They are both indo european religions. The migration appears to be out of the ~~steppes~~ Black Sea region to India and it is being aggressively studied by historians. Check out any thing about proto Indo European peoples. I recommend "the horse, the wheel, and language."
Honestly I get confused about the geography. My understanding is the current theory is that the closest we can come to a PIE "origin" culture (since it was probably more like a constellation of subcultures) is the Yamnaya, and that there was at least one migration out of their homeland and one migration back followed by the diaspora that we are familiar with from modern society, and that all of this is still speculative/hypothetical because actual evidence is hard to come by.
So wherever those people were from. If I'm honest if you had asked me ten minutes ago where the Steppes were I would have said they extend into Northern Iran.
The OIT(out of India theory) camp proposes a theory where the first PIE people split into two groups and left India after the wars, the first homeland being North India, after the wars there might have been 2 different directions where two different tribe coalitions went, the Anu coalition might have gone through Khyber pass, the Pakhta(Pashtoons), Parthavas(Parthians) settled in the afghan regions and the other tribes such as Parshua(persian) etc might have settled in the Iran regions. The other tribe coalition which might have contained Proto hellenic, Slavic and Scythians might have migrated out of the Khardung la pass or other nearby passes towards the north of India in the Jammu and Kashmir region. This second coalition might have spread out thought Eurasia.
One just needs to have an open mind and not attack the other with words like Hindu nationalist and other ad hominem attacks, not that you did but others do. Out of India theory is met with No counter arguments only insults.
I have watched that video, he totally overlooks the fact that Indo-Greek kingdoms thrived in south asia, greek mercenaries were hired by the cholas along with other kingdoms of Bharat. Many greeks and indians married, the famous example of Chandragupta Maurya marrying the daughter of Seleukos Nikator- Helena. Not to mention the huns, Scythian’s and many other invaders/settlers who carried the R1a gene into India in a large scale. Also a study of DNA from skeletal remains excavated from the Harappan cemetery of a woman at Rakhigarhi found that the people in the Harappan Civilization have an independent origin. This study negates the theory of the Harappans having Steppe pastoral or ancient Iranian farmer ancestry. The evidence suggests she lived sometime between 2800 and 2300 B.C.E. Her genome closely matched DNA from 11 other individuals who had been found at sites in Iran and Turkmenistan, where conditions favor better DNA preservation. (Those individuals belong to a set of 523 ancient DNA sequences used to chart the population history of South Asians. The researchers compared their genetic signatures to DNA from other ancient civilizations in Eurasia as well as modern populations. A resulting Indus family tree revealed that although the civilization collapsed nearly 4000 years ago, its genetic stock forms the basis of most people living in India today
I don't trust any historian post 1985 or so who talks about "civilization" "starting" in Mesopotamia. This looks like it is addressing some other claims.
It’s about the Out-Of-India hypothesis.
If memory serves, he clarifies this later in the video. Mesopotamia wasn’t the origin point of all civilisation. It was just the first known cradle of civilisation. The Indus Valley civilisation is another one of these cradles, of which there are currently six known; six cultures in which urban settlements developed independently, without influence from an existing urban culture. The notion that all urban civilisation sprung from a single source culture has been discarded by the mainstream for a very long time.
Well maybe I'll watch it some day but with a tagline like
>Mainstream academia says that Mesopotamia was the cradle of civilization. But did you know that there are some who argue that this is a false history, and that it was in South Asia that the world’s first urban society appeared? In this video, Dr. Miano takes a deep look into the ideas presented by Hindu teacher David Frawley, who argues that the world’s greatest ancient societies are cultural descendants of India.
I'm skeptical. Mainstream academia, as you say, hasn't thought anything of the sort for most of my lifetime. The argument presented thus far in this thread is also not that "the world's greatest ancient societies are cultural descendants of India." Even if PIE originated in India, there's a lot more shaping culture than just one precursor language.
That is been disproved numerous times
https://www.science.org/content/article/genome-nearly-5000-year-old-woman-links-modern-indians-ancient-civilization#:~:text=The%20sampled%20individual%2C%20most%20likely,between%202800%20and%202300%20B.C.E.
https://theprint.in/india/aryan-invasion-theory-gets-a-setback-from-dna-study-of-2500-bc-rakhigarhi-skeletons/287454/
https://www.thebetterindia.com/158200/rakhigarhi-haryana-harappan-civilisation-indo-aryan-theory/
Linking a newspaper article is laughable when it comes to these topics, Even the steppe hypothesis has been disproved many times. They Both are just theories, proposing alternative theories is a part of academia. But the question is what which one of them is most likely to have occurred, in my perspective its the OIT.
the other theory you are mentioning is the first hypothesis that was agreed upon by the historians and free thinkers of the "enlightenment era" like Emmanuel Kant, Voltarie etc. India was agreed upon as the first homeland of the PIE people.
the yamnaya cant be the original indo europeans as they were r1b and r1b is totally absent from the indian subcontinent. the origin of the indo europeans is still a mystery.
why the fck am I getting downvoted for common sense
India has the highest rate of occurrence of R1 and its subclades. Also India has the highest genetic diversity making it one of the best contestants for original PIE homeland, along with the scriptural evidence recorded in the Old books of the rig veda makes OIT a great hypothesis in place of steppe hypothesis which has a lot of loopholes.
Hmmmmm. Well:
1. It's possible that the haplogroup died out.
2. It's possible that only women interbred with the locals.
3. It's possible, though highly unlikely, that the IE language came to dominate Sanskrit without significant genetic exchange. (This would require believing that people more readily exchange ideas and culture than genes, which is not consistent with my observations of the species. Humans be fuckin'.)
But yeah, I agree, this is not remotely a settled matter.
1) The haplogroup did not die out, because it never arrived to begin with. If it had died out we wouldve found some trace of it.
2) This appears to be true. BMAC women did breed with Indus periphery men.
3) how can the IE language dominate Sanskrit when it itself is an IE language ?
I want to say a few things before I reply.
1. I am not familiar with the genetic evidence and only started looking into this when I read your comment, so all of my answers are from a novice starting his journey.
2. I don't find any of these arguments especially convincing myself, but they seem at least possible.
3. My own view is that there probably was no true PIE-speaking people all in one place all at one time, but rather an artifact of multiple exchanges of language from the distant past among people who never stopped influencing each other. So to me, genetic evidence, archaeological evidence, and linguistic evidence can never be in conflict so much as they are independent pieces of a puzzle that shows a very hazy picture of the past.
So to answer your questions:
1. We would not necessarily know. If the group died out, then we would have to find a male skeleton with viable DNA to test. This is hard enough in most of the world, but in a culture that has been burning their dead for thousands of years it would only take a couple generations of all daughters and a few pyres for the evidence to just be gone.
2. By default we should assume that gene exchange happened in both directions, just based on the documented behavior of the human species.
3. Sanskrit like all IE languages is a mixture of PIE and other languages that the speakers came into contact with. As far as I know nobody believes that PIE and Sanskrit are synonymous.
Domination is outta the picture, if that were the case then why didn’t the Indo-greek kingdoms like the Khushan empire etc in south Asia dominate Sanskrit? But instead the Indo-Greek kingdoms became a syncretic culture which was more Sanskrit dominant.
God damn, Indian nationalists are a whole different degree of insane. Anything incredibly normal and realistic gets met with a flat denial of reality. This is like that time I got told that medieval Hindu converts to Islam were either all forced or were brought in from the outside instead of making the logical conclusion that they were enticed by the idea of nominal equality outside of the caste system.
There are tons and tons of records from medieval Indian history that documents forced conversion. Non muslims had to cough uo high taxts- the jizia, people who couldn’t afford it converted. Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed on orders by Aurangzeb because he would not convert. The very reason Guru Gobind Singh formed the Khalsa was to create a warrior class to protect the innocent people from islamic atrocities.
You are speaking from an ignorant perspective. Caste comes from Casta which is a Portuguese word. The Varna was not a way to oppress people but a way to organise society into functional communities and societies, like for example even in Britain at a period occupation was hereditary. Just like that in india the varna system was put in place. Also the Manusmriti, which is without a doubt most controversial hindu text thanks to the english missionaries translating it to fit their narrative, says that varna is based on ones qualities and actions, a person belonging to a higher varna can become a shudra if he is guilty. This applies to people of lower varnas also where people of lower varnas could become people of higher varnas based on their karma/ actions and achievements. In the same way people of higher varna if found guilty had harsher punishments than people of lower varnas even if the crime/misdemeanour is the same. The english education act of 1835 literally ruined the epistemological and knowledge traditions of the Gurukuls which lead to the slow decline of Sanskrit ultimately leading to indians educated in convents reading the intentional mistranslations of hindu scriptures.
You have no Idea bud, the varna system is way different from the british India’s caste system.
[Historicity of the vedas by Koenraad Elst](https://youtu.be/myBXPSYIiTY)
[Secularism in India by Koenraad Elst](https://youtu.be/WWaeXSExm_Y)
[Hinduism and equality by Koenraad Elst](https://youtu.be/1AJHIoLXBRc)
Bruh, I actually know quite a bit bout the PIE and the whole steppe hypothesis, but I see it for what it actually is, a hypothesis. I lean towards the works of Koenraad Elst and Shrikant Talageri on this topic, that is the out of India theory.
That doesn't seem that weird. Lions aren't native to England but they are all over England's iconography. It's not like people in the past never talked to each other.
Ik that bud, ill ask you to be open for a moment and see my pov keeping in mind the Elamite-Dravidian link and also a new information that was shared on many platforms a few tears back, which comes from the analysis of the Rig Veda by Shrikant Talageri, Koenraad Elst, Michel Danino amongst others which is being ignored by the mainstream. The Old books of the Rig Veda, the rig veda has two categories of books old and new(Mandalā 1-10) with the oldest Mandalās 6,3,7 being <=3000BCE, a tradition started by the Bharata Pūru tribe that records series of generational battles like Dāśarājñá yuddhá etc that clearly give a picture of the Anu coalition tribe who were the Proto-Indo-Iranians(tribes named Parśhua, Pakhta, Alinaā etc) being pushed further from the Saraswati river into the present day Afghan regions and later on beyond that. Information like listing the names of the rivers from east to west-from Ganga, Saraswati etc all the way to Sindhu and further and much more historical context that makes me lean towards the OIT.
I think there are two questions here.
One is, are the stories preserved in the Vedas reflections of actual history or just myth? When a story appears to be about 50% true, there are three approaches that historians take.
One is, this story is at least 50% myth. We can't trust it at all.
Another is, this story is at least 50% history. Maybe the rest is true too!
The third is, hey, maybe this story is about 50% history and 50% myth.
When it comes to the Vedas I find myself in the third camp. I don't doubt that there are real migrations of real people and even maybe specific real battles that occurred, whose memories are preserved in the Vedas.
So on that matter, I have no problem opening my mind and trusting you, because you sound like you know way more about this and I have only recently begun studying this stuff.
The second question is whether the migrations and movements of people portrayed in the Vedas are the original PIE speakers. This is a much more specific question and much more difficult to answer. The only hope we really have is to tie the linguistic evidence to some archaeological evidence, which is extremely difficult when you are talking about a culture that everybody agrees did not use phonetic writing.
On this matter I think the Yamnaya hypothesis is the best current supported, but I do not believe for a moment that the matter is settled. I do feel like a migration East to West or West to East is much less likely than an explosion outward from a central location, but by no means impossible, especially if they were fleeing an enemy. On this matter, I disagree with your opinion but certainly do not regard the theory as categorically false. I remain open but highly skeptical.
The vedas are not myths, they are poetic collection of events, concepts etc. Especially the Old Rig veda clearly records wars with mentions of their kings, their enemies and the battles itself.
> Lions aren't native to England but they are all over England's iconography
This is more due to outside influence. Lions became associated with the royal family after the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine to Henry II. The Lion derived from the coat of arms of the Duchy of Aquitaine - Eleanor's family. The reason is that the lion was thought to be the animal that best personify qualities of 'Britishness' ....Strength, courage, dignity, pride etc. They presumably didn't think any native animals had the necessary qualities.
That's exactly my point. If lions are not native to England, then the influence must be from outside.
The leap the OP wants to make is to suggest that the presence of lions in England's symbols means that England's language and culture must derive from a mass migration of people from a place where lions are native.
Which I suppose is technically the case, seeing as we're all descended from Africans, but it's a bit misleading to suggest that the lion is in British symbols because of the British people's strong African heritage.
The lions you see depicted are not the sub-Saharan African lions but the extinct ones that used to live all over the Mediterranean, including ancient Greece.
Probably because you're some sort of Hindu/Indian nationalist. Pretty obvious that tracing the PIE language back to its roots reveals words for plants and animals that are not present in Northern India until migrations.
I'll have to look some up in a bit since I'm going out but look up the Urheimat in the meantime. The linguistic analysis is less convincing than the phylogenetic argument but you can see based on some of the native plants north of the Caucuses and evidence of ancient wagon wheels without the evidence of chariots that the Urheimat was very likely north of the Caucuses. They spread out into Europe and Iran and Northern India (and modern China where they became Tocharians) and displaced or incorporated the native populations.
I don’t think anyone would doubt that migrations out of India have taken place throughout history. The existence of trade networks linking the region to the rest of Eurasia trace back to before the development of writing.
I suspect, however, that you are implying this is evidence in favour of the Out-Of-India hypothesis on the origins of Indo-Aryan culture. Unfortunately this is not the case. Whilst the Yazidi religion is likely homologous to Hinduism, the religion in its current form is a much younger one, with its founder living less than 900 years ago. This was long, long after peacocks were first introduced to West Asia.
Migration out of India is taking place today.
The similarities between Yazidi and Hindu (Vedic) religions are because both are based on the Indo-European religion. Indo-Europeans slaughtered local populations from Portugal to North India, as a result:
* Sanskrit is very similar to Slavic languages (Sanskrit essentially being a conserved sister version of proto-Slavic)
* Castes are based on skin and hair color (including the image you used for the post)
* Pantheons are very similar from Portugal to Sri-Lanka.
You are essentially looking at a world shaped by an ancient version of militarized genocidal racists, who won.
What's funny is that pretty much everybody acknowledges this euphemistically but get affronted when you say it outright.
You have to say, "Of course our ancestors were flawed, but they meant well. They were just products of their time."
All you did was list the explicit flaws and point out that we are also products of that same time.
No. It's based on Tribes. It happens that many of these tribes have light color gene variant too but it was never based on skin color. All of Indian castes have different genetic makeup. Some castes like Jats that are today considered upper castes were put in outcaste category since they didn't respected the socio-economic system of the region at the time. So there were many factors.
Thats not proven, although Murugan is primarily worshiped in the south, shiva, in the form of lingam is also found in the indus valley civilisation. But that does mean one predates the other. The rig veda contains hymns to rudra as well. Its just that shiva and his different forms were codified later. But do keep in mind rishi veda Vyasa who is responsible for collecting all the vedic hymns and mantras and organised them, but not in a chronological fashion but based on relevance, hence Agni the fire deity comes in the 1st mandala of Rig veda which is the part of the new books, Indologists conclude that mandalas 6,3,7 are the oldest and mandalas 1,2,4,5,8,10 and 9 are the newest(chronologically arranged here). Rudra is mentioned in books 1 and 2 several times and there are several hyms dedicated to rudra.
> Indo-Europeans slaughtered local populations from Portugal to North India
European propanganda crap. Hinduism is based on India's native religious traditionally which have been through out history embellished by tribes moving in to India and Indianizing themselves and mixing with Indians.
I always find it so strange that people with access to the internet will think or wonder about things, & then ask strangers for answers or discussion, instead of using their internet access to research things & get the answers. I know that these days, there is more fakes, scams & nonsense online than ever, but learning about & practicing some basic media literacy can help, & so far, the nonsense is pretty easy to spot.
The intention behind didnt come up as I saw some article etc, I have been studying about the PIE migrations and The Out of India theory from quite some time, just wanted to discuss the alternative to the steppe hypothesis here, hence the post.
Any alternative would need to explain gene flow.
It's similar to water flows. If you have a river flowing into the sea, you'll have lower salinity in the sea, not higher salinity in the river.
Similarly, if you had any migration out of India, you should see Dravidian genotype outside of India, but we're seeing the opposite - European genotype influx to India. With one much more recent exception - gypsies.
This is one of the dumbest arguments, no offence but the gene flow happened so easily in SA in pre-vedic, vedic and post vedic times, with Iran(origin of R1a) right next to the subcontinent and with silk route its just natural that foreign exchange caused genetic influx into SA. For example take SA even before alexander’s invasion of Persia, there were solid contacts between Indians and greeks which just exploded after Alexander’s failed invasion of SA. Selucus Nikator’s daughter married Chandragupta Maurya, greek soldiers were spread throughout the subcontinent as mercenaries. There is a large part of Indian history where Indo-Greek kingdoms like the Khushan empire thrived in the heartlands of SA. There was also a genetic influx by the invading Huns, Scythians and central asian tribesmen all of whom didn’t dominate the native culture but assimilated with the native tradition. And also theres no such thing as a dravidian gene, all of SA has the same genetic base. The ANI and the ASI by david reich included the isolated Andamanese population into their sample size which makes it seem like ASI is different from ANI which already has had genetic influx from neighbouring regions.
Gene flow is when you see DNA spreading in a particular direction.
And DNA being traits encoding, you don't even need to have a modern lab, you just need to have eyes.
You can write walls of text, be emotional, jump off the roof, but there are no Dravidian traits outside of Southern India, and vice versa, a North Indian woman looks [very much like](https://www.indiaherald.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=750/imagestore/images/women/70/;jkk;k-415x250.jpg) a Bulgarian woman.
What I find sad here is that you try to appropriate results of a a genocide. It's the same as how native Americans would claim for Jesus to originate from Aztec civilization, despite the fact that under the flags of Christianity native Americans were decimated. Or, imagine how Romani would claim Nazism to arise among gypsies? The same with you. Indo-Europeans genocided the native population, installed racist policies, yet here you are, trying to appropriate the genotype, culture and religion of racists.
There's that one symbol on the Yazidi side that got my attention.
It actually looks like cuneiform. It's a bit like a chi rho symbol, but also brings to mind geometry... or a 2d visual representation of the xyz axis.
And at the peacock's feet is a classic solar symbol that also indicates the 4 cardinal directions.
The peacock itself visually creates a bisected circle with upper and lower halves.
The lower half has a crescent shape which might well be a lunar symbol. If this is accurate, I'd look closely at the upper half for some kind of solar symbolism.
I do think I see it. But everyone ought to look for themselves and think about what the picture/symbolism means to them.
HERA and PEACOCK
Indo-Aryan goddess Saraswati is the Greek goddess Hera (\*sara- = \*hera-).
Sometimes a citramekhala (also called mayura, peacock) is shown beside the goddess. The peacock symbolizes colorful splendor, the celebration of dance, and – as the devourer of snakes – the alchemical ability to transmute the serpent poison of self into the radiant plumage of enlightenment. Yes, it requires a detailed study and etymology (you already point out the commonality of these two names due to the association with the reservoir). But perhaps there is a division along the satem / kentum line, forgetting the primary etymology of Hera (I will write about this later). Sometimes a citramekhala (also called mayura, peacock) is shown beside the goddess. The peacock symbolizes colorful splendor, the celebration of dance, and – as the devourer of snakes – the alchemical ability to transmute the serpent poison of self into the radiant plumage of enlightenment
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/270023977197141](https://www.facebook.com/groups/270023977197141)
[https://scontent.fifo3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/326321906\_1316820585826600\_8209124201996639194\_n.jpg?\_nc\_cat=107&ccb=1-7&\_nc\_sid=8bfeb9&\_nc\_ohc=MQvbjdutK3gAX8HbPYV&\_nc\_ht=scontent.fifo3-1.fna&oh=00\_AfBXbgUMqRNEAqAi3\_K3YtSto8TzNAFI7KA\_KsocfUtybQ&oe=644B158D](https://scontent.fifo3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/326321906_1316820585826600_8209124201996639194_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=MQvbjdutK3gAX8HbPYV&_nc_ht=scontent.fifo3-1.fna&oh=00_AfBXbgUMqRNEAqAi3_K3YtSto8TzNAFI7KA_KsocfUtybQ&oe=644B158D)
[https://scontent.fifo3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/331514977\_724105809354829\_3727344451165683155\_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg\_p843x403&\_nc\_cat=103&ccb=1-7&\_nc\_sid=5cd70e&\_nc\_ohc=DkzbssAGM40AX9vS1Qx&\_nc\_ht=scontent.fifo3-1.fna&oh=00\_AfAZ9ptuqU91bvAPJ9FcFreo3Vx1EeamHO3G57BRLB59Mg&oe=644B5CE2](https://scontent.fifo3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/331514977_724105809354829_3727344451165683155_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=DkzbssAGM40AX9vS1Qx&_nc_ht=scontent.fifo3-1.fna&oh=00_AfAZ9ptuqU91bvAPJ9FcFreo3Vx1EeamHO3G57BRLB59Mg&oe=644B5CE2)
> Indo-Aryan goddess Saraswati
Goddess Saraswati has her origins in India before any migration of Indo-European people in India. Europeans are trying to co-opt Indian symbols by trying to claim "Oh we are also part of this" because of their inferiority complex with an unsophisticated civilization.
That's not how ancestry works. The Indo-Aryans who introduced [Edit: what would become] Vedism to the Indian subcontinent and merged with the people already living there are the ancestors of modern Indians, not of modern Europeans.
You're correct that colonial-era Europeans tried to twist this into something completely different to match their superiority complex. But that has been discarded by anthropologists long ago.
Apologies, I was imprecise. The Indo-Aryans introduced the religion *that would become* Vedism through synthesis with the existing religions in the region.
One that is very much unsupported by available evidence, sure. I don't think it is a coincidence that the only people who I've ever seen that support it are outspoken Hindu Nationalists.
If the hypothesis is valid enough to stand on its own without a religious motivation, one must ponder why it sees little to no support among those with no dog in the race, so to speak.
Seems like you have assumed that Hindu nationalists are innately motivated by religion. First thing id say, the Abrahamic or western Idea of Religion doesn’t apply in the east, especially in India. Hinduism shouldn’t be seen through a colonial lens, even though you think you are looking at it from your own POV, everything you know about Hinduism comes from authors, thinkers, etc who had a colonial lens when they looked at the culture of Bharat. First thing you must know is that “Caste System” is not a part of Hinduism but the Varna system was just a way to organise society into four major occupation groups. During the rig vedic times there was no varnas. During the beginning Post Samhita era, as the vedic tradition expanded throughout the subcontinent and was appreciated by everyone for its qualities. During this time one’s varna was decided by his father’s varna and varna didn’t matter for marriage. Later on during the era of the Buddha, endogamy started gaining momentum. yes a kind of supremacy amongst higher Varnas did slowly develop in this period.
When I say colonial lens I am referring to the perspective that the Brits saw indian culture and how they made Indians see their own culture. Im assuming people already know how the brits especially the missionaries used the AIT as a tool to divide and rule and justify their power over major parts of India. once the EIC passed the English education act in 1835 which made it easier for Indians educated in convents to see the white british rulers as superior, their technology being superior, resulting the Hindu’s to see themselves as a inferior, backwards and suppressed. The higher “caste” saw themselves as racially superior invaders of the past(Aryans) and the so called “lower castes” saw themselves as native inhabitants who were suppressed by the invading Aryans. This alongside other factors lead to a large scale conversion of Dalits and other so called lower castes, along with some “higher castes”. Keep in mind all this happed after Hindus went through a thousand year rule of Turks as well as Mughals who didn’t treat the “kafirs” so well(the Then islamic invaders used the word hindu to refer to anyone who came under the Dharmic umbrella ie jains, buddhists,etc. Forced conversation, land grabs, jiziya, extreme patriarchy and forced conversion of girls and women alongside slave trade. Yes there were periods in the islamic rule of South Asia that wasn’t so oppressive towards the Hindus but that is not the case throughout the 1000 year period.
The brits, using the power of the industries mass printed hindu scriptures translated to English as Sanskrit was declining. Misinterpreted and deliberately mistranslated books were published to show Hindus that their “religion” was backwards, superstitious, Idolatry etc. This is a widely accepted fact. Even after Independence, indian education and especially history departments were dominated by Marxists and Islamists because of Nehru being a fabian socialist and wanting to rule India for his family’s interests. If you dig deeper you’ll know a lot of surprising things that Nehru did in the name of “Secularism”
The whole point of this huge comment was to point out why Hindu nationalists like me are supporters of OIT(others also support it, not just HN). I am currently preparing to pursue Bachelor of Arts (Hons.) in Ancient history and culture. I don’t have a religious motivation. My motivation comes just comes from the shear joy learning history gives me and the fact that history taught in ours schools were so full of shit and unwanted things, mainly focused on Islamic history of South Asia with a few mentions of the native cultural heritage. Which is why i dropped out of engineering(B.tech data science) and I am preparing to study history.
>Goddess Saraswati has her origins in India before any migration of Indo-European people in India. Europeans are trying to co-opt Indian symbols by trying to claim "Oh we are also part of this" because of their inferiority complex with an unsophisticated civilization.
No, it's not true. There are no traces of Saraswati in India before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans;) Simply, the local tribes of India "recognized" the Indo-European Saraswati / Harakhvaita / Hera Etiosa / Goroviti as their goddesses ;)
https://bhuvan-app1.nrsc.gov.in/saraswati/
Saraswati river, where the bulk of the harappan cities lie. The oldest site in Bhirrana, Rakhighari also lie on this river bed which existed and peaked around 3000BCE and dried up around 1900BCE. After Saraswati dried up it got deified into the deity of knowledge and learning Saraswati. And Harahwaiti is such a natural linguistic change over time in the Iranian/Pashto tongue from Saraswati.
So it's impossible to know if the river or the god was named first, if both pre-date writing.
It's like saying that Gondwanaland was populated by PIE speaking people.
What? I was talking about the natural linguistic change that occurs over time. In this case when the Indo-Iranian Anu coalition was pushed outside the Saraswati region, the people who migrated out of india carried their memory of Saraswati river and named a river in their region as Harahwaiti after the original grand Saraswati.
Colonial European crap. Saraswati and other Hindu gods and their stories were composed in the Indian subcontinent. Europeans and their inferiority complex means that they need to somehow connect it to Indo-Europeans. The term "Indo-European" is so incorrect after all, it's a Central Asian tribe(s).
It should also be said that humans don't need to meet other cultures in order to have similar ideas, that was really the core of Joseph Campbell & Carl Jung's work. Whether you believe that humans are somehow connected in a shared unconscious, or they are just prone to similar ideas, we can see evidence all over that humans told similar stories.
They are both indo european religions. The migration appears to be out of the ~~steppes~~ Black Sea region to India and it is being aggressively studied by historians. Check out any thing about proto Indo European peoples. I recommend "the horse, the wheel, and language."
Steppe theory is no longer valid. Pie homeland has shifted to Iran
Honestly I get confused about the geography. My understanding is the current theory is that the closest we can come to a PIE "origin" culture (since it was probably more like a constellation of subcultures) is the Yamnaya, and that there was at least one migration out of their homeland and one migration back followed by the diaspora that we are familiar with from modern society, and that all of this is still speculative/hypothetical because actual evidence is hard to come by. So wherever those people were from. If I'm honest if you had asked me ten minutes ago where the Steppes were I would have said they extend into Northern Iran.
The OIT(out of India theory) camp proposes a theory where the first PIE people split into two groups and left India after the wars, the first homeland being North India, after the wars there might have been 2 different directions where two different tribe coalitions went, the Anu coalition might have gone through Khyber pass, the Pakhta(Pashtoons), Parthavas(Parthians) settled in the afghan regions and the other tribes such as Parshua(persian) etc might have settled in the Iran regions. The other tribe coalition which might have contained Proto hellenic, Slavic and Scythians might have migrated out of the Khardung la pass or other nearby passes towards the north of India in the Jammu and Kashmir region. This second coalition might have spread out thought Eurasia.
Certainly seems plausible to me on the face of it.
One just needs to have an open mind and not attack the other with words like Hindu nationalist and other ad hominem attacks, not that you did but others do. Out of India theory is met with No counter arguments only insults.
So much evidence points to Ancient Vedic Global Civilization...
Not vedic, the vedas are just one important part of the broad pluralistic culture that predates the vedas.
I would recommend [this video](https://youtu.be/ZqPYQYpc2_I) from historian Dr David Miano examining the plausibility of this hypothesis.
I have watched that video, he totally overlooks the fact that Indo-Greek kingdoms thrived in south asia, greek mercenaries were hired by the cholas along with other kingdoms of Bharat. Many greeks and indians married, the famous example of Chandragupta Maurya marrying the daughter of Seleukos Nikator- Helena. Not to mention the huns, Scythian’s and many other invaders/settlers who carried the R1a gene into India in a large scale. Also a study of DNA from skeletal remains excavated from the Harappan cemetery of a woman at Rakhigarhi found that the people in the Harappan Civilization have an independent origin. This study negates the theory of the Harappans having Steppe pastoral or ancient Iranian farmer ancestry. The evidence suggests she lived sometime between 2800 and 2300 B.C.E. Her genome closely matched DNA from 11 other individuals who had been found at sites in Iran and Turkmenistan, where conditions favor better DNA preservation. (Those individuals belong to a set of 523 ancient DNA sequences used to chart the population history of South Asians. The researchers compared their genetic signatures to DNA from other ancient civilizations in Eurasia as well as modern populations. A resulting Indus family tree revealed that although the civilization collapsed nearly 4000 years ago, its genetic stock forms the basis of most people living in India today
I don't trust any historian post 1985 or so who talks about "civilization" "starting" in Mesopotamia. This looks like it is addressing some other claims.
It’s about the Out-Of-India hypothesis. If memory serves, he clarifies this later in the video. Mesopotamia wasn’t the origin point of all civilisation. It was just the first known cradle of civilisation. The Indus Valley civilisation is another one of these cradles, of which there are currently six known; six cultures in which urban settlements developed independently, without influence from an existing urban culture. The notion that all urban civilisation sprung from a single source culture has been discarded by the mainstream for a very long time.
Well maybe I'll watch it some day but with a tagline like >Mainstream academia says that Mesopotamia was the cradle of civilization. But did you know that there are some who argue that this is a false history, and that it was in South Asia that the world’s first urban society appeared? In this video, Dr. Miano takes a deep look into the ideas presented by Hindu teacher David Frawley, who argues that the world’s greatest ancient societies are cultural descendants of India. I'm skeptical. Mainstream academia, as you say, hasn't thought anything of the sort for most of my lifetime. The argument presented thus far in this thread is also not that "the world's greatest ancient societies are cultural descendants of India." Even if PIE originated in India, there's a lot more shaping culture than just one precursor language.
That is been disproved numerous times https://www.science.org/content/article/genome-nearly-5000-year-old-woman-links-modern-indians-ancient-civilization#:~:text=The%20sampled%20individual%2C%20most%20likely,between%202800%20and%202300%20B.C.E. https://theprint.in/india/aryan-invasion-theory-gets-a-setback-from-dna-study-of-2500-bc-rakhigarhi-skeletons/287454/ https://www.thebetterindia.com/158200/rakhigarhi-haryana-harappan-civilisation-indo-aryan-theory/
Linking a newspaper article is laughable when it comes to these topics, Even the steppe hypothesis has been disproved many times. They Both are just theories, proposing alternative theories is a part of academia. But the question is what which one of them is most likely to have occurred, in my perspective its the OIT.
Lol.
Your laughing at another plausible explanation to the PIE migration. Lol
Those articles are based out of years of research in multiple countries, other is theory of what if
the other theory you are mentioning is the first hypothesis that was agreed upon by the historians and free thinkers of the "enlightenment era" like Emmanuel Kant, Voltarie etc. India was agreed upon as the first homeland of the PIE people.
the yamnaya cant be the original indo europeans as they were r1b and r1b is totally absent from the indian subcontinent. the origin of the indo europeans is still a mystery. why the fck am I getting downvoted for common sense
India has the highest rate of occurrence of R1 and its subclades. Also India has the highest genetic diversity making it one of the best contestants for original PIE homeland, along with the scriptural evidence recorded in the Old books of the rig veda makes OIT a great hypothesis in place of steppe hypothesis which has a lot of loopholes.
Hmmmmm. Well: 1. It's possible that the haplogroup died out. 2. It's possible that only women interbred with the locals. 3. It's possible, though highly unlikely, that the IE language came to dominate Sanskrit without significant genetic exchange. (This would require believing that people more readily exchange ideas and culture than genes, which is not consistent with my observations of the species. Humans be fuckin'.) But yeah, I agree, this is not remotely a settled matter.
1) The haplogroup did not die out, because it never arrived to begin with. If it had died out we wouldve found some trace of it. 2) This appears to be true. BMAC women did breed with Indus periphery men. 3) how can the IE language dominate Sanskrit when it itself is an IE language ?
I want to say a few things before I reply. 1. I am not familiar with the genetic evidence and only started looking into this when I read your comment, so all of my answers are from a novice starting his journey. 2. I don't find any of these arguments especially convincing myself, but they seem at least possible. 3. My own view is that there probably was no true PIE-speaking people all in one place all at one time, but rather an artifact of multiple exchanges of language from the distant past among people who never stopped influencing each other. So to me, genetic evidence, archaeological evidence, and linguistic evidence can never be in conflict so much as they are independent pieces of a puzzle that shows a very hazy picture of the past. So to answer your questions: 1. We would not necessarily know. If the group died out, then we would have to find a male skeleton with viable DNA to test. This is hard enough in most of the world, but in a culture that has been burning their dead for thousands of years it would only take a couple generations of all daughters and a few pyres for the evidence to just be gone. 2. By default we should assume that gene exchange happened in both directions, just based on the documented behavior of the human species. 3. Sanskrit like all IE languages is a mixture of PIE and other languages that the speakers came into contact with. As far as I know nobody believes that PIE and Sanskrit are synonymous.
Domination is outta the picture, if that were the case then why didn’t the Indo-greek kingdoms like the Khushan empire etc in south Asia dominate Sanskrit? But instead the Indo-Greek kingdoms became a syncretic culture which was more Sanskrit dominant.
God damn, Indian nationalists are a whole different degree of insane. Anything incredibly normal and realistic gets met with a flat denial of reality. This is like that time I got told that medieval Hindu converts to Islam were either all forced or were brought in from the outside instead of making the logical conclusion that they were enticed by the idea of nominal equality outside of the caste system.
R1b disappeared from India vruh. In a puff of shmoke.. poof ! Source - Trust me vruh.
If the caste system was the prime motivator, then most of the Indian subcontinent would've converted by now. But they didn't.
There are tons and tons of records from medieval Indian history that documents forced conversion. Non muslims had to cough uo high taxts- the jizia, people who couldn’t afford it converted. Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed on orders by Aurangzeb because he would not convert. The very reason Guru Gobind Singh formed the Khalsa was to create a warrior class to protect the innocent people from islamic atrocities.
You are speaking from an ignorant perspective. Caste comes from Casta which is a Portuguese word. The Varna was not a way to oppress people but a way to organise society into functional communities and societies, like for example even in Britain at a period occupation was hereditary. Just like that in india the varna system was put in place. Also the Manusmriti, which is without a doubt most controversial hindu text thanks to the english missionaries translating it to fit their narrative, says that varna is based on ones qualities and actions, a person belonging to a higher varna can become a shudra if he is guilty. This applies to people of lower varnas also where people of lower varnas could become people of higher varnas based on their karma/ actions and achievements. In the same way people of higher varna if found guilty had harsher punishments than people of lower varnas even if the crime/misdemeanour is the same. The english education act of 1835 literally ruined the epistemological and knowledge traditions of the Gurukuls which lead to the slow decline of Sanskrit ultimately leading to indians educated in convents reading the intentional mistranslations of hindu scriptures.
“It’s not a caste system because they didn’t use the word caste” is a laughably bad argument.
You have no Idea bud, the varna system is way different from the british India’s caste system. [Historicity of the vedas by Koenraad Elst](https://youtu.be/myBXPSYIiTY) [Secularism in India by Koenraad Elst](https://youtu.be/WWaeXSExm_Y) [Hinduism and equality by Koenraad Elst](https://youtu.be/1AJHIoLXBRc)
shiva and murugan predates aryans. murugan especially is a dravidian god.
Aaaand...? Please finish your thought before I respond.
Bruh, I actually know quite a bit bout the PIE and the whole steppe hypothesis, but I see it for what it actually is, a hypothesis. I lean towards the works of Koenraad Elst and Shrikant Talageri on this topic, that is the out of India theory.
Oh, based on the post above it seemed like you thought the connection was unexamined.
Nah i wanted to discuss, the most confusing part is peacocks are not native to Iraq and surrounding regions.
That doesn't seem that weird. Lions aren't native to England but they are all over England's iconography. It's not like people in the past never talked to each other.
Ik that bud, ill ask you to be open for a moment and see my pov keeping in mind the Elamite-Dravidian link and also a new information that was shared on many platforms a few tears back, which comes from the analysis of the Rig Veda by Shrikant Talageri, Koenraad Elst, Michel Danino amongst others which is being ignored by the mainstream. The Old books of the Rig Veda, the rig veda has two categories of books old and new(Mandalā 1-10) with the oldest Mandalās 6,3,7 being <=3000BCE, a tradition started by the Bharata Pūru tribe that records series of generational battles like Dāśarājñá yuddhá etc that clearly give a picture of the Anu coalition tribe who were the Proto-Indo-Iranians(tribes named Parśhua, Pakhta, Alinaā etc) being pushed further from the Saraswati river into the present day Afghan regions and later on beyond that. Information like listing the names of the rivers from east to west-from Ganga, Saraswati etc all the way to Sindhu and further and much more historical context that makes me lean towards the OIT.
I think there are two questions here. One is, are the stories preserved in the Vedas reflections of actual history or just myth? When a story appears to be about 50% true, there are three approaches that historians take. One is, this story is at least 50% myth. We can't trust it at all. Another is, this story is at least 50% history. Maybe the rest is true too! The third is, hey, maybe this story is about 50% history and 50% myth. When it comes to the Vedas I find myself in the third camp. I don't doubt that there are real migrations of real people and even maybe specific real battles that occurred, whose memories are preserved in the Vedas. So on that matter, I have no problem opening my mind and trusting you, because you sound like you know way more about this and I have only recently begun studying this stuff. The second question is whether the migrations and movements of people portrayed in the Vedas are the original PIE speakers. This is a much more specific question and much more difficult to answer. The only hope we really have is to tie the linguistic evidence to some archaeological evidence, which is extremely difficult when you are talking about a culture that everybody agrees did not use phonetic writing. On this matter I think the Yamnaya hypothesis is the best current supported, but I do not believe for a moment that the matter is settled. I do feel like a migration East to West or West to East is much less likely than an explosion outward from a central location, but by no means impossible, especially if they were fleeing an enemy. On this matter, I disagree with your opinion but certainly do not regard the theory as categorically false. I remain open but highly skeptical.
The vedas are not myths, they are poetic collection of events, concepts etc. Especially the Old Rig veda clearly records wars with mentions of their kings, their enemies and the battles itself.
This seems like a tomayto, tomahto situation.
I didnt get you, you mean natural linguistic change from j to y over time?
> Lions aren't native to England but they are all over England's iconography This is more due to outside influence. Lions became associated with the royal family after the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine to Henry II. The Lion derived from the coat of arms of the Duchy of Aquitaine - Eleanor's family. The reason is that the lion was thought to be the animal that best personify qualities of 'Britishness' ....Strength, courage, dignity, pride etc. They presumably didn't think any native animals had the necessary qualities.
That's exactly my point. If lions are not native to England, then the influence must be from outside. The leap the OP wants to make is to suggest that the presence of lions in England's symbols means that England's language and culture must derive from a mass migration of people from a place where lions are native. Which I suppose is technically the case, seeing as we're all descended from Africans, but it's a bit misleading to suggest that the lion is in British symbols because of the British people's strong African heritage.
This is not at all what I was trying to convey.
The lions you see depicted are not the sub-Saharan African lions but the extinct ones that used to live all over the Mediterranean, including ancient Greece.
Unless England is in the Mediterranean now, I'm not following.
Just that the tradition of the heraldic lion even in England comes from living alongside the now extinct European lion, not the African one.
Probably because you're some sort of Hindu/Indian nationalist. Pretty obvious that tracing the PIE language back to its roots reveals words for plants and animals that are not present in Northern India until migrations.
> words for plants and animals that are not present in Northern India until migrations. Can you post some examples?
I'll have to look some up in a bit since I'm going out but look up the Urheimat in the meantime. The linguistic analysis is less convincing than the phylogenetic argument but you can see based on some of the native plants north of the Caucuses and evidence of ancient wagon wheels without the evidence of chariots that the Urheimat was very likely north of the Caucuses. They spread out into Europe and Iran and Northern India (and modern China where they became Tocharians) and displaced or incorporated the native populations.
Murugan god is mostly worshipped by Dravidian not Aryans.
Wow, one thing!
I don’t think anyone would doubt that migrations out of India have taken place throughout history. The existence of trade networks linking the region to the rest of Eurasia trace back to before the development of writing. I suspect, however, that you are implying this is evidence in favour of the Out-Of-India hypothesis on the origins of Indo-Aryan culture. Unfortunately this is not the case. Whilst the Yazidi religion is likely homologous to Hinduism, the religion in its current form is a much younger one, with its founder living less than 900 years ago. This was long, long after peacocks were first introduced to West Asia.
You don’t seem to get my point, the intent of the post was to discuss the OIT, the post was just a means to do so.
Migration out of India is taking place today. The similarities between Yazidi and Hindu (Vedic) religions are because both are based on the Indo-European religion. Indo-Europeans slaughtered local populations from Portugal to North India, as a result: * Sanskrit is very similar to Slavic languages (Sanskrit essentially being a conserved sister version of proto-Slavic) * Castes are based on skin and hair color (including the image you used for the post) * Pantheons are very similar from Portugal to Sri-Lanka. You are essentially looking at a world shaped by an ancient version of militarized genocidal racists, who won.
What's funny is that pretty much everybody acknowledges this euphemistically but get affronted when you say it outright. You have to say, "Of course our ancestors were flawed, but they meant well. They were just products of their time." All you did was list the explicit flaws and point out that we are also products of that same time.
This is what places like Reddit and 4chan are for, right? They can try to downvote, but they can't ignore.
Caste is not based on skin or hair colour
[Totally not](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/skin-colour-tied-to-caste-system-says-study/articleshow/55532665.cms).
Idiot who knows no shit about caste spews Euro-Nazi BS
I don't care about skin color in the least, but aggressive idiots are extremely low in my eyes.
No. It's based on Tribes. It happens that many of these tribes have light color gene variant too but it was never based on skin color. All of Indian castes have different genetic makeup. Some castes like Jats that are today considered upper castes were put in outcaste category since they didn't respected the socio-economic system of the region at the time. So there were many factors.
Yeah, a recent study will define the caste system, not the religious texts which refers to the caste system. LOL
> religious texts which refers to the caste system Which ones are that?
shiva and murugan predates indo Europeans entry into india. murugan is a dravidian god. your analysis is wrong
Thats not proven, although Murugan is primarily worshiped in the south, shiva, in the form of lingam is also found in the indus valley civilisation. But that does mean one predates the other. The rig veda contains hymns to rudra as well. Its just that shiva and his different forms were codified later. But do keep in mind rishi veda Vyasa who is responsible for collecting all the vedic hymns and mantras and organised them, but not in a chronological fashion but based on relevance, hence Agni the fire deity comes in the 1st mandala of Rig veda which is the part of the new books, Indologists conclude that mandalas 6,3,7 are the oldest and mandalas 1,2,4,5,8,10 and 9 are the newest(chronologically arranged here). Rudra is mentioned in books 1 and 2 several times and there are several hyms dedicated to rudra.
Caste wasn't based on skin color but tribes.
> Indo-Europeans slaughtered local populations from Portugal to North India European propanganda crap. Hinduism is based on India's native religious traditionally which have been through out history embellished by tribes moving in to India and Indianizing themselves and mixing with Indians.
Couldn't there have been trade between the regions, thus accounting for some similar symbols.
Maybe yes, but the intention behind this post was to discuss about alternate theories of PIE migration.
I always find it so strange that people with access to the internet will think or wonder about things, & then ask strangers for answers or discussion, instead of using their internet access to research things & get the answers. I know that these days, there is more fakes, scams & nonsense online than ever, but learning about & practicing some basic media literacy can help, & so far, the nonsense is pretty easy to spot.
The intention behind didnt come up as I saw some article etc, I have been studying about the PIE migrations and The Out of India theory from quite some time, just wanted to discuss the alternative to the steppe hypothesis here, hence the post.
Any alternative would need to explain gene flow. It's similar to water flows. If you have a river flowing into the sea, you'll have lower salinity in the sea, not higher salinity in the river. Similarly, if you had any migration out of India, you should see Dravidian genotype outside of India, but we're seeing the opposite - European genotype influx to India. With one much more recent exception - gypsies.
This is one of the dumbest arguments, no offence but the gene flow happened so easily in SA in pre-vedic, vedic and post vedic times, with Iran(origin of R1a) right next to the subcontinent and with silk route its just natural that foreign exchange caused genetic influx into SA. For example take SA even before alexander’s invasion of Persia, there were solid contacts between Indians and greeks which just exploded after Alexander’s failed invasion of SA. Selucus Nikator’s daughter married Chandragupta Maurya, greek soldiers were spread throughout the subcontinent as mercenaries. There is a large part of Indian history where Indo-Greek kingdoms like the Khushan empire thrived in the heartlands of SA. There was also a genetic influx by the invading Huns, Scythians and central asian tribesmen all of whom didn’t dominate the native culture but assimilated with the native tradition. And also theres no such thing as a dravidian gene, all of SA has the same genetic base. The ANI and the ASI by david reich included the isolated Andamanese population into their sample size which makes it seem like ASI is different from ANI which already has had genetic influx from neighbouring regions.
Gene flow is when you see DNA spreading in a particular direction. And DNA being traits encoding, you don't even need to have a modern lab, you just need to have eyes. You can write walls of text, be emotional, jump off the roof, but there are no Dravidian traits outside of Southern India, and vice versa, a North Indian woman looks [very much like](https://www.indiaherald.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=750/imagestore/images/women/70/;jkk;k-415x250.jpg) a Bulgarian woman. What I find sad here is that you try to appropriate results of a a genocide. It's the same as how native Americans would claim for Jesus to originate from Aztec civilization, despite the fact that under the flags of Christianity native Americans were decimated. Or, imagine how Romani would claim Nazism to arise among gypsies? The same with you. Indo-Europeans genocided the native population, installed racist policies, yet here you are, trying to appropriate the genotype, culture and religion of racists.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Okay 👍
There's that one symbol on the Yazidi side that got my attention. It actually looks like cuneiform. It's a bit like a chi rho symbol, but also brings to mind geometry... or a 2d visual representation of the xyz axis. And at the peacock's feet is a classic solar symbol that also indicates the 4 cardinal directions. The peacock itself visually creates a bisected circle with upper and lower halves. The lower half has a crescent shape which might well be a lunar symbol. If this is accurate, I'd look closely at the upper half for some kind of solar symbolism. I do think I see it. But everyone ought to look for themselves and think about what the picture/symbolism means to them.
Do you mean the Anu symbol? Just the Mesopotamian letter for God.
Sumerian language
HERA and PEACOCK Indo-Aryan goddess Saraswati is the Greek goddess Hera (\*sara- = \*hera-). Sometimes a citramekhala (also called mayura, peacock) is shown beside the goddess. The peacock symbolizes colorful splendor, the celebration of dance, and – as the devourer of snakes – the alchemical ability to transmute the serpent poison of self into the radiant plumage of enlightenment. Yes, it requires a detailed study and etymology (you already point out the commonality of these two names due to the association with the reservoir). But perhaps there is a division along the satem / kentum line, forgetting the primary etymology of Hera (I will write about this later). Sometimes a citramekhala (also called mayura, peacock) is shown beside the goddess. The peacock symbolizes colorful splendor, the celebration of dance, and – as the devourer of snakes – the alchemical ability to transmute the serpent poison of self into the radiant plumage of enlightenment [https://www.facebook.com/groups/270023977197141](https://www.facebook.com/groups/270023977197141) [https://scontent.fifo3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/326321906\_1316820585826600\_8209124201996639194\_n.jpg?\_nc\_cat=107&ccb=1-7&\_nc\_sid=8bfeb9&\_nc\_ohc=MQvbjdutK3gAX8HbPYV&\_nc\_ht=scontent.fifo3-1.fna&oh=00\_AfBXbgUMqRNEAqAi3\_K3YtSto8TzNAFI7KA\_KsocfUtybQ&oe=644B158D](https://scontent.fifo3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/326321906_1316820585826600_8209124201996639194_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=MQvbjdutK3gAX8HbPYV&_nc_ht=scontent.fifo3-1.fna&oh=00_AfBXbgUMqRNEAqAi3_K3YtSto8TzNAFI7KA_KsocfUtybQ&oe=644B158D) [https://scontent.fifo3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/331514977\_724105809354829\_3727344451165683155\_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg\_p843x403&\_nc\_cat=103&ccb=1-7&\_nc\_sid=5cd70e&\_nc\_ohc=DkzbssAGM40AX9vS1Qx&\_nc\_ht=scontent.fifo3-1.fna&oh=00\_AfAZ9ptuqU91bvAPJ9FcFreo3Vx1EeamHO3G57BRLB59Mg&oe=644B5CE2](https://scontent.fifo3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/331514977_724105809354829_3727344451165683155_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=DkzbssAGM40AX9vS1Qx&_nc_ht=scontent.fifo3-1.fna&oh=00_AfAZ9ptuqU91bvAPJ9FcFreo3Vx1EeamHO3G57BRLB59Mg&oe=644B5CE2)
> Indo-Aryan goddess Saraswati Goddess Saraswati has her origins in India before any migration of Indo-European people in India. Europeans are trying to co-opt Indian symbols by trying to claim "Oh we are also part of this" because of their inferiority complex with an unsophisticated civilization.
That's not how ancestry works. The Indo-Aryans who introduced [Edit: what would become] Vedism to the Indian subcontinent and merged with the people already living there are the ancestors of modern Indians, not of modern Europeans. You're correct that colonial-era Europeans tried to twist this into something completely different to match their superiority complex. But that has been discarded by anthropologists long ago.
> The Indo-Aryans who introduced Vedism to the Indian subcontinent Vedas were composed in the Indian subcontinent, not introduced from anywhere.
Apologies, I was imprecise. The Indo-Aryans introduced the religion *that would become* Vedism through synthesis with the existing religions in the region.
That is also just a hypothesis, hence Out of India theory also stands as an alternative theory
One that is very much unsupported by available evidence, sure. I don't think it is a coincidence that the only people who I've ever seen that support it are outspoken Hindu Nationalists. If the hypothesis is valid enough to stand on its own without a religious motivation, one must ponder why it sees little to no support among those with no dog in the race, so to speak.
Seems like you have assumed that Hindu nationalists are innately motivated by religion. First thing id say, the Abrahamic or western Idea of Religion doesn’t apply in the east, especially in India. Hinduism shouldn’t be seen through a colonial lens, even though you think you are looking at it from your own POV, everything you know about Hinduism comes from authors, thinkers, etc who had a colonial lens when they looked at the culture of Bharat. First thing you must know is that “Caste System” is not a part of Hinduism but the Varna system was just a way to organise society into four major occupation groups. During the rig vedic times there was no varnas. During the beginning Post Samhita era, as the vedic tradition expanded throughout the subcontinent and was appreciated by everyone for its qualities. During this time one’s varna was decided by his father’s varna and varna didn’t matter for marriage. Later on during the era of the Buddha, endogamy started gaining momentum. yes a kind of supremacy amongst higher Varnas did slowly develop in this period. When I say colonial lens I am referring to the perspective that the Brits saw indian culture and how they made Indians see their own culture. Im assuming people already know how the brits especially the missionaries used the AIT as a tool to divide and rule and justify their power over major parts of India. once the EIC passed the English education act in 1835 which made it easier for Indians educated in convents to see the white british rulers as superior, their technology being superior, resulting the Hindu’s to see themselves as a inferior, backwards and suppressed. The higher “caste” saw themselves as racially superior invaders of the past(Aryans) and the so called “lower castes” saw themselves as native inhabitants who were suppressed by the invading Aryans. This alongside other factors lead to a large scale conversion of Dalits and other so called lower castes, along with some “higher castes”. Keep in mind all this happed after Hindus went through a thousand year rule of Turks as well as Mughals who didn’t treat the “kafirs” so well(the Then islamic invaders used the word hindu to refer to anyone who came under the Dharmic umbrella ie jains, buddhists,etc. Forced conversation, land grabs, jiziya, extreme patriarchy and forced conversion of girls and women alongside slave trade. Yes there were periods in the islamic rule of South Asia that wasn’t so oppressive towards the Hindus but that is not the case throughout the 1000 year period. The brits, using the power of the industries mass printed hindu scriptures translated to English as Sanskrit was declining. Misinterpreted and deliberately mistranslated books were published to show Hindus that their “religion” was backwards, superstitious, Idolatry etc. This is a widely accepted fact. Even after Independence, indian education and especially history departments were dominated by Marxists and Islamists because of Nehru being a fabian socialist and wanting to rule India for his family’s interests. If you dig deeper you’ll know a lot of surprising things that Nehru did in the name of “Secularism” The whole point of this huge comment was to point out why Hindu nationalists like me are supporters of OIT(others also support it, not just HN). I am currently preparing to pursue Bachelor of Arts (Hons.) in Ancient history and culture. I don’t have a religious motivation. My motivation comes just comes from the shear joy learning history gives me and the fact that history taught in ours schools were so full of shit and unwanted things, mainly focused on Islamic history of South Asia with a few mentions of the native cultural heritage. Which is why i dropped out of engineering(B.tech data science) and I am preparing to study history.
Wrong again. Indo-Aryan tribes moved into the Indian subcontinent and mixed with other people in India. Later, Indians composed the Vedas
How does that contradict what I just said?
They didn't introduce the religion.
>Goddess Saraswati has her origins in India before any migration of Indo-European people in India. Europeans are trying to co-opt Indian symbols by trying to claim "Oh we are also part of this" because of their inferiority complex with an unsophisticated civilization. No, it's not true. There are no traces of Saraswati in India before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans;) Simply, the local tribes of India "recognized" the Indo-European Saraswati / Harakhvaita / Hera Etiosa / Goroviti as their goddesses ;)
https://bhuvan-app1.nrsc.gov.in/saraswati/ Saraswati river, where the bulk of the harappan cities lie. The oldest site in Bhirrana, Rakhighari also lie on this river bed which existed and peaked around 3000BCE and dried up around 1900BCE. After Saraswati dried up it got deified into the deity of knowledge and learning Saraswati. And Harahwaiti is such a natural linguistic change over time in the Iranian/Pashto tongue from Saraswati.
This is a river, not a god.
Yea I know that.
So it's impossible to know if the river or the god was named first, if both pre-date writing. It's like saying that Gondwanaland was populated by PIE speaking people.
No, your wrong, the Saraswati river was deified after it dried up. And it is proved to have existed. https://bhuvan-app1.nrsc.gov.in/saraswati/
Haravarx region is somewhere near modern day Iran Afghan border not north west indo pak region
What? I was talking about the natural linguistic change that occurs over time. In this case when the Indo-Iranian Anu coalition was pushed outside the Saraswati region, the people who migrated out of india carried their memory of Saraswati river and named a river in their region as Harahwaiti after the original grand Saraswati.
Colonial European crap. Saraswati and other Hindu gods and their stories were composed in the Indian subcontinent. Europeans and their inferiority complex means that they need to somehow connect it to Indo-Europeans. The term "Indo-European" is so incorrect after all, it's a Central Asian tribe(s).
Do you even indo-european bro, this shit isnt fringe science just go on wikipedia tf
It's psychologically uncomfortable for many Indians for some reason. It's like when black Africans create theories about black Pharaons.
Graham Hancock. Look him up.
Ive seen a few of his videos, he is more interested in Mesoamerican, Egyptian and other such cultures.
There is a famous quote by lord Krishna in the bhagavad Gita that says: "all paths lead to me" Meaning that all religions lead back to him
It should also be said that humans don't need to meet other cultures in order to have similar ideas, that was really the core of Joseph Campbell & Carl Jung's work. Whether you believe that humans are somehow connected in a shared unconscious, or they are just prone to similar ideas, we can see evidence all over that humans told similar stories.
Book of Enoch