India from 1500 B.C.E. onward, this is based on the existence of cultures that show signs of IE culture, that were not found before in India. An example of this would be the Gandhara Grave Culture.

Also, the nomadic theory you proposed would have shown evidence based on genetic because they would ave had to cover Europe and India and tat is not possible without any genetic material staying back.

Why would it have to show any significant genetic material? I am not claiming that all IE-speaking peoples are biologically related. I am claiming that IE language and culture diffused across a vast continuum of diverse people, at least partially my means of a highly mobile, nomadic society. That is what the archaeological evidence suggests.

Also, provide proof for your assertion from a non aryan britard source. Indo European dominating harappan my ass

I already cited a study as support of my assertions. You have not provided anything.

 

[civfanatic]

His "theory" reminds me of Romila Thapar's new theory about an "Aryan elite" dominating the native population. The only difference is his "Aryans" come from Afghanistan while Thapar's "Aryans" come from southern Russia.

Fascinating. Show me the book and page number where Thapar claims this, please. I have read most of her books and I do not recall her ever claiming something like that. Surely you must know, or are you just speaking out of your arse?

Then again, it seems most people who criticize Romila Thapar haven't actually read any of her books.

 

[Das ka das]

You really are full of yourself aren't you? I said Thapar's NEW theory which might not have made it to the books.

Surely you must know, or are you just speaking out of your arse?

You and I both know that if I had written a similar statement, I would be banned in a jiffy. Try not to resort to personal attacks.

 

[civfanatic]

You really are full of yourself aren't you? I said Thapar's NEW theory which might not have made it to the books.

Did you yourself watch this video? I just watched it, and nowhere does Thapar mention some "Aryan elite from Southern Russia" dominating the native population. Instead, her assertions more or less match my own; that is, there was NO physical "invasion" or wholesale replacement of populations, but rather a spread of language through intermingling and interactions between different cultures in the area. The "Aryans" who we refer to are not some foreign conquerors but simply anyone who speaks a certain language. When we say that the Aryan culture becomes "dominant" among Harappans, we are not referring to some foreigners taking over the Harappans as slaves but a new culture gradually replacing an old one. The "Aryans" could have been Harappans and other local peoples themselves who had become IE-speakers and adopted IE culture, as I have argued and as Thapar herself points out towards the end of the video (if you actually watched it).

You and I both know that if I had written a similar statement, I would be banned in a jiffy. Try not to resort to personal attacks.

I apologize. But it seems that my statement was more or less accurate.

 

[Das ka das]

Did you yourself watch this video? I just watched it, and nowhere does Thapar mention some "Aryan elite from Southern Russia" dominating the native population. Instead, her assertions more or less match my own; that is, there was NO physical "invasion" or wholesale replacement of populations, but rather a spread of language through intermingling and interactions between different cultures in the area. The "Aryans" who we refer to are not some foreign conquerors but simply anyone who speaks a certain language. When we say that the Aryan culture becomes "dominant" among Harappans, we are not referring to some foreigners taking over the Harappans as slaves but a new culture gradually replacing an old one. The "Aryans" could have been Harappans and other local peoples themselves who had become IE-speakers and adopted IE culture, as I have argued and as Thapar herself points out towards the end of the video (if you actually watched it).




I apologize. But it seems that my statement was more or less accurate.

If you read my post carefully, I said your theory matches her theory. What you elaborated upon is basically what Thapar now believes.

You yourself had talked about "elite-driven language/culture shift" earlier.

 

[Sukerchakia]

@civfanatic - I have read some of Thapar's work and I am generally in agreement what she has to say about the foreign Aryan, gradually mixing with the local Harappan culture.

What I cant seem to locate though is a precise reason for the more advanced local culture to decline and its place taken over by a significantly pedestrian and unsophisticated civilization. If it was a gradual mixing of the two cultures, then shouldn't the more advanced local folks been able to preserve their way of life? I would assume that short of war no other calamity could force lead a massive civilization like IVC, spread over lakhs of square miles to swap its advanced way of life for something far less sophisticated.

 

[Das ka das]

@civfanatic - I have read some of Thapar's work and I am generally in agreement what she has to say about the foreign Aryan, gradually mixing with the local Harappan culture.

What I cant seem to locate though is a precise reason for the more advanced local culture to decline and its place taken over by a significantly pedestrian and unsophisticated civilization. If it was a gradual mixing of the two cultures, then shouldn't the more advanced local folks been able to preserve their way of life? I would assume that short of war no other calamity could force lead a massive civilization like IVC, spread over lakhs of square miles to swap its advanced way of life for something far less sophisticated.

Thapar's theory=Civfanatic's theory=rehashed AMT

 

[Das ka das]

I apologize. But it seems that my statement was more or less accurate.

I wonder if you will behave like such without the anonymity of the internet, certainly you would be missing a tooth or two if you flapped your gums like this in my presence.

[MOD Edit: Take such bravado to the boxing ring. This is a forum.]

 

[Sukerchakia]

Thapar's theory=Civfanatic's theory=rehashed AMT

Nothing wrong with that. These are two competing theories.

What are your thoughts on why the IVC suddenly went into decline and was replaced by an inferior culture.

 

[Das ka das]

Nothing wrong with that. These are two competing theories.

What are your thoughts on why the IVC suddenly went into decline and was replaced by an inferior culture.

Not saying anything was wrong with his theory simply its old stuff in a new bottle, nothing original.

And for the record when I typed of an elite dominating a population I did not mean that the population was enslaved but instead there was a cultural diffusion where the IA culture became dominant. Civfanatic in his earlier post either misunderstood what I wrote or deliberately created a straw man where there was none. I would not put that beneath him.

As to my thoughts on this: no one will ever know what happened to the IVC but the burden of proof is on the people who propose AIT/AMT or one of its recent avatars as it is quite an extraordinary claim, and so far I find all other evidence barring linguistics to be lacking.

 

[panduranghari]

Hmm, the same rehashed arguments mostly propagating the western view is still considered by the elites on this forum as a de facto truth.

The migration theories which are made up with a "Gengis Khan mentality" which is what AIT was and now the Harvardian Witzel's AMT is - which is to say that all migrations revolved around pillaging and occupation. Most migrations probably do not occur that way and language is more likely to spread because of people to people contact and commerce. People to people contact and commerce was thriving in the area between Egypt, Iraq, Iran and India between 3000 BC and 2000 BC. There is archaeological proof for that. If you look at accounts of travellers from a much later era you realise that until about 150 years ago long distance overland transport usually meant journeys lasting weeks or months. There were no letters to be written and little news to be exchanged. But people would pick up wives on the way and frequent travellers would have "a wife in every port" so to speak.

If your mother tongue is Marathi and you marry a French girl, she will not do koochie koo to your kid in Marathi. She will do it in French. The word "mother tongue" is significant in recognizing this fact. You may have a bilingual child after 6 years, but this fact was probably as true 5000 or years ago as it is today.

Some from of Prakrit may have been the common tongue across a wide area of not just India - but way across all the way to Iran. There is no proof of this - but there definitely is proof of a "Sanskrit like language" being present across those areas dating back to 1500 BC. Trade between Harappa. BMAC and Mesopotamia between 3000 BC and 2000 BC would have ensured a string of in-between towns and settlements where food and shelter could be found for travellers and caravans, and inevitably sick or injured people would linger in these areas till recovery and a few of them would marry there or find a wife there.

It is most likely that Indo-European language spread in this way - from the oldest urban settlements and trade rather than a village language being imposed by force on horseback. I suspect that other than the exceptional circumstances of South America a conquering, murderous horde has never managed to impose his language on anybody without a commercial advantage lasting many generations. South America may be a case of population replacement. Folk memories do not seem to retain any information about populations replacement.

Greek is much younger. The history of the Greek language and it basically starts around 1000 BC. Any similarity in folklore only adds to a well known connection between old civilizations, but the late origin of Greek tends to favour a late entry of PIE into Europe and not the "simultaneous spread" of language through India and Europe between 2000 BC and 1000 BC. That theory is convenient to explain the appearance of Greek, but ignores the "Indo Iranian" area that had civilization for 2000 years before Greece.

The Brits were masters at this and succeeded in screwing our psyche. Modern documents which are declassified states clearly they created Pakistan to ensure South Asia always remains a couldron.

 

[average american]

In my experience the British are brutally honest about things while Indians are masters at deludeing themselves. I think it is a culture thing, has to do with extended families even in business americans are warned about direct questions and being straightforward.

Doing Business in India: A Cultural Perspective

 

[W.G.Ewald]

In my experience the British are brutally honest about things while Indians are masters at deludeing themselves. I think it is a culture thing, has to do with extended families even in business americans are warned about direct questions and being straightforward.

And never tell outside the family what you're thinking.

 

[civfanatic]

If you read my post carefully, I said your theory matches her theory. What you elaborated upon is basically what Thapar now believes.

You yourself had talked about "elite-driven language/culture shift" earlier.

This is what you posted:

His "theory" reminds me of Romila Thapar's new theory about an "Aryan elite" dominating the native population. The only difference is his "Aryans" come from Afghanistan while Thapar's "Aryans" come from southern Russia.

I asked you to show evidence of Thapar claiming that "Aryans" originated from Southern Russia, because I am an avid reader of Thapar's work and never recalled her claiming anything of the sort. You then posted a video where Thapar claims something else entirely. In fact, Thapar has been consistently arguing against the old AIT since the 1960s, when she entered the field as a professional historian. But you probably haven't read any of Thapar's work (most of her online critics haven't) and so you wouldn't know that.

I mentioned "elite-driven language/cultural shift" because most instances where a large population adopts a new language and culture do generally involve an influential elite, and the Harappans seem to be a similar case. But this elite doesn't have to be of foreign extraction, nor does it have to rise to dominance through war and force. The "elite" in this case could be Harappans themselves who had adopted elements of IE language and culture early on; perhaps they belonged to the class of Harappans that dealt with foreign trade and commerce and so came into contact into other IE speakers to the north (the fact of trade between IVC and BMAC/Central Asia is well-established). If you watched the video that you posted, Thapar states that our definition of an "Aryan" should be restricted to a purely linguistic rather than ethnic/racial sense. So when we speak of an "Aryan elite" in the ancient Indian context, we are talking about those people who had become speakers of IE language, regardless of their ethnic origins.

I wonder if you will behave like such without the anonymity of the internet, certainly you would be missing a tooth or two if you flapped your gums like this in my presence.

Rather than acting tough, you should learn from your mistakes and in the future avoid misattributing authors you haven't read and making absurd claims that you can't support. Good day.

 

[Das ka das]

This is what you posted:


I asked you to show evidence of Thapar claiming that "Aryans" originated from Southern Russia, because I am an avid reader of Thapar's work and never recalled her claiming anything of the sort. You then posted a video where Thapar claims something else entirely. In fact, Thapar has been consistently arguing against the old AIT since the 1960s, when she entered the field as a professional historian. But you probably haven't read any of Thapar's work (most of her online critics haven't) and so you wouldn't know that.

I mentioned "elite-driven language/cultural shift" because most instances where a large population adopts a new language and culture do generally involve an influential elite, and the Harappans seem to be a similar case. But this elite doesn't have to be of foreign extraction, nor does it have to rise to dominance through war and force. The "elite" in this case could be Harappans themselves who had adopted elements IE language and culture early on; perhaps they belonged to the class of Harappans that dealt with foreign trade and commerce and so came into contact into other IE speakers to the north (the fact of trade between IVC and BMAC/Central Asia is well-established). If you watched the video that you posted, Thapar states that our definition of an "Aryan" should be restricted to a purely linguistic rather than ethnic/racial sense. So when we speak of an "Aryan elite" in the ancient Indian context, we are talking about those people who had become speakers of IE language, regardless of their ethnic origins.



Rather than acting tough, you should learn from your mistakes and in the future avoid misattributing authors you haven't read and making absurd claims that you can't support. Good day.

Urgh, I said your theory is very similar to Thapar's theory almost identical which even you admitted. And yes I do understand that it was the culture of IA that was dominant not the actual "Aryan race", that is what I meant by "Aryan elite" dominating population. You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Your theory is just rehashed AMT.

And isn't southern Russia/Ukraine and Turkey the two strongest contenders for the supposed Urheimat for IE languages?

 

[civfanatic]

@civfanatic - I have read some of Thapar's work and I am generally in agreement what she has to say about the foreign Aryan, gradually mixing with the local Harappan culture.

What I cant seem to locate though is a precise reason for the more advanced local culture to decline and its place taken over by a significantly pedestrian and unsophisticated civilization. If it was a gradual mixing of the two cultures, then shouldn't the more advanced local folks been able to preserve their way of life? I would assume that short of war no other calamity could force lead a massive civilization like IVC, spread over lakhs of square miles to swap its advanced way of life for something far less sophisticated.

It's a good question, and one that I had touched on earlier.

It should be considered that the Harappan civilization in the second millennium B.C.E. was in its late, degraded stage, and it was during that stage that IE culture diffused to the Harappans. This stage is classified as the Late Harappan Phase, which covered roughly 500 years from c.1900-c.1400 B.C.E. The archaeology from this stage shows lesser levels of material prosperity and a clear decline from the earlier Mature Harappan Phase (c.2600-c.1900 B.C.E.). I attribute the decline of the IVC primarily to environmental factors rather any external ones, namely the drying of major rivers (Saraswati), changing weather patterns, overgrazing of land, desertification, etc. The archaeological record shows evidence of a steady, gradual decline that is in tune with with this view, rather than a sudden, devastating collapse that is associated with cataclysmic events like a foreign invasion or natural disaster. So the bottom line is that, by the second millennium B.C.E., the Harappans were no longer leading a lifestyle that was as sophisticated or materially prosperous as it was a few centuries ago, but they were still around.

It was in this atmosphere of relative impoverishment among the Harappans (compared to the earlier IVC) that the IE culture became predominant. We can only speculate on the exact reasons as to how the culture shift happened, but I think at least part of it had to with the introduction of the horse and chariot, characteristic elements of IE culture. As you know, horses and chariots played a very important role in the Vedic/Post-Harappan civilization, and the chariot was viewed as an object of great prestige and value. The earliest users of the chariot may have been the IE-speaking Harappan elites, who had adopted the technology of the chariot from their neighbors to the north, and in the process some elements of their language and culture as well. Just as everywhere else in the world, the introduction of the chariot into India transformed society, in that it led to the rise of a new, prestigious elite of chariot-users. It is also possible that societies in India as a whole became more militarized during this period, with environmental pressures, scarcity of resources, and internal migrations resulting in increased conflict between different tribes, whereas life for the earlier Harappans seems to have largely peaceful. In such an unstable world, even more importance would have been placed on the chariot-using elite.