Originally posted by: capricornrcks
The Aryan invasion theory was debunked. I read somewhere that the Aryans 'migrated'. Whatever, there was a huge influx of outsiders at some point. That said, the people have intermingled so much by now that the defining factor has disappeared. We can't say, the North Indians are from Aryans and the South Indians are from Dravidians.That said the original Dravidian deities (Kali, Shiva) are more bloodthirsty and it's more likely that several mother goddesses have been swallowed up by the Aryan version of the religion. In the Rig Veda, Indra, Varuna etc were more worshipped. They have their counterparts in Greek Mythology as Zeus and Poseidon. It is possible that a section of central Asian people migrated to India while some others migrated elsewhere. To conclude, nobody is clear. We can only speculate.
We can't conclude that Sanskrit was the language of Aryans. Because people outside the Indian subcontinent (the other branch of Aryans) can't pronounce the different sounds of "da", "ta", "ra" etc.
When talking about Aryans I was talking about their migration only not the "debunked"Aryan invasion theory.
But Sanskrit and Aryans do go together. So obviously Dravidians will oppose Sanskrit imposition too.
What I don't understand why Hindi belt people don't have three languages in school like in South Indian schools. They don't learn English but atleast they can learn one more Indian Language
Excellent input from Kangana as always. I'm sure with this one important decision, all the economic and social problems of our country will be solved.
That's actually not true. The recent DNA analysis that was done proves the exact opposite. The scientists went to the press and claimed it disproves the AIT/AMT, but the actual study they published says the opposite 😆. Political pressure is such that they don't dare tell the truth.
Sanskrit was brought by Aryans. Shiva was worshipped by people already in India. So was Kaali. Aryans brought Indra worship. Eventually, the beliefs merged.
Originally posted by: HearMeRoar
That's actually not true. The recent DNA analysis that was done proves the exact opposite. The scientists went to the press and claimed it disproves the AIT/AMT, but the actual study they published says the opposite 😆. Political pressure is such that they don't dare tell the truth.
Sanskrit was brought by Aryans. Shiva was worshipped by people already in India. So was Kaali. Aryans brought Indra worship. Eventually, the beliefs merged.
Not quite, DNA evidence cannot prove or disprove AIT/AMT either way, both sides have used studies to support their claims over the years. This is essentially a linguistic issue. For AIT/AMT, you need to actually show a new material culture originating from point A and arriving in India, replacing/displacing an earlier culture, there is no archaeological evidence to support invasion/migration.
Originally posted by: Heisenberg17_
Not quite, DNA evidence cannot prove or disprove AIT/AMT either way, both sides have used studies to support their claims over the years. This is essentially a linguistic issue. For AIT/AMT, you need to actually show a new material culture originating from point A and arriving in India, replacing/displacing an earlier culture, there is no archaeological evidence to support invasion/migration.
Check the Rakhigarhi paper. I'm talking about DNA, not linguistic analysis.
While you're right that the paper doesn't prove definite proof of in-migration, what it does disprove is that there was no migration. The current claim from the *debunker* side seems to be that the migration went the other way. Basically, they argue that people from Indian subcontinent went to Central Asia, Iran, and Europe, not from Central Asia to India, Iran, and Europe.
Nevertheless, genetic differences have been found between the Ancestral North Indian and the Ancestral South Indian.
With re: Sanskrit. Sure, make it the national language. I would love to have it brought back to life. Would actually *debunk* some of the insane interps of texts provided by TV shows and grandma's stories.
When I was in school, we were taught the Aryan invasion theory. Whether it was an invasion or migration, it seemed to make sense that there were waves of population movement from Europe.
So I'm curious, how and why did people start challenging this theory? How did it come about? Did people find evidence that debunked AIT/AMT or did they want to debunk AIT/AMT and seek evidence to debunk it? Why do some folks seem to be strongly opposed to AIT/AMT?
Originally posted by: HearMeRoar
Check the Rakhigarhi paper. I'm talking about DNA, not linguistic analysis.
While you're right that the paper doesn't prove definite proof of in-migration, what it does disprove is that there was no migration. The current claim from the *debunker* side seems to be that the migration went the other way. Basically, they argue that people from Indian subcontinent went to Central Asia, Iran, and Europe, not from Central Asia to India, Iran, and Europe.
Nevertheless, genetic differences have been found between the Ancestral North Indian and the Ancestral South Indian.
With re: Sanskrit. Sure, make it the national language. I would love to have it brought back to life. Would actually *debunk* some of the insane interps of texts provided by TV shows and grandma's stories.
I am aware of the Rakhigarhi paper, that is based on one sample. No serious opponent of the AIT/AMT opposes any migration into India, the point of contention is that these DNA evidence cannot prove AIT/AMT, because genes cannot tell us what language they were speaking or what culture they followed. For that you need evidence from archaeology, linguistics, and Rig Vedic textual analysis, AIT/AMT proponents have completely failed to provide a strong case from these fields, so DNA is their last resort. I have been hearing the same claims "DNA proves AIT/AMT" since 2000, then further studies come out and contradict the earlier studies.
Originally posted by: Heisenberg17_
I am aware of the Rakhigarhi paper, that is based on one sample. No serious opponent of the AIT/AMT opposes any migration into India, the point of contention is that these DNA evidence cannot prove AIT/AMT, because genes cannot tell us what language they were speaking or what culture they followed. For that you need evidence from archaeology, linguistics, and Rig Vedic textual analysis, AIT/AMT proponents have completely failed to provide a strong case from these fields, so DNA is their last resort. I have been hearing the same claims "DNA proves AIT/AMT" since 2000, then further studies come out and contradict the earlier studies.
Linguistic analysis has actually been done, which is why Sanskrit is put in the Indo European group of languages while Tamil, etc, are Dravidian. That is one of the reasons that serious scholars do believe AIT/AMT. Whatever archeological evidence exists in fact suggests Indus Valley civilization did not belong to the Vedic people. So that's 2 out of the 3 claims you raised out.
What the very loud opponents of AIT/AMT demand is definitive proof while conveniently ignoring the fact they also have completely failed to provide any evidence that large scale migration didn't happen. Nor have they been able to explain the differences between ANI and ASI DNA.
DNA is not just the last resort. It is the one piece of evidence no nativist will have a serious answer to.
Hence: 1) the total silence on the genetic diff between ANI and ASI 2) dismissal of any genetic evidence as one being one/few samples without trying to explain why these samples always seem to point to AIT/AMT. What will finally convince them? A sample of millions? 😆It won't happen, but even if it did, that will be dismissed oh, a million is not a big percentage.
Anyway, this usually turns out to be a discussion which runs in circles. At one of my last attempts at these, one AIT/AMT opponent even claimed modern human originated in India separately from the species that originated in Africa. Before it devolves to that point, I'm out.
comment:
p_commentcount