Aryan The word aryan has no other origin than ancient sanskrit and its predecessor language. Arya(n) means noble, children of light, learned, honourable, etc. Like many people who are learned in Indian languages will realize that these languages have numerous words to convey the same idea unlike english and modern european languages. The older language relatives of Sanksrit such as modern Punjabi, Hindi and Marathi follow the same pattern. It is noted that Punjabi is actually the closest modern language to ancient Sanskrit. No other culture in the world cites the word 'arya(n)' more than do the Sanskrit works of ancient India. Much of the ancient culture of South Asia was transmitted westward to Iran (ancient Persia) and eastward to Burma, Thailand and Southern China and to closer neighbours like Tibet. Furthermore people seem confused over religion and how it transmogrified over the millenia. Fact: Vedic thought (Hinduism for sake of clarity) gave rise to Buddhism, Zoroastrianism (prophesized in Sanskrit texts as Jarathustra the son that will go against his forefathers thus is banished to the West!), Jainism etc.
The varios fantasies/fallacies of Aryan arriving/invading India are ridiculous. Who can believe wagons crossed over the Hindu Kush range thenthe Khyber pass to region Punjab in India-LOL! Try it in a Range Rover and let me know if you didnt crap your pants on the way!. The Radar/LandSat work over the 1990's found the old river bed of the Saraswati-proclaimed by invasion theorists as a myth and a way to prove their false theory now rebukes their claims! The findings of domestic horse antecedent (earlier than) to those in Central Asia evidencing India had mastered horse husbandry long before anyone else-once more rebuking the theory that an invasion took place.The list goes on yet 'europeans' dont want to accept that their origins are Indian and that indian genes, culture and thought travelled west and east enlightening all. I personally think it was a mistake and it should have stayed within that country becuase knowledge in the hands/minds of the meek is a dangerous thing. At least India is regaining its glory of the past as it is emerging as a new super power to be. Yes there were Greek Empires, Persian Empires yet before them all were the various Indian Empires. It is funny how the written record of a lineage of at least 100 kings is not believed yet people on line and every where will cite 'Herodotus or Homer'. In my opinion the were just poets and writers!
Indians are the only aryans, everyone else may have Indian (aryan) genes in them due to migrations out of India. Nothing more, nothing less.
Full Version: Arya's are from India
Indianboyz,
impressive writeup. There is a reason why a "certain community" is the biggest consumer of Western colonial propaganda about Indian culture (caste "system") and history (AIT). Don't get discouraged by the converts. They have found "jahilia" in their own ancestors. What a discovery!!!
impressive writeup. There is a reason why a "certain community" is the biggest consumer of Western colonial propaganda about Indian culture (caste "system") and history (AIT). Don't get discouraged by the converts. They have found "jahilia" in their own ancestors. What a discovery!!!
Thanks.
QUOTE (ahmedwazir @ May 26 2009, 07:53 AM) 
If the above Indian Supremacy Theory is indeed correct, and by that theory if India was the craddle of all the civilizations and that the Indians mov
QUOTE
ed out of their land outwards to subjugate all the lands in the east and the west, then I am happy with at least one outcome, i.e., the worse-than-slavery Indian JAT PAT Caste system did not travel alongwith those Indians to the vast territories to the east or to the west.Ahem, since when is diversity of native traditions deemed as theological division?? Only in the minds of these abrahamic religious and their secularized and "modern" progeny. I think these religious will not be satisfied till all wear bar codes and the last trace of native traditions are banished from the earth. such has already been accomplished by the believers in Native americas, native australia, phillipines, south korea, ancient persia, africa, and so on. How many cultures have been destroyed pursuing this dream of One True God, with so much iconoclasm and demonization. when someone points out the erasure of native cultures systematically across centuries, that person is blamed as "communal".
QUOTE
Only yesterday's killings of LOW-CASTE SIKHS by HIGH-CASTE SIKHS in vienna is a proof that people take their culture with them when they move abroad. I wonder why the million Indians in the older days just forgot to take their Caste system to other lands. Answer to this question clears the central question whether the Indians migrated to other lands, or the central asian aryans immigrated to India.
These are just people fighting over jealousy or whatever. Caste "system" is a British creation. Since I know you will not believe anything said by an Indian, here's something from your masters:
The Indian Caste System and The British -
Ethnographic Mapping and the Construction of the British Census in India
By Kevin Hobson
But it is useless arguing with such.
QUOTE
The Caste System and Aryan Invasion Theory
Marianne Keppens
Abstract
The controversy about the Aryan Invasion Theory has occupied scholars from several domains over the last few decades. The advocates of this theory claim that a Sanskrit-speaking Aryan people invaded or entered India around 1500 BC and brought along a language, religion and social structure, which they imposed on the indigenous population. The opponents claim that the Aryan people, their language and religion have always been present in India and hence that an invasion could never have happened. When we analyze the arguments from both sides, these sustain only one general conclusion: India has a long history of co-existence and cross-fertilization of different groups of people, cultural traditions, languages, etc. Given the trivial nature of this conclusion, the question becomes: why have so many scholars debated the Aryan Invasion Theory with such passion? To answer this question, my paper looks at how the Aryan Invasion Theory was developed in the nineteenth century. I argue that the theory itself did not emerge from empirical evidence or scientific theorizing about the Indian languages, archaeology or history. Instead this theory developed as an explanation of two entities central to the European experience of India: the caste system and Hinduism as a degeneration of Vedic religion. The Aryan Invasion Theory not only explained how the caste system came into being, it also accounted for the degeneration of the religion of the Vedas and allowed for the classification of its evolution into three main phases: Vedism, Brahmanism and Hinduism. The contemporary debate shows that it remains impossible to defend the occurrence of an Aryan invasion on the basis of the available linguistic, archaeological and other evidence. However, the significance of the Aryan invasion controversy becomes intelligible when one realizes that this theory did not emerge as a description of real historical events. Rather, it is a theory that explained entities which exist only in the European experience of India. As such, if we desire to understand how the ‘Aryan invasion' as well as the ‘caste system', ‘Brahmanism' and other related concepts came into being, we need to study the development of Western culture.
Marianne Keppens
Abstract
The controversy about the Aryan Invasion Theory has occupied scholars from several domains over the last few decades. The advocates of this theory claim that a Sanskrit-speaking Aryan people invaded or entered India around 1500 BC and brought along a language, religion and social structure, which they imposed on the indigenous population. The opponents claim that the Aryan people, their language and religion have always been present in India and hence that an invasion could never have happened. When we analyze the arguments from both sides, these sustain only one general conclusion: India has a long history of co-existence and cross-fertilization of different groups of people, cultural traditions, languages, etc. Given the trivial nature of this conclusion, the question becomes: why have so many scholars debated the Aryan Invasion Theory with such passion? To answer this question, my paper looks at how the Aryan Invasion Theory was developed in the nineteenth century. I argue that the theory itself did not emerge from empirical evidence or scientific theorizing about the Indian languages, archaeology or history. Instead this theory developed as an explanation of two entities central to the European experience of India: the caste system and Hinduism as a degeneration of Vedic religion. The Aryan Invasion Theory not only explained how the caste system came into being, it also accounted for the degeneration of the religion of the Vedas and allowed for the classification of its evolution into three main phases: Vedism, Brahmanism and Hinduism. The contemporary debate shows that it remains impossible to defend the occurrence of an Aryan invasion on the basis of the available linguistic, archaeological and other evidence. However, the significance of the Aryan invasion controversy becomes intelligible when one realizes that this theory did not emerge as a description of real historical events. Rather, it is a theory that explained entities which exist only in the European experience of India. As such, if we desire to understand how the ‘Aryan invasion' as well as the ‘caste system', ‘Brahmanism' and other related concepts came into being, we need to study the development of Western culture.
India has the biggest concentration of the Haplogroup R1a1 (amongst Kashmiri Brahmins)which is also found alot in Eastern Europe genetically.
And the Haplogroup J2 is also present in India which is the Mediterannoid marker.
And the Haplogroup J2 is also present in India which is the Mediterannoid marker.
R2 anchors the entire R line in India. Parent K dubbed as Krishna also anchors this line in India. J is Persian/Iraqi area, dubbed as Jahangir by stephen oppenheimer
Latest:
http://www.sandeepweb.com/2009/01/23/my-op...ional-identity/
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts...yan-debate.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7447100/The-Arya...uropean-History
Latest:
http://www.sandeepweb.com/2009/01/23/my-op...ional-identity/
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts...yan-debate.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7447100/The-Arya...uropean-History
QUOTE (Talageri)
Hittite, Tocharian and Italic are the dialects which, in any generally accepted schedule of migrations, were the first, second and third, respectively, to migrate from the original homeland; and the fact that they share a few isoglosses almost exclusively with each other (in spite of being found at opposite corners of the earliest attested dialectological arrangement), makes it likely that these isoglosses were formed due to interaction between these three dialects in an area near a common exit point from this original homeland as they moved away from that homeland. [The idea of the existence of a common exit point is also necessitated by the linguistic isolation of Hittite from all other branches. According to all the suggested migration schedules, Hittite was the first branch to separate completely from the rest, and all the other branches together developed certain fundamental features in common which are missing from Hittite. Any isoglosses shared by Hittite with some, but not all, of these other branches, are formed only after this initial separation, and could therefore only have been formed outside this common exit point when those branches were also moving out of the common homeland].
The homeland, in fact, must therefore be situated in an area either to the north (the Artic Homeland?) or to the south (the Indian Homeland, or the Anatolian Homeland) of the general Indo-European world: the exit point, leading away from the other dialects, led into the Eurasian zone, from where the three dialects migrated or expanded into their earliest attested areas.
But this cannot be to the north, since the last dialects in the homeland (see earlier), Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Armenian, Greek, and also Albanian as we shall see, are all found in their earliest attested stages, as the southernmost dialects of Indo-European.
The Anatolian Homeland theory, likewise, fails to explain the isoglosses shared by the last branches in the Homeland: Winn points out that the Anatolian theory fails to explain “the Indo-Iranian problem. ..
The homeland, in fact, must therefore be situated in an area either to the north (the Artic Homeland?) or to the south (the Indian Homeland, or the Anatolian Homeland) of the general Indo-European world: the exit point, leading away from the other dialects, led into the Eurasian zone, from where the three dialects migrated or expanded into their earliest attested areas.
But this cannot be to the north, since the last dialects in the homeland (see earlier), Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Armenian, Greek, and also Albanian as we shall see, are all found in their earliest attested stages, as the southernmost dialects of Indo-European.
The Anatolian Homeland theory, likewise, fails to explain the isoglosses shared by the last branches in the Homeland: Winn points out that the Anatolian theory fails to explain “the Indo-Iranian problem. ..
The Migration / Invaded theory cannot be denied, if someone looked at the Geographic and Geological borders of India. 3 sides of India is surrounded by sea, one side is completely covered by Himalayas. The Hindu Kush passes are the only land entry point to the Greater India
We have been asked to believe/study that Europeans are the one found the sea route to India. So, till British East Indian Company coming to India, all the trade routes were made through Land. The above claim is partially true that sea Trade relations with Europeans were started from there on and before that Trade was happening through Land with Europeans
However, trade relation with SEA was happening through sea. You can find may Indo-China countries had many ancient sea trade ports. Champa kingdom (note sure whether it is Hue or another port) from Vietnam could be considered as a Hub of SEA sea trade route. Before Singapore and Hongkong becomes Hub for SEA sea trade, there were many ancient ports in the Indo-China bordering countries acting as a Hub like Rangoon, Hue etc
Take "Greater India" which includes the Indo-China bordering countries. On the right you have Afghanistan and on the left you have Vietnam and both of these places were used for Ancient Trades routes. Land trade was happening through Afghan with Europeans and Sea Trade was happening to SEA and China. There as another famous port in the south called Colombo. This suppose to be the shortest connecting port for all the continents and well located to act as a Hub. The Modern India does not have any of these above 3 trade routes (Afghan, Vietnam, Colombo) however modern India has close relationship with these countries.
Even after WWII, USSR invaded Afghan and USA was trying to invade Vietnam, why?
The simple reason is these places are Geographically well located as a connecting Hub which will help those super power (at that point of time) to have quick access across the world
There was a mix of people who came through the Hindu Kush passes for trade / migrate / invade which cannot be denied
We have been asked to believe/study that Europeans are the one found the sea route to India. So, till British East Indian Company coming to India, all the trade routes were made through Land. The above claim is partially true that sea Trade relations with Europeans were started from there on and before that Trade was happening through Land with Europeans
However, trade relation with SEA was happening through sea. You can find may Indo-China countries had many ancient sea trade ports. Champa kingdom (note sure whether it is Hue or another port) from Vietnam could be considered as a Hub of SEA sea trade route. Before Singapore and Hongkong becomes Hub for SEA sea trade, there were many ancient ports in the Indo-China bordering countries acting as a Hub like Rangoon, Hue etc
Take "Greater India" which includes the Indo-China bordering countries. On the right you have Afghanistan and on the left you have Vietnam and both of these places were used for Ancient Trades routes. Land trade was happening through Afghan with Europeans and Sea Trade was happening to SEA and China. There as another famous port in the south called Colombo. This suppose to be the shortest connecting port for all the continents and well located to act as a Hub. The Modern India does not have any of these above 3 trade routes (Afghan, Vietnam, Colombo) however modern India has close relationship with these countries.
Even after WWII, USSR invaded Afghan and USA was trying to invade Vietnam, why?
The simple reason is these places are Geographically well located as a connecting Hub which will help those super power (at that point of time) to have quick access across the world
There was a mix of people who came through the Hindu Kush passes for trade / migrate / invade which cannot be denied
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.