"Aryan" race

Is there any truth to the notion that every major civilization had a "founding race" that eventually became diluted due to miscegenation and thus lost their vigor?

I'm just throwing it out there, but you can't help but see the trends. All great civilizations from India, China, Greece, Persia, etc. show sophistication and then marked decline as time went on.

I'm open to alternate theories.

If the "Aryan"-race is as you seem to be implying, then they most definitely did not "found" anything; but were in actuality the johnny-come-latelies themselves.


Though it is possible that "Aryan" is in reference to All of modern humanity, that is to say: "The Fifth Root-Race"(a Theosophical term).


See this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Peace

The Aryan/vedic race is probably the root of the current civilization i.e. Indian sub-continent is the cradle of civilization.

I'm just throwing it out there, but you can't help but see the trends. All great civilizations from India, China, Greece, Persia, etc. show sophistication and then marked decline as time went on.

If you refer to a decline of civilisation through culture, sciences, philosophy and politics, then no, there was not any proven decline or anything. civilisations have deteriorated and others have appeared, not because of their genetic or racical backgrounds but simply because of social and environmental factors such as wars, revolutions, climate change, drought, diseases and internal social-political struggles... The phenomenon of the disappearance or deterioration of civilisations is a problem of social nature, not biological or genetic.

I don't think every civilization had a founding race that lost due to interracing. The most advanced civilization ever was that of India. Interracing was strongly prohibited and the result would be demoting him/her to a lower rank in the caste. As far as the Mayans and advanced Native American civilizations, I don't think there was a color caste. All of them being dark. Egypt lacked a caste as well as the Greeks and Arabs.
The only example other than India is the U.S. The British were of course the highest with the Negro, Italians at one time being the lowest. At one time America was kicking out inventions left and right. Cars, refrigirators, Ice Cream, gas Mask, Airplanes, the guided missiles, irons, the cotton gin
and etc. When separate but equal laws were erased, integration permitted and interracial marriages were even promoted we have seen a decline in our own American culture. At the same time statistics have rose in the worst way due to removing the boundaries that were keeping civilization in an upward bound. Arabians taught Berbians something like a caste, in regard to Negro slaves, but not quite a caste.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The Aryan/vedic race is probably the root of the current civilization i.e. Indian sub-continent is the cradle of civilization.

specifically, the Aryans were a group of Europeans who conquered India and installed the caste system. i think they were nomadic.

however, these aryans are not the kind you, or hitler, meant.

[edit on 27-2-2005 by ZetaGundam007]

Eye hope this dus knot tern in too an air ree an nay shun thread!

Originally posted by ZetaGundam007

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The Aryan/vedic race is probably the root of the current civilization i.e. Indian sub-continent is the cradle of civilization.

specifically, the Aryans were a group of Europeans who conquered India and installed the caste system. i think they were nomadic.

That was debunked a long time ago in another topic. It was a myth created by Max Muller, a British agent to falisfy Indian culture, to spread Christianity and to corrupt the indigenous culture.

Most nations were indeed founded along racial lines because civilization began at the family/tribal level. Intermingling did not destroy empires however, in fact it created them. Empires were formed not around isolated families but around larger groups which shared language and other culture. Interaction between distinct cultural groups was beneficial as well at times.
Babylonian civilization, if I understand correctly, was basically a meeting of Sumerian and Akkadian. The Romans generally did a pretty good job of incorporating new territories/peoples into the Roman identity and it served them well. Spanish Cavalry for example revitalized the Roman military shortly after it had suffered a trouncing at the hands of Hannibal and his brother Hasdrubal's cavalry.
While integration has been the birth of empires, division has often been the death of them. Neither the ascent nor the decline is an effect of race. This resulted from the interaction of and evolution of cultures, sometimes positive, sometimes negative.

More often than not though, race has very little to do with the decline of empires. Changes in the political and technological landscape do the most damage. When an ally or trading partner is conquered, devastated by disasters, or becomes unfriendly, it weakens a nation severely. When a great strength of your nation becomes obsolete, you are severely weakened. Things like this have caused the stagnation or decline of many empires. Also, social changes having nothing to do with race can lead to decline. The easy lifestyle that Greeks became used to was their downfall. Greece rose and fell on the ferocity of its spearmen. When they went soft due to increasing comfort of Greek culture, they were overtaken by a bunch of Roman farm boys.

As for the term "Aryan", it's limited and has several meanings. The concept of an Aryan race is based on distortions of theories regarding the spread of Proto-Indo-European (aka Ayran) CULTURE. These distortions specifically involved the theory of a superior race of conquerors who spread the culture as they expanded- and the use of these distortions by Nazis is where Aryan gets its negative modern connotation.
The more correct use of "Aryan" today relates to Indo-Iranian culture/civilization. In this sense Aryan culture is first seen in Turkmenistan and Afghanistan around 2500 BC.
Although historically significant, it is not the oldest known civilization and not necessarily "superior" in the sense of having contributed more than others.
The earliest civilization, in terms of being settled, having a written language, domesticated animals, etc etc is the Mesopotamian civilization which arose in Sumerian city states around 3500BC. They were the first to develop a great many of the things we consider marks of "civilization" but this can not be used for any racists purposes because other civilizations appear to have developed pretty much independently not so much later, including the Harappans in the Indus Valley and the Aryans who are believed to have started in Turkmenistan/Afghanistan and moved into India. Around 2800BC and 2500BC respectively.
Far from declining as a result of mixing with what might be called "barbarians", these cultures actually grew and developed when interacting with neighbors- even when being conquered by neighbors in fact.

So, to sum up, yes tribes were the earliest basis for civilization (i think) but that eventually gave way to broader cultures defined by their language, religion, and society as those features were spread by communication and sometimes conquest, meaning that race and culture are not attatched. No one race can claim the a culture's history. Integration was the birth of empires, and division has at times been the death of them. Considering all of that (which I know is less than perfectly organized) the application of cultural nomenclature to races for the purpose of proving racial merit is both historically and morally flawed. So no, the final answer is that racial purity is not really a factor in a civilizations strength.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Originally posted by ZetaGundam007

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The Aryan/vedic race is probably the root of the current civilization i.e. Indian sub-continent is the cradle of civilization.

specifically, the Aryans were a group of Europeans who conquered India and installed the caste system. i think they were nomadic.

That was debunked a long time ago in another topic. It was a myth created by Max Muller, a British agent to falisfy Indian culture, to spread Christianity and to corrupt the indigenous culture.

First of all to dispell the typical assumptions insisted upon by Europeans: Indo European culture could easily have started in Asia instead of Europe. As I have stated earlier, cultures are not racially defined. Just because the languages of the people are related doesn't mean that a bunch of caucasians invaded India to bring the language there. In fact there is no evidence at all for a violent conquest of by the Aryans according to relevant wikipedia articles. A change in the climate of the Indus Valley in 1800BC and a tectonic event which caused a river to run dry caused the Indus Valley civlization to fade and disperse towards the East into the Gangetic plain.

That being said, there are a few gaps between the Harappan civilization and the Aryans which although they are not conclusive, do seem enough to keep the issue open for debate. Harappans didn't use horses, held bulls sacred rather than cows, and had a script of their own, so far undisciphered. Harappans declined and moved East in the Gangetic plain in smaller groups at precisely the time that Indo European speakers began showing up.
Although a hostile invasion is not supported by the evidence, the idea that Aryans were immigrating foreigners does seem possible.

If I had to guess, which really I'm not qualified to do, I'd say that the Aryans weren't living very far from the Harappans and possibly knew them or may have even been related. When climate shifts drove the Harappans out of the Indus Valley it would have been a blow to the economy of their Aryan friends, so as the Harappans began to move into the Gangetic plain, the Aryans entered India and followed behind for the sake of trade with the Harappans.

Very nicely said, Vagabond, it is a shame that it is all wrong. First and foremost, the Aryans are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent. There are no records of them being migrants of any kind and they were also the forebearers of the Vedic culture, which is what flourised in the Indian subcontinent. There are precise vedic geneologies of kings that tell of a continous linage of kings in the vedic caleder. As I said, the myth of the Aryan invasion was fabricated by the Imperialists. This was, because around this time, western civilization could not accept that eastern/Indian civilization had intellectual superiority and that much of western culture was based on the Aryan culture of the subcontinent. Nor, could they accept the pagan origins of western orthodox religion - christianity. It is very easy to prove this from Mullers's personal letters and the racist attitudes of Europeans at the time.

Secondly, the signs of first civilization appear in the Indus Valley, in the cities of Mohen Jadaro, Harrapa and Dwarka to be precise, which have modern planned cities, sophisticated underground drainage and sewer systems, a decimal system as well as a written script(of course relative to the other techhology this civilisation has, this is nothing) These are older than the Sumerian civilization. What is more likey is that civilization has emerged from the Indus valley and moved to the west, this would explain why so many Indo-European languages can be traced to Sanskrit. Further more why there are cultural similiarties and common religious stories.

These civilizations were anything but tribes.

[edit on 27-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

As much as I love wikipedia and find it a good utility for information, the information is not always accurate and you do need to reference with other sources too. Finding information on the internet requires sharp discerning skills and some logic. There is more disinformation on the internet, than there is information.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Very nicely said, Vagabond, it is a shame that it is all wrong.

I'm glad you at least think I said it well, but I assure you that everything in the first two paragraphs was researched and accurate, and that I have indicated the ambiguity of those facts which are in fact considered ambiguous to historians. The third paragraph could easily have been completely and totally without merit, but I already said upfront that it was an unqualified opinion. I think "all wrong' is a bit over the top .

First and foremost, the Aryans are indigenous to the Indian subcontient.

Entirely possible but not concretely proved. I haven't been exceptionally hostile toward that viewpoint either. Even in my third paragraph I offered the opinion that although the Aryans are probably not one in the same with the Harappans that they probably lived in very close proximity (by implication on the Indian Subcontinent or only slightly North).

There are no records of them being migrants of any kind and they were also the forebearers of the Vedic culture, which is what flourised in the Indian subcontinent.

They were indeed the fore bearers of Vedic culture which has flourished throughout the continent, but that doesn't prove that they couldn't have started a little bit further North necessarily. There is subtle evidence of differences between the original inhabitants of the Indus Valley and the Aryans, but not tremendous differences. This is why I pose the possibility that Aryans lived in close proximity to the Harappans and were related.
I realize that we will probably not find an agreement on this because my thesis contradicts your religious beliefs, however I believe evidence suggests that Aryans are not the fathers of civilization, that they had a "sister" culture in their own region in addition to already being preceded by the Mesopotamians. If we can not make progress in the discussion I would be happy to drop that aspect and "agree to disagree" before we find ourselves endlessly at odds once again. I'll give you the last word on that unless you'd like to invite my rebuttal to whatever response you give.

As I said, the myth of the Aryan invasion was fabricated by the Imperialists.

I agree with you on that part. Europeans were alarmed when they discovered the relationship between European languages and Sanskrit and in order to maintain that their ancestors constituted a separate and higher race, rather than a mere offshoot of the other races which they were conquering, they had to suggest that white people had previously conquered India and introduced Indo-European language there. Obviously this is flawed, because as I've said 3 times now, race and culture are not necessarily linked and there is no guarantee as to the color or ethnic background of the proto indo-europeans.
I'm not trying to take Aryan culture out of India or place it anywhere else. I'm trying to argue that it was a relative or "friend" of Harappan culture but not a parent. I make this argument strictly in the name of shunning aggrandizing claims made by various cultures about their histories.
It is clear that whatever the relationship between Aryan and Harappan was, they did not go to war. There are no carbonized layers from burning of cities, we don't have wrecked walls of besieged cities, and we do have proof of a gradual exodus from Harappan cities as the food supply gave out. There is almost almost proof positive that nobody was attacking them at the time.

This was, because around this time, western civilization could not accept that eastern/Indian civilization had intellectual superiority

And here is where your wording starts to tick of somebody who agrees with you. Europeans were trying to shore up their false claims of superiority. Simply because the lie of European superiority proved in fact to be a lie does not make Indians superior. By my reasoning, the falsity of the Western lie can be universally applied to all claims of superiority by the following logic. At the time that the British made up this lie, they had in fact achieved technological feats not achieved so far by India, yet the British claim to superiority was broken by the revelation that they come from they share some common history with Indians, and this reinforces the truth that we are all just humans and are equal as such. To then turn around and claim that because at one time Indians had achieved things that Europeans had not that Indians were or are superior would ignore the revelation of our equality as having a common background as members of humanity. Therefore if any claim can be made that there was such a thing as Indian superiority to be denied then it would follow that in more recent times the British were superior. Obviously neither is the case and I feel that the seemingly minor issue of using the word "superior" has great an unacceptable implications for the entire discussion.
Forgive me for going on at some length on that point but I wished to be very clear in spelling out the following proposal: that we should mutually acknowledge that cultural backgrounds do not indicate racial superiority in any way shape or form. The last thing we need is a racist dogfight soiling a completely legitimate and potentially enlightening discussion of the role of racial identity within nations.

Secondly, the signs of first civilization appear in the Indus Valley, in the cities of Mohen Jadaro, Harrapa and Dwarka to be precise, which have modern planned cities, sophisticated underground drainage and sewer systems, a decimal system as well as a written script(of course relative to the other techhology this civilisation has, this is nothing)

I'll bet dollars to donuts that you're referring to nuclear weapons. This isn't the thread to rehash that arguement. All I'm going to say is that archaeologically speaking the jury is out. I hope that's a fair enough statement to allow us to leave it be and continue with the topic .
These developments do not prove that the cities are Aryan.

These are older than the Sumerian civilization. What is more likey is that civilization has emerged from the Indus valley and moved to the west, this would explain why so many Indo-European languages can be traced to Sanskrit.

Indo-European speaking Hittites didn't show up North of the Babylonians until the 3rd century BC. The archaeologists as I understand it believe that the Indus Valley and Mesopotamian civilizations developed independently, and they also say that the Mesopotamian civilization is about 900 years older. I'm not the one who dated the finds which means I'm not really the one to argue with on the subject. If you don't agree with the scholars your best recourse is to become one yourself, get a grant, do dig up the Indus Valley cites which have not yet been excavated (there are penty as I understand it) and then everyone can line up to apologize for doubting you if and when you prove that the scholars were wrong. In the meantime, the scholars' word outweights religious texts. The Christian West is leanring to cope with that fact and I trust that the Hindu East will be able to embrace science over dogma just as well.

Further more why there are cultural similiarties and common religious stories. [edit on 27-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Similiar is not identical. The fact that they are only similiar suggests divergence and further indicates that Aryan culture is not the original culture, but one of several children spawned by the original culture.

Originally posted by flailer
Is there any truth to the notion that every major civilization had a "founding race" that eventually became diluted due to miscegenation and thus lost their vigor?

No, there isn't a shred of truth to that.

but you can't help but see the trends. All great civilizations from India, China, Greece, Persia, etc. show sophistication and then marked decline as time went on.

None of those civilizations was based ona single race and none showed an increase in decline when other populations entered it.

I'm glad you at least think I said it well, but I assure you that everything in the first two paragraphs was researched and accurate, and that I have indicated the ambiguity of those facts which are in fact considered ambiguous to historians. The third paragraph could easily have been completely and totally without merit, but I already said upfront that it was an unqualified opinion. I think "all wrong' is a bit over the top

It may be researched, but it does not mean it is accurate. Now, I will also have you know, for the past few weeks I have been researching extensively into the Indus civilization history and authored pages upon pages on them. So, I do think, I have earned some merit to discuss this. And I am saying, in my qualified opinion, your history is wrong. It is inconsistent with the body of evidence I have gathered and nor is it substantiated.

Entirely possible but not concretely proved. I haven't been exceptionally hostile toward that viewpoint either. Even in my third paragraph I offered the opinion that although the Aryans are probably not one in the same with the Harappans that they probably lived in very close proximity (by implication on the Indian Subcontinent or only slightly North).

On the contrary, it is the theory of Aryans not being the original inhabitants of India that remains to be proven. Otherwise, the vedic literature suggests that this civilization resided along the banks of the river Saraswati river in India and throughtout their literature there is no indication of any conquest or foreign origins. Now, as this theory has been perpetuated by imperialists with vested poltiical interests, it is very questionable and uncredible, and therefore should not be given any further attention. The logical fallacy, guilty till proven innocent, comes to mind.

They were indeed the fore bearers of Vedic culture which has flourished throughout the continent, but that doesn't prove that they couldn't have started a little bit further North necessarily. There is subtle evidence of differences between the original inhabitants of the Indus Valley and the Aryans, but not tremendous differences. This is why I pose the possibility that Aryans lived in close proximity to the Harappans and were related.

An interesting theory, but again, as the Aryans resided on the banks of the river Saraswati and there is no evidence of them being from anywhere else, your theory would hold little water. The Harappans is not actually a separate civilization, rather it has been called "harappan" based on the city of Harrapa that was discovered.

realize that we will probably not find an agreement on this because my thesis contradicts your religious beliefs, however I believe evidence suggests that Aryans are not the fathers of civilization, that they had a "sister" culture in their own region in addition to already being preceded by the Mesopotamians. If we can not make progress in the discussion I would be happy to drop that aspect and "agree to disagree" before we find ourselves endlessly at odds once again. I'll give you the last word on that unless you'd like to invite my rebuttal to whatever response you give.

Why, is your ideas a "thesis" and mine a "religious belief" It could well be the other way around. At least, I can say easily that my ideas are based on research, hard facts and evidence. Further more, I do not actually have a religion.

And here is where your wording starts to tick of somebody who agrees with you. Europeans were trying to shore up their false claims of superiority. Simply because the lie of European superiority proved in fact to be a lie does not make Indians superior. By my reasoning, the falsity of the Western lie can be universally applied to all claims of superiority by the following logic. At the time that the British made up this lie, they had in fact achieved technological feats not achieved so far by India, yet the British claim to superiority was broken by the revelation that they come from they share some common history with Indians, and this reinforces the truth that we are all just humans and are equal as such. To then turn around and claim that because at one time Indians had achieved things that Europeans had not that Indians were or are superior would ignore the revelation of our equality as having a common background as members of humanity. Therefore if any claim can be made that there was such a thing as Indian superiority to be denied then it would follow that in more recent times the British were superior. Obviously neither is the case and I feel that the seemingly minor issue of using the word "superior" has great an unacceptable implications for the entire discussion.
Forgive me for going on at some length on that point but I wished to be very clear in spelling out the following proposal: that we should mutually acknowledge that cultural backgrounds do not indicate racial superiority in any way shape or form. The last thing we need is a racist dogfight soiling a completely legitimate and potentially enlightening discussion of the role of racial identity within nations.

I am not arguing "racial" superiority. What I am arguing that Vedic culture was far more superior to the culture of the west, and again based on hard evidence, because of it's scientific and spiritual heritage. This is also acknowledged by many westeners themselves, from the most atheist like Niezsche to quantum physicists like Schrodinger and Einstein. This does not mean they were "racially" superior. There is only one race as far as I am concerned; human. I am also of the opinion that Vedic culture still is far superior to the west. It was a knowledge and wisdom based society. While the west, was in comparison, quite barbaric and uncultured. Note, I do not consider the Greeks as the western European civilization. The birth of the west was mostly due to the Roman empire and the scientific traditions of the west are only a few centuries old. While, for India, it's millenias old.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that you're referring to nuclear weapons. This isn't the thread to rehash that arguement. All I'm going to say is that archaeological speaking the jury is out. I hope that's a fair enough statement to allow us to leave it be and continue with the topic .
These developments do not prove that the cities are Aryan.

Did I say nuclear weapons? No, I said exactly what archeaologists have found. And, this proves, that this civilization was not "tribes" as you said, but an urban modern civilization. Hence, why I said you were "wrong" and this civilization was far more advanced than any other known today.

The archaeologists as I understand it believe that the Indus Valley and Mesopotamian civilizations developed independently, and they also say that the Mesopotamian civilization is about 900 years older. I'm not the one who dated the finds which means I'm not really the one to argue with on the subject. If you don't agree with the scholars your best recourse is to become one yourself, get a grant, do dig up the Indus Valley cites which have not yet been excavated (there are penty as I understand it) and then everyone can line up to apologize for doubting you if and when you prove that the scholars were wrong. In the meantime, the scholars' word outweights religious texts. The Christian West is leanring to cope with that fact and I trust that the Hindu East will be able to embrace science over dogma just as well.

Perhaps, they did or perhaps they did not. There is evidence that even Arabia(middle east) was part of a vedic culture, or at least was based on it. As Arabic is also based on Sanskrit. Further more, the date argument is a straw man. The evidence suggests that the Vedic civilization can be more than 10,000 years old. According to Greek Historians, the astronomical calender which is based on the constellations of Ursa Major and Pleiades, dates the origin of the first king(manu) to 10,000-11,000 BC. The Vedic calender, which has quite a lot of credibility as it gives the exact age of the Earth, suggests the beginning of the current deva yuga to be 12,000 years ago. Carbon dating of skeletons from the submerged cities of Dwarka have yielded around 7000BC. The Mahabharata according to many Indian historians, both modern and medieval, happened in 3000BC. From the geneology of Krishna, Rama was the 500th king, meaning around 5000BC. So at the very least the vedic civilization is some 7000 years old or more.

And by the way, Hinduism is based on a scientific and knowledge based system. It's science that is embracing the vedic system, not the other way around. In Hinduism, the theory of evolution, spherical earth, and heliocentalism was a fact. Yes, I know, the same can't be said about Christianity - that is because it is not a scientific religion.

Similiar is not identical. The fact that they are only similiar suggests divergence and further indicates that Aryan culture is not the original culture, but one of several children spawned by the original culture.

Well, we know of no other civilization before the Aryans of India that has these stories. Now, seeing as Sanskrit is an Aryan/vedic language. And so many Indo-European families can be traced to Sanskrit. It should also be true that the religious stories can be traced to the Vedas too. Do you know of any culture prior to the Aryans of India? If it existed - it existed in the ice age.

[edit on 27-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Heck,who cares about race anymore.In 100years we`ll all merge into one group.The term race won`t exist anymore.

Oneday all the M&M`s in the world will be one!

The nearest thing to "race" will be ur nationality and religon.

there are some popular beliefs that the mythinc orgin of the race of Aryan people did infact exist. many believe they are those referd to in the bible as the sons of god, in the passage(Genisis chapter 6..verse1-5) sons of god taking daughters of men. they are thought to be angels, or spiritual beings with the classic aryan traits

Originally posted by Jaypeth
they are thought to be angels, or spiritual beings with the classic aryan traits

And these are.....

thought to be angelic.... very tall blonde hair blue eyes......fair beings ...... not my beliefes but those believed by many anglo - Celtic mythologys.....

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The Harappans is not actually a seperate civilization, rather it has been called "harappan" based on the city of Harrapa that was discovered.

The terms Harappan and Indus Valley Civilization have been used interchangably, but are not interchangable with the term Aryan. There is no error in my use of the term Harappan, which is the name of a single city which has been branded upon that cities neighbors as well.

Why, is your ideas a "thesis" and mine a "religious belief" It could well be the other way around. At least, I can say easily that my ideas are based on research, hard facts and evidence. Further more, I do not actually have a religion.

It was not my intention to grant unwarranted merit to my theory. I will re-term mine to be a "guess" if it please you. The fact remains that your thesis originates in a religious text.

As promised, I will be leaving the rest of the issue so that we do not find ourselves in a never-ending debate.

I am not arguing "racial" superiority. What I am arguing that Vedic culture was far more superior to the culture of the west, and again based on hard evidence, because of it's scientific and spiritual heritage.

Cultural values are not quantifiable. There can be no empirical comparrison of cultures. The debate over "my forefathers can beat up your forefathers" is little better than the racist debate. You are entitled to believe whatever you like about your culture and its values, and I an not particularly disturbed by what whatever your culture may think of mine, so that's all well and good. All I am inclined to say on the matter is that if everything that everbody thought about themselves was true then American Idol wouldn't suck so much. It does suck though, and that holds a message about the disconnect between pesonal opinion and reality.


[quoteThe birth of the west was mostly due to the Roman empire and the scientific traditions of the west are only a few centuries old. While, for India, it's millenias old.
All good science begs to differ, and again I remind you that your issue is not with me. There are plenty of people with plenty of letters after their names who are better suited to hear your arguements, but you'll need more than a religious story to get their attention. Tell me what you find when you begin those excavations though. I'd be thrilled to see proof.

Did I say nuclear weapons? No, I said exactly what archeaologists have found.

You said exactly what archaeologists have found and then you added that those things were nothing compared to what that civilization really accomplished, which seemed rather clear in light of previous threads you have posted regarding the Brahmastra weapon (spelling?).

And, this proves, that this civilization was not "tribes" as you said, but an urban modern civilization. Hence, why I said you were "wrong" and this civilization was far more advanced than any other known today.

You've misunderstood me completely. I said that civilizations in general grew out of tribes (explaining that cultures represented groupings of races, not single races). I did not refer to either the Aryans or the Indus Valley Civ. as "tribes" nor would the word tribe have any negative implications (such as primitive state). I was simply discussing the lack of pure racial definition for cutlures.

Perhaps, they did or perhaps they did not. There is evidence that even Arabia(middle east) was part of a vedic culture, or at least was based on it. As Arabic is also based on Sanskrit.

Wrong. First of all, Sumerians spoke a language isolate bearing their own name. The Akkadians who conquered them later spoke a Semetic language related to Arabic which came later still. Semetic languages are from the Afro-Asiatic family of language, not the Indo-European. They are not related to Sanskrit.

Further more, the date argument is a straw man. The evidence suggests that the Vedic civilization can be more than 10,000 years old. According to Greek Historians, the astronomical calender which is based on the constellations of Ursa Major and Pleiades, dates the origin of the first king(manu) to 10,000-11,000 BC. The Vedic calender, which has quite a lot of credibility as it gives the exact age of the Earth, suggests the beginning of the current deva yuga to be 12,000 years ago.

Anxiously awaiting evidence on all of your claims which fly in the face of all archaeology.

Carbon dating of skeletons from the submerged cities of Dwarka have yielded around 7000BC.

I'd be appreciative if an observer would bear me out on this, but I seem to recall hearing in threads past that carbon-14 dating can be thrown off by being submerged, and that a phenomenon basically equating to "hard water" in an area can create flip-flops in the carbon dating, where material in lower strata can actually date younger than the material above.
Since we have some people around here far more knowledgeable than myself I'm left to hope that one of them will either correct me or bear me out on this point.

And by the way, Hinduism is based on a scientific and knowledge based system. It's science that is embracing the vedic system, not the other way around.

We've been through this in other threads. The so-called science you are constantly pointing out is vague at best and forced-translation benefiting from hindsight at the worst. Science is empirical, measurable, reproducable. The "science" of the Mahabharata can not be measured and reproduced for proof therefore it is not valid science. It MIGHT be termed alchemy at best.

Well, we know of no other civilization before the Aryans of India that has these stories. Now, seeing as Sanskrit is an Aryan/vedic language. And so many Indo-European families can be traced to Sanskrit. It should also be true that the religious stories can be traced to the Vedas too.

That doesn't follow at all. For one thing, Indo-European languages are related to sanskrit but do not necessarily all stem from sanskrit, they could share common origin. Additionally, the sharing of language does not necessarily mean the sharing of all ideals. Suppose that my Mexican friend teaches me Spanish then my Irish friend tells me the legend of Finn McCool. Does this mean that my story of Finn McCool is derived from Spanish culture?

Do you know of any culture prior to the Aryans of India? If it existed - it existed in the ice age.

1. You can't prove that it existed in the iceage. 2. Yes, I know of Mesopotamia.


Don't get me wrong, this was fun, especially because it started off civil, but this time we're not going to get into a fight because all it does is make me feel stupid for investing the time. Feel free to give a reply, but I'm not sure that I'll be inclined to reply again.