India: Ancient Superpower

On Out of Africa theory.

I do not accept Out of Africa theory to be automatically true. However, even if it was true, it makes sense actually why the original human migrants from Africa would leave Africa and move into Asia, because Europe was too cold back then and Asia was far more habitable apparently.

If all the evidence is summarized it is very clear that civilisation has an asiatic origin. At the end of the last ice age, humans moved out of South East Asia into India, and from there into Africa and then Europe. India, because it was the motherland of all these off-shoot civilisations thus developed into a highly advanced civilisation with superpower like status and through its highly regulated maritime empire was able to establish colonies all over the world.

Sealed.



[edit on 6-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


some of your articles are about girls. we should talk about boys and maybe some are a little old too. the pic i posted is from the article that "made" the ooit aryan thing fly but as you can see its basic premise is flawed because they didn't bother to get European data. Typical and chiildlike.

National Geographic News January 10, 2006
India Acquired Language, Not Genes, From West, Study Says

The Indian subcontinent may have acquired agricultural techniques and languages—but it absorbed few genes—from the west, said Vijendra Kashyap, director of India's National Institute of Biologicals in Noida.
…
Testing a sample of men from 32 tribal and 45 caste groups throughout India, Kashyap's team examined 936 Y chromosomes.
The data reveal that the large majority of modern Indians descended from South Asian ancestors who lived on the Indian subcontinent before an influx of agricultural techniques from the north and west arrived some 10,000 years ago.
…
Peter Underhill, a research scientist at the Stanford University School of Medicine's department of genetics, says he harbors no doubts that Indo-European speakers did move into India. But he agrees with Kashyap that their genetic contribution appears small.
"It doesn't look like there was a massive flow of genes that came in a few thousand years ago," he said. "Clearly people came in to India and brought their culture, language, and some genes."
…
Kashyap and his colleagues say their findings may explain the prevalence of Indo-European languages, such as Hindi and Bengali, in northern India and their relative absence in the south.
"The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct contact with the Indo-European migrants, where they could have a stronger influence on the native populations to adopt their language and other cultural entities," Kashyap said.

High-resolution analysis of Y-chromosomal polymorphisms reveals signatures of population movements from Central Asia and West Asia into India

NAMITA MUKHERJEE , ALMUTNEBEL , ARIELLA OPPENHEIM and PARTHAP.MAJUMDER
Anthropology and Human Genetics Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, B.T. Road, Kolkata 700 108, India

Linguistic evidence suggests that West Asia and Central Asia have been the two major geographical sources of genes in the contemporary Indian gene pool. To test the nature and extent of similarities in the gene pools of these regions we have collected DNA samples from four ethnic populations of northern India, and have screened these samples for a set of 18 Y-chromosome polymorphic markers (12 unique event polymorphisms and six short tandem repeats). These data from Indian populations have been analysed in conjunction with published data from several West Asian and Central Asian populations. Our analyses have revealed traces of population movement from Central Asia and West Asia into India. Two haplogroups, HG-3 and HG-9, which are known to have arisen in the Central Asian region, are
found in reasonably high frequencies (41.7% and 14.3% respectively) in the study populations. The ages estimated for these two haplogroups are less in the Indian populations than those estimated from data on Middle Eastern populations. A neighbour-joining tree based on Y-haplogroup frequencies shows that the North Indians are genetically placed between the West Asian and Central Asian populations. This is consistent with gene flow from West Asia and Central Asia into India.

i do not deny the sindi were on the danube. thats all over mythology. they were on the island zeus retired to for goodness sake. i do not deny the "greeks" were in india thats all over science but the "greeks" were j2 and j2 were the bearers of agriculture and metalurgy, seafaring and indo-european. they were actually from the middle danube basin at the time when the freshwater sea filled it at the end of the ice age. THEY lived through THE great flood.

heck don't let it bug ya! they did it to everyone thank goodness.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child


If all the evidence is summarized it is very clear that civilisation has an asiatic origin. At the end of the last ice age, humans moved out of South East Asia into India, and from there into Africa and then Europe. India, because it was the motherland of all these off-shoot civilisations thus developed into a highly advanced civilisation with superpower like status and through its highly regulated maritime empire was able to establish colonies all over the world.

Sealed.
[edit on 6-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

europe in da ice age. nice place actually... especially the middle danube basin until it flooded.


this is a neat pic... J2 travelled along a latitude in their initial explorations and settle at 1000 stade intervals. note the catastrophe in the middle danube basin. seems like they wanted to be able to find their way home and home wanted to know where they would be should someone go looking. smart cookies.


[edit on 7-1-2010 by Parta]

reply to post by Parta


Sorry but your post does not make sense. Want to run that by me again?

Nobody is denying that the Indians and the Europeans share genetics. But the genetic studies in fact show that migrations took place out of India and into Europe and not vis versa. There were migrations, but they migrations were out of India and into Europe.

If you can show genetics studies that show the opposite, then it basically means genetic studies can both prove and disprove each other, which makes them useless in settling this debate.

The mass of evidence so far presented shows Aryan invasion theory is bunk. The Indo-Aryans were already present in India in the 4th Millenium bce and prior and therefore India was their home. Indo-Europeans have therefore descended from the Indo-Aryans.

Europe in the 4th millenium BCE was inhabited by savages. It is obvious they were civilised by the Indo-Aryans and taught language etc, the earliest evidence of which we can see around 2000BCE.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child



the study by the big boys on western russia which came out at the same time as your ooit study says that there is a r1a1 [aryan] spot as big and dark [every bit as as old] as india in Europe so the ooit basic premise is flawed because it said there wasn't

every reputable study in the last few years in india etc. confirms that the actual bearers of indo-european where neolithic j2 farmers and it certainly wasn't any kind of military conquest. the language came from the west and J2 is the only confirmed people to have come from the west.

barbarians? i think maybe you should research Europe a bit. i was good enough to research india alot [not for you but i did research it alot].

note the 800ha un-defended cities


nice pots for barbarians

barbarian goldsmiths [the first on earth]


these folks pop on down to egypt in about 4k bc










i am not european btw. we left that behind when they burned some ancestors and we sailed far far away.

Ancient, it's been reborn haven't you heard?

reply to post by Parta


Yep, Europe was a primitive and illiterate stone age cultue before the Indo-Europeans arrived and civilised it: Shortly after Greek civilisation appeared.

The inhabitants were involved with animal husbandry, agriculture, fishing and gathering. Wheat, rye and peas were grown. Tools included plows made of antlers, stone, bone and sharpened sticks. The harvest was collected with scythes made of flint-inlaid blades. The grain was milled into flour by stone wheels. Women were involved in pottery, textile- and garment-making, and played a leading role in community life. Men hunted, herded the livestock, made tools from flint, bone and stone. Of their livestock, cattle were the most important, with swine, sheep and goats playing lesser roles.

en.wikipedia.org...

Greek civilisation has no precursor in Europe because Europe only had a primitive culture. Greeks civilisation arose after the Indians migrated into Europe and taught them language, philosophy, religion etc, thereby civilising the previously savage people.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

the aurignacians were making art, flutes, worshipping a mother goddess and therefore probably herding cows by 35kbc in europe

the gravettians were weaving, making ceramics, worshipping a mother godess, herding, provided social services, living in permanent open air settlements by 25kbc in europe.

i can see some ostrich shell bits with a hole poked in for india. your mother goddess hits the son valley about 6000bc with farmers

at the end of the ice age the gravettians were forced out of their homeland because the middle danube basin flooded completely. they took their mother goddess worshipping, grindstone using little butties and went walkabout.



the sixth minute of this video talks about the sea/lake that flooded them out.

It just occurred to me. It's the most simplest and fatal evidence against Aryan invasion theory.

The Europeans were illiterate. How then could they have composed the Vedas, which is a massive text divided into 10 books, composed in precise metre and a very complex and inflected language containing a lot of philosophical content. Only a highly literate people could do that. At the time the only civilisations that had literature were Egypt and Sumer, and the Indus we know was literate indirectly through the Indus seals. It certainly was not Egypt or Sumer, because their language is not Indo-European, this leaves only the Indus people as the only possibility.

Why would the Indo-Aryans of all the Indo-European groups be the only group to have written down the Vedas? Why is it that we do not find any literature in Europe until the Greeks, and by then in India we already have a very old and vast literary tradition.

It is very obvious Aryan invasion theory has been made up by some racists Europeans, who could not digest that they were civilised by the darker skinned Indo-Aryans/Indians when their white ancestors were savages. The Greeks are basically the result of Indians civilising the Europeans in the past.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

danube script
or have you ever seen these?





want to see the great vara of yima?



[edit on 7-1-2010 by Parta]

This guy just ignores evidence and makes up his own out of thin air saying India colonized the world. He is taking a page out of current politics, if he finds conflicting evidence then he plays the racist card to disregard the proof that he is peddling hogwash.

I few symbols on stones in India that are undecipherable is all there is when Sumerians were taking meticulous records of their daily affairs and inventing the hexadecimal system we all still use to this day to keep time.

India colonized Greece and taught them lol, best laugh yet. Persia was the world power before the rise of Greece and India was subject to Persia. Mercenaries were conscripted into Darius' III army from the Indus valley regions of India/Pakistan when Alexander's army decimated them in the battle of Gaugamala.

Here is the real evidence of the Indus valley region for people who don't want to be stuck in fantasy land with the OP,
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by UcantBserious


You do know I have linked that source several times in this thread already? For somebody accusing me of ignoring evidence, you don't seem to have read this thread.

Where is your evidence India was subject to Persia? If you want to play, you need to play by the rules, show me the facts. As far as I know there is no records of Persian invasion of India. Indians were present in the Persian army and Persia had control over parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but this does not mean India was invaded by Persia. India and Persia have traditionally been very closely related. We know this for a fact because the Persian language is a dialect of sanskrit and the Persian religion is virtually identical to vedic religion. It is also known that Indians fought alongside Persians against the Greeks. Clearly suggesting they were not enemies.

Persia are an Aryan people and so are the Indians. It seems Persia and India were actually part of each other and not separate from one another. Indian records even mention intermarriage between so called "Persian" kings and Indian queens.

The Aryan empire includes both Persia and India. I don't mind if you say Persia was in power before the Greeks, indirectly to me that is a nod to the great Indian empire of which Persia has been a part historically. Indian civilisation was much larger than the current geography of India you know.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

Confirming this thread is completely excellent. Can I just say, that the more I delve into history, the more I discover exactly HOW MUCH we've all been lied to? Honestly, I'm 40 years old, and I feel like I'm starting from scratch..with truth instead of lies. not just for this subject, but, for damn near every historical piece of info I ever thought I knew. post on..

Thankyou for your post regarding India in ancient times. an Indian friend of mine ,Anurhada, tells me that there are two books that anyone interested in India should read. the are the Mahaburhata and the Ramayana (apologies if the spelling is wrong).

These are ancient holy writings that will give you insight into Indian beleifs and traditions. She tells me in India these books are considered more history than myth, they describe technologies that should have been beyond the capabilities of that era. Including flying machines and weapons that could conceivably be beyond what our society is currently capable of producing, with the exception of nuclear weapons and lasers, like Indras dart, and vehicles such as Vimanas.

As I see it our current society could very well go belly up at any time, our buildings would stand, for a while at least, but without the ability and resources to maintain our industries they will fall into disuse. Scenario: we manage to wipe ourselves out or are wiped out by natural catastrophe, 5000 years from now archeaologists find remains of huge buildings long since fallen and now just heaps of rubble and say the Statue of Liberty, if they think the way we do they will assume she was some sort of ancient goddess, her tiara MUST represent the sun etc.

My point is this, sorry to be so longwinded, a later society could only speculate about us and anything written about us would only be a theory, unlike the ancients our history isn't carved in stone, our books would decay, our computers and the data they hold would vanish and all they are left with are myths and legends about a time when aircraft flew us all over the world, skyscrapers reached incredible heights, and illnesses and deformites were miraculouly cured by "medicine men" , Priests ;Magicians and strange machines.

Whether you use the word "Civilzaton", "Society" or "Culture" is totally irrelevent, at some stage in history, mankind made enourmous leaps and bounds it doesn't matter who made them or where those people were located be it India, Sumeria, Egypt, South America and many many other locations worldwide, their legacy has helped forge the world we live in today. Science tends to look backwards to move forwards.

I would encourage other members to what i'm myself am doing, that is to track down a copy of these books and also writings known as the Vedas, mind you it's REALLY hard going there are verses upon verses to read, then take a step back and really consider what you've learnt, put it into it's proper context, then form an opinion as to whether or not India made a massive contribution to our current way of life, as did the other ancient societies that we base our western way of life on.

If we remain close minded to the contribution of other societies we risk becoming too insular in our thinking, as in the above secnario imagine people 5000 years from now thinking only America and Europe were sufficiently advanced and that their acheivements the only ones worthy of note and that the acheivements of people like Dr Victor Chang were of no importance at all, or worse still utterly forgotten, because he lived in Autralia, not the USA or Europe. Australia being considered to be not advanced enough to have produced such a gifted Physician.

So lets hope that lively and productive discussion will be the tool we use to help this forum try to unravel some of the mysteries of the Ancient world.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Hello Indigo-child...

I love your work and I love your style...You have the patience of a thousand saints. Here in Australia it is being accepted that the Australian Aboriginals have Indian DNA. From a 2009 published study done in India, debated here at Anthropological gatherings at some of our universities. There seems to be agreement on the DNA.... There are disagreements about if this was done in one or two migrations around 50,000 yrs ago.
Of course this is all done in an out of Africa context, via India through South East Asia, PNG then Australia. The australian Dingo is an Indian dog according to DNA.
I hope this helps some of those brain-dead wankers that know every thing about nothing. There are so much of our history thats stuck in victorian control freak times.
Keep up the good works Indigo-Child you have alot of supporters.

Originally posted by tri-lobe-1
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

I hope this helps some of those brain-dead wankers that know every thing about nothing. There are so much of our history thats stuck in victorian control freak times.

my prof said that mr truth is the ultimate control freak. he's never very popular because he's always able to put up and never has to shut up.

reply to post by Parta


hello Parta,
did I hit a nerve with you? My professor said if the shoe fits......wear it. Do you think the shoe fits parta?

Originally posted by tri-lobe-1
reply to post by Parta

 

hello Parta,
did I hit a nerve with you? My professor said if the shoe fits......wear it. Do you think the shoe fits parta?

well it is funny. someone here says that india is responcible for everything man has ever done without exception but you say someone else is a control freek? are you for real? maybe you spend too much time with the dingos?

reply to post by amaya esti


I am starting a separate thread to discuss this matter especially. I think we have to take the references to the technology in Indian and other ancient texts very seriously now. Already we have revised world histoy dramatically in this thread.

We know now that in ancient times there there was a maritime civilisation that had colonized the whole world and spread its Aryan culture. It emerged suddenly just after the end of the last ice age in the Indus valley. By 3000BCE it had developed into a highly modern-like urban civilisation and developed science and philosophy to a very high level.

What I want to ask is not whether they really had aeroplanes, nuclear weapons, computers and lazers, but why the hell would they not? They had already reached moden like levels of intellectual and scientific development as early as 3000BCE. So why not modern like technology?


[edit on 8-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

Thank you for the thread. I think Indian History is fascinating although I haven't read beyond India, A History by John Keay and The Vedic Age by the Bharatiya Ithasa Samiti. If you watch the movie Asoka,it opens with a picture of Asoka's stone carved inscriptions. I watched it several times before even noticing. Asoka's grandfather, Chandra Gupta Maurya, was a friend of Alexander. Bindusara might have had a Greek/Persian wife. Indians might not like the idea, but Asoka could have been of Greek descent.