The Kalash Tribe of Pakistan

[DrSatanDracula]

Also it is worth while noting that Microbrew hates white people to such an extent that one would expect him to be anti-Aryan Invasion simply due to its "white" connection. Instead, the fact that he supports this theory proves more or less the objectivity of it even in the face of someone who has demonstrated borderline irrationality on topics of culture, ethnicity, and race before.

Seriously. That Microbrew supports it pretety much vindicates the theory.

[adren@line]

Originally Posted by MicroBrew

Vast majority of respected scholars (aka western scholars) do not reject a colonization, they just reject a swift sudden invasion. I always thought the swift sudden invasion theory was silly since colonization is usually gradual, just like here in the Americas.

Thats vague. They dont reject it and they dont accept it, either. "Colonization" is rarely a part of any modern-day AMT theory, whether presented by Witzel or his detractors.

Sanskrit is not the oldest written IE inscriptions, Hittite is.

Thats what I stated. Either way, Sanskrit is only pre-dated by ONE IE language, yet isnt the originator and instead descended from some mythical and non-existent "proto-IE" language.

The oldest still spoken IE language (i.e language closest to archaic IndoEuro) is Lithuanian.

Sanskrit is still spoken. Just go to any Hindu or Buddhist temple.

Sanskrit has a substratum of Dravidian and Munda while other I.E. languages do NOT, including the near by and brother Indo Iranic Languages. If Sanskrit was the so called originator (long since abandoned theory) then Farsi, Pashto, Greek, Russian and countless other I.E. languages would have Dravidian and Munda substratum.

That is true. But if it is entirely plausible to entertain the idea of some mythical proto-Indo-European root-language, it is also entirely plausible to assume that an earlier version of Sanskrit existed sans the Dravidian influence, hence making it closer to Avestan.

Plus, the haplogroup R1a1 is associated with the spread of Indo-European languages and of two competing theories, one states that R1a1 originated in north India.

In India while there are communtiies of Dravidian and Munda laguages on the periphery of I.E. dominated areas (in tribal and village communities) there are no I.E. tribal languages. Why is the highest % of R1a Haplogroup found in Eastern Europe around the Eurasian steppes (S.W. Russia/Ukraine) An anomaly being Krygistan which has a slighlty higher % amongst hill tribes but this is attributed to founder effect.

Kashmiris (Indians) have it at a percentage of 70%, more-so than any other group.

sense that the I.E. tribes would spread their languages far and wide but neglect to totally linguistically conquer the Indian Subcontinent first .

Sure it makes sense. India is huge, its a lot of land.

Why does the Rig Veda talk about tall light skinned Aryans descending on cities inhabited by dark snub nosed short dark skinned people who speak an alien tongue and worship the Lingam, with the Aryans gloriously boasting of destroying said people and civ and Indra bring fair and blonde

Im sorry, but it doesn't state any of that. I dare you to prove me wrong here, and without using the Griffith translation (Rig Veda Index), which is the only translation available on the internet.

If you actually had read a legitimate translation (one that you would buy at a book store), and one that is used by Hindus, you would see that such interpretations relayed by dead European Indologists such as Griffith are flat out wrong.

Why does the Rig speak of Aryans arriving at Sapta Sindhu (land of the 7 rivers, aka the Punjab) if they originated from the Indian sub?

The Vedas do not state where the Aryans came from. Further, why do the Gathas mention the same area as one of the "great lands" of the Aryans? The Zoroastrians knew of an Indian Aryan homeland yet the Vedas make no mention of any Iranian land as being a birthplace of Aryan culture.

Why is Brahui a Dravidian language still spoken in S.E. Iran and Balochi Pakistan ?

Why not?

Why is Oraon , another Dravidian language still spoken in Nepal and N.India in tribal communities? Why do the statues from Moehinjadaro not look Aryan?, i.e. NON Dolichephalic.

There is no "Aryan" look. Second, IVC was a seperate culture, as it is possible for two cultures to exist in the same area.

For the record, I am not for or against AMT, I take both sides into consideration.

[AzureNight**]

Thats what I stated. Either way, Sanskrit is only pre-dated by ONE IE language, yet isnt the originator and instead descended from some mythical and non-existent "proto-IE" language.

Not going to bother with the rest of your post, but are you trying to be stupid? You honestly think Sanskrit is THE original Indo-European language?

Obviously there had to be a proto-IE language, you moron. How else would all these related languages arise? You know absolutely nothing of linguistics yet you make retarded statements like this. The early Greek languages arose around the period of the first signs of Sanskrit as well. Other Anatolian languages, such as Luwian, likewise predate Sanskrit.

Virtually all linguists over the past century > you.

[adren@line]

Originally Posted by AzureNight

Not going to bother with the rest of your post, but are you trying to be stupid? You honestly think Sanskrit is THE original Indo-European language?
.

I never stated that Vedic Sanskrit was THE original IE language. But considering the evidence presented by R1a1, its frequency of 70+ percent with Kashmiris, its association with the spread of IE languages, and its increasing probability that the haplogroup originated in north India, its not entirely improbable that IE languages originated around north India considering that every single IE language sans Hittite is younger than Sanskrit.

And Hittite can only be considered older if one omits the Sanskrit-speaking Mittani aristocracy who ruled over the Hurrians around 2000BC, a fact that can support either the AMT or OOI theory. This was all in Syria, not India, and Sanskrit-speaking Syrians kind of complicates the situation.

Obviously there had to be a proto-IE language, you moron.

well, duh. But where is the evidence? There is genetic evidence that such a language originated in north India, and evidence that it didn't.

How else would all these related languages arise? You know absolutely nothing of linguistics yet you make retarded statements like this.

I know more than average, probably the same as you.

The early Greek languages arose around the period of the first signs of Sanskrit as well. Other Anatolian languages, such as Luwian, likewise predate Sanskrit.

Sanskrit is older than all Greek languages. Its also older than Luwian.

Virtually all linguists over the past century > you

I agree, but genetics complicate the situation.

[MicroBrew]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

Also it is worth while noting that Microbrew hates white people to such an extent that one would expect him to be anti-Aryan Invasion simply due to its "white" connection. Instead, the fact that he supports this theory proves more or less the objectivity of it even in the face of someone who has demonstrated borderline irrationality on topics of culture, ethnicity, and race before.

Seriously. That Microbrew supports it pretety much vindicates the theory.

I have no idea where you are coming from, since I haven't said anything against Whites in general. You are just mad I don't meekly agree with your White nationalist screeds and insistence on other cultures committing identity suicide. Your definition of being a hater is 1 who won't quietly accept the hate and genocidal ideology coming from you. Its ,like the KKK saying those who hate them are haters.

Why I do I support the AIT? Well because of the mountain of evidence, the research of Western historians and archaeologists, the words of the Aryans themselves., linguistics and comparative religious studies.

[MicroBrew]

Adrenaline

You are going against accepted scientific consensus.

Linguisitics it self became a science precisely because the connection was found between Sanskrit and European languages (I forgot the European guy who made the connection).

No real scholar entertains the idea of Aryans and or Indo Europeans originating in India. This is total USDA Bull emanating from Hindutva propaghandists and their western enablers like Frawley and K. Elsdat. Respected Indologists like Finnish Asko Parpola , Stanford Linguists and really any respected Linguist dismiss such claims as baseless. Claiming IE originated in India would throw a spanner into Linguistic science and discount standard accepted facts and evidence.

How do you rationalize that IE tribes spread their language dominance far and wide before they did so on the sub continent. How do you explain the lack of Dravidian and Munda in Greek and Avestan Persian and countless other IE languages if Aryans and by extension IE and IE languages originated in India.

Sanskrit is a dead language, its mumbled in temples but is not a spoken language, not like Lithuanian.

Not all Kashmiris have 70% R1a, there might be a very small number of Pundits who do but thats about the extent. Also on the maternal side , the overwhelming majority of Indians are pretty similar, this would not be the case if the Aryans originated in India. The only region to show a large segment of the populace having considerable R1a is the Eurasian steppes. If Aryans/IE originated in India then India should have the highest population of tall light skinned dolichephalic people, R1a % and most diverse grouping of IE languages including the oldest.

If the Aryans originated in India they would have been dark skinned from the get go. India had no knowledge of the IVC until Wheeler and rest of the British discovered it when a railway line was being built and local labourers started using IVC bricks for track base.

The stories of cities pre Aryan invasion in the Rig was discounted by Indians and Europeans as baseless because it was automatically assumed that only Aryans brought civilization to India and the dark skinned natives were savages who could never build anything , though there were words of caution and unease amongst some Brits who were more familiar with Indian and S.Indian culture.. Nothing was known of the IVC until archaeologists started excavating. Now the Hindutvadis are trying to backtrack and modify history to claim credit for everything pre Aryan and only way they can do this is to claim Aryans originated in India.

[Triple-s]

That's how south Asia was hundreds of years ago. I find it weird how they survived everything.

[Zankou]

I am continually surprised by how many Sherdog posters know so much about this extremely interesting subject.

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by Zankou

I am continually surprised by how many Sherdog posters know so much about this extremely interesting subject.

Where is Snake-eyes? Didnt he do his Masters on PIE?

[Zankou]

He got banned for some reason. A real shame, because that guy was amazingly knowledgeable about this stuff.