Aryan Mummies

[Guest guest]

tocharian mummies: from Shambala ?

 

 

shambala was spoken of by tibetan monks long after

buddhism had come and gone in india,tibet because of its inaccessability was the last

buddhist kingdom to become so.

 

The legend goes that you must travel due north from lhasa, crossing the mountains,then crossing a desert, shambala was a city in a valley surrounded by mountains.

 

if you go north from lhasa you will hit a desert,

in the tarim basin.

 

until 4000 years ago the tarim basin was a fertile

paradise,lakes,rivers,animals, and because of

its location as the center of trade bewteen china and the east and india and points west,

the aryan,or vedic civilization there grew

very wealthy and they built great cities and empires.

 

the tarim basin was a fertile paradise valley,

surrounded by enourmous mountains.

 

4000 years ago the climate started to change,

it became drier and drier, when the aryan vedic

civilization underwent it's massive conversion

to buddhism,so did the kingdoms of the tarim,

this was around 300 b.c. and onward.

 

by the time buddhism reached tibet almost

1000 years later, the climate had created a large desert in the tarim surrounded by cities

with oasis cities also, but by then many of the great kingdoms had been abandoned and lost to the desert.

 

so the legend of shambala was about the great

kingdoms that had occupied the tarim basin,

drawing traders from europe to settle there

as well as from china and greater india,

the tocharian mummies found there from 4000

years ago that were european with blond and red

hair supports that, the other inhabitants due to

being vedic or buddhist cremated their dead,

so the caucasion mummies alone survived.

 

 

here are some links, about loulan and other

extinct kingdoms including the famous

dunhuang.

 

 

http://english.cri.com.cn/english/2002/Oct/73931.htm

 

http://chineseculture.about.com/library/weekly/aa010198.htm

 

 

here are stories about the search for shambala,also

called shangri-la

 

http://www.shambhala.mn/Files/csoma.html

 

this is some stuff at a ,

details about vedic peoples in the region

and alot of other great stuff.

aballonas/message/41

 

 

[Guest guest]

some of the ideas of a large sea combining the aral and caspian seas a long time ago at the link, as being around the area of the original home of the aryans, north to north east of india, is speculative, still the stuff there is good.

 

 

taking into account their theory of a great sea combining the caspian and aral seas,

in the past, it makes for some interesting ideas about shambala,shangri la,

and the original home of civilization

[Guest guest]

My question is if the aryans came from outside into India why don't we find versions of vedas, puranas etc outside India? Where are other varnashrama societies out of India? Can someone give me a link to them?

 

Vrindavan dharma ki jaya!

[Guest guest]

"My question is if the aryans came from outside into India why don't we find versions of vedas, puranas etc outside India? Where are other varnashrama societies out of India? Can someone give me a link to them?"

 

You may know that Sanskrit is closely relatd to Greek, Latin, Celtic, Slavic etc. This is what we call Indo-european languages. And precisely, all the myths of various Indo-European people are closely related, Veda is closely related to Edda (Nordic mythology), Roman myths, Greek myths etc. You just need to read the main reference of Indo-European studies Georges Dumezil to be convinced.

 

Therefore you cannot talk about vedas as isolated pieces of work. The only difference is that India did not become christian and therefore old myths always remained an active part of your culture.

[Guest guest]

"To me these look like Indians from India. Not surprised."

 

My answer would be that your statement is half true/ half false. The DNA of these mummies has been analysed and the result is that they are related to modern European populations (apparently centrala and northwestern europeans). But somne Indians are also related to European populations, especially in the highest castes of Northern India, as revealed by other recent DNA studies.

[Guest guest]

''Veda is closely related to Edda (Nordic mythology)''

 

Could you please explain what the realtions youve found are?

 

Thanks

[Guest guest]

"You may know that Sanskrit is closely relatd to Greek, Latin, Celtic, Slavic etc."

 

It's not that Sanskrit is related to Greek, Latin etc, but it's the other way round, Greek, Latin etc is closely related to Sanskrit.

 

And I would like to ask, why do people still go on about this aryan invasion theory when it is proven to be untrue!.

 

There was no aryan invasion!. end of story!.

 

If there was (which there isn't) then where did these aryans come from?!... exact locations please, not any central asia or eastern europe .!.... why isn't there any aryans left any more, why isn't there any sanatan dharma there anymore???, why dont the countries which these aryans came from speak no sanskrit?!.

 

Please drop this theory, there's was aryan invasion, the only people who still cling onto this idea are westerners, why?

 

Cannot they take it that darker skinned people actually did have a greater and better ancient civilisation than them.

 

maybe they can't, that might just be it!

 

Bharat Mata Ki Jai!

 

 

[Guest guest]

The Early Aryans

 

Around 30,000 years ago, though the date is by no means that fixable, an identifiable group of Caucasians - the Aryans - were living in the Caucasus region of Southern Russia. These people either from population pressure or sheer wanderlust started to spread out in all directions.

 

Around 20,000 to 12,000 years ago, the Aryan 'great folk wandering' began. Our early ancestors moved out from their ancestral homelands - North, South, East and West.

 

They arrived in Egypt around 10,000 BC and the Aryan chieftain Menes became the first Pharaoh of the first dynasty, thus beginning the Egyptian civilisation. To the South-West the Aryans moved into the lush river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates (modern day Iraq and Iran) and founded the Sumerian civilisation.

 

I have been brought to task about my using the word 'Aryan' to describe our early White ancestors. Why not just call them Whites? Well, that is because the term Aryan means much more - they were White people distinct from our present day for the most part flabby, disinterested WHITE populations of the world. To be Aryan, means to be a White man or woman who has a RACIAL awareness.

 

Secondly, I have Iranian National Socialists who believe that they as early Persians were the first Aryans and they point out correctly that the word "Aryan" is synonymous with Iranian. I have pointed out to them they are wrong in this and history proves the situation happened the other way around. The Aryans arrived in ancient "Irania" (Aryania), and established a culture and then civilisation from there. The present day Iranians, though the higher old Persian elite may have a lot of Aryan blood, have become very misceginated and can no longer be termed "Aryan" in the truest sense.

 

The Aryans went further East still and founded the Indus Valley civilization, with its caste system and Hindu religion to prevent the mixing of the Aryan people with the native Dravidian population. It has again been recently called to my attention that high caste Brahmins in India possess the features and looks of Aryans, but again I would state that many centuries of mixing has diluted the earlier Aryan blood.

 

Further East, the first Chinese cultures were founded by Aryan invaders, now thousands of miles from their ancestral homelands. Recent finds in China are uncovering red an fair haired mummies of distinctly Aryan appearance with all the apparatus of an advanced culture. These Chinese Aryans, the last vestiges of a lost culture that kick-started the Chinese civilisation are the last vestiges of the Aryans furthest push to the East. In saying that, there is some evidence that the Ainu, or aboriginal people of Japan, who are shunned by many modern Japanese, were in fact Aryans originally. They have some distinct non Mongoloid qualities about them.

 

It was in the Middle East, Turkey(Anatolia) and Egypt however that Aryan civilisation really flourished. Here the Aryan warriors crossed swords with the Hither Asiatics and Semites and were victorious. The Sumerian civilisation built the first pyramids (closely resembling the step pyramids of Central and South America - of which more later), and were followed in this monolithic work by the Egyptians.

 

Babylon, Persia, Media and Phoenicia were all Aryan cultures who battled with the Semitic Assyrian and Chaldean Semitic peoples for predominance in the region. As these civilisations fell into decline after hundreds and in some cases thousands (Egypt) of years, they were constantly refreshed by new infusions of Aryan blood. Decaying Persia and Egypt were revitalised by Alexander the Great's Aryan Macedonian and Greek troops. India from more Aryan invasions survived and the caste system, very watered down lives on today in the Aryan founded Hindu religion. Though today the Hindus are represented for the most part by the pre Aryan aboriginal people of India.

 

[Guest guest]

I am not sure whether you are trying to establish facts or whether you are promoting an agenda of some sort -- . let's assume that you are fair and looking for evidence but that you have been misinformed by dodgy literature about "Aryans".

 

"It's not that Sanskrit is related to Greek, Latin etc, but it's the other way round, Greek, Latin etc is closely related to Sanskrit."

 

Your point does not mean anything from a logical point of view: when I say a=b it is logically the same as b=a. But I assume you are trying to suggest that indo-European languages are derived from Sanskrit. Am I right? If this is what you are trying to suggest, and what early European observers believed in the XVIII century, it does not resist analysis. You should read some linguistic work -- use google there are many universities who are putting user-friendly material online. Sanskrit, Latin and Greek were at the same level of linguistic development, they were "cousins" in the indo-European family not "mothers and daughters". Just think of a family tree to figure out what process took place . It is estimated that a proto Indo-European language emerged about 5000 to 6000 years ago (Grimm and Jones laws of linguistic mutations help us and estimates are more and more reliable), then it is very likely that it spitted into a western branch (Centum group) and an eastern branch (Satem group), which includes Slavic, Baltic, Armenian and Indo-Iranian languages. Sanskrit is part of the Indo-Iranian sub-family of the satem group. Greek, Latin , Celtic etc. do not belong to the same sub- family.

 

"And I would like to ask, why do people still go on about this aryan invasion theory when it is proven to be untrue!."

 

Actually this is the other way around. Recent genetic studies have proved, thanks to the fascinating Genome project, that "the maternally inherited DNA [of most indo-European speakers in India ] more closely resembled that of Asians, although genetic similarities to Europeans were more common in members of the higher ranks. Among the paternally inherited DNA, however, they found an even greater likeness to European DNA. Thus, the scientists suggest that the western Eurasians who arrived in India were mostly men who placed themselves at the top of the social ladder and married only women in the highest castes.

 

 

An article about the topic:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E27F4-B639-1C5E-B882809EC588ED9F

 

Of course a refined search would lead you to the original study.

 

"exact locations please"

 

It is a very difficult question but looking at the combination of linguistic, lifestyle, cultural artefacts, technological progress (horse domestication) etc. leads to a zone between the Rhine and the eastern part of Ukraine. That's where the horse was domesticated the wheel was invented and metallurgy was improved, giving a decisive technological advantage to the early indo-European tribes

 

 

"Please drop this theory, there's was Aryan invasion, the only people who still cling onto this idea are westerners, why?"

 

Because modern science emerged in the western world and that's where cutting-edge research is still done. The fact that the invasion theory was used for political purposes does not necessarily imply that it is not valid. But many westerners tend to ignore this theory on the basis of ideological reasons, mainly because of the horrible legacy of ideological instrumentalisation of the indo-European legacy during WWII

 

"Cannot they take it that darker skinned people actually did have a greater and better ancient civilisation than them."

 

I think you are making a value judgement about what is superior or inferior. Some light skinned people who were most probably not indo-European had very high levels of cultural achievements (e.g. megalith culture of western Europe). Others, including darker-skin non indo-European people have also produced high cultures including of course in India. All depends on how you are defining "civilisation" and what is the basis of your value judgement. On the basis of linguistic and archeological findings what was the "culture" of Early indo-European? We see a warlike people, with a good ability to produce military devices and a great expertise in horse riding. A rural people able to breed and raise cattle, and also able to maintain some sort of itinerant agriculture. A people with a good ability to manufacture textile. A people obsessed by cosmic order and law. A hierarchical society divided in three orders: priests, warriors and food producers. The existence of a form of writing is a question still open. Their aggressive behaviour gave them a comparative advantage over less aggressive more peaceful sedentary civilisations (not all actually there were not invincible). But I agree that in returned these earlier sedentary civilisations tended to "civilise" them (in the very sense of the term, bringing them to urban life).

 

India is a mix of Indo-European (Aryan) and earlier settlers, just like Europe where agricultural civilisation developed before the invasion. It is form this mix that our civilisations have developed.

 

A personal statement: The quest of "purity" is the most dangerous thing and no doubt it could lead India to civil war.

[Guest guest]

It would be a bit long to detail but there are actually lots of parallels (myths of creation, roles of the gods etc.). Not only between Edda and Veda but between most Indo-Euroepan religions and myths. The best is to look at the work of Georges Dumezil

[Guest guest]

The true and purest Aryans live in India.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There was Tamil, Aryan in Korea too.

 

And they finally became Korean so u guys all be Korean okay?

[Guest guest]

It is true most Indians belong to the pure Aryan Race. No racial mixing in India occurred. also no Dravidian Race exists most people in the South are also pure Aryans. We do have some Australoids spread in every corner of India. they are also a great race.

[Guest guest]

But what makes you say that these Aryans came from outside India. Similarity either in genes or language simply suggests that similarity exists and nothing more. On the contrary it could be that a race of Indians migrated to middle east and then to Europe.

 

This is what I think happened.

 

A city have been found off the coast of Chennai(Madras) Tamil Nadu(the so called Dravidian state). The city was also mentioned in ancient Tamil texts as Poompuhar if I remember it right. The age of this city was found to be 7000 B.C.

 

What does this suggest ?

 

Dravidians were in Tamil Nadu long before the supposed Aryan invasion. Ancient Tamil texts also talk about Tamil land boundaries which begins from Kanyakumari from south and ends at Tirupati. If you know Tamil you can read the Tamil text TolkAppiyam(belongs to 500 B.C.) which begins by defining boundaries of Tamil country.

 

http://www.tamil.net/projectmadurai/pub/pm0100/tolkap.pdf

 

Begins as

 

Vada Venkatam then Kumari = Northern boundary is Venkatam(Tirupati) and southern boundary is Kumari(Kanyakumari). Both the Tamil city(7000 B.C.) and the Tamil literature(500 B.C.) go against Aryan invasion and proves that AIT is an invention of christians just like christianity itself is an invention of these liying Europeans.

[Guest guest]

 

Hindu Aryans (Caucasians) India: -

 

4500 years (perhaps more) Caucasians from South Russia started moving towards east and habituated around five rivers in the north India now called Indus Valley.

 

Ancient inhabitants of North India were Dravidians now called Tamils of south India. With bit broader noses and darkest skin, were pushed to the south by the new Aryan arrivals from Caucasia. In the process the Dravdians got mixed with Aryans and mostly the mix was not accepted back into the Aryan stock and isolated they moved to south and settled in there. (Aryans might have accepted their women as wives, so taking Dravadian blood among Aryan Indians) About 2500 years ago Aryans also occupied Sri Lanka and Dravidians moved in with them also. Waves upon waves of Aryans arrived from Caucasia.

 

In the course of time Aryans accepted Dravidians Gods and vice versa and the present India came to existence.

 

The Sikhs of North India:

 

Around 3800 years ago, a tribe in the name of Mitanni reached Babylon (now Iraq) This tribe believed in the same multiple Gods of Hindus, i.e. air, water, fire, statues and cows etc. Its king was called Dashratha (Tushratha)) He was born about 3200 years in this tribe of Mitanni. Many of his subjects were Hurrians. They were closely related to Hittites. They also moved to Europe with their Masters. At present they are considered to be Anglo-Saxons settled somewhere in North Europe. Perhaps people of present day Northern Ireland. History says he had three wives. His son "Ram" legendary King/God of Hindus was ruling India.

Dashratha married his daughter Nafertiti to Egyptian Pharaoh and his other daughter "Nefertiri" went to India to live and stay with his stepbrother, King /God, "Ram".

 

When Moses and other Jews came to claim Promised Land then he got his powerful hold in the Mediterranean including Babylon. With the waning power in that region a son- in -law of Dashratha in the name of Marsuluis moved to south of Europe now France and set up a city in his name as Marseilles. So the next generations of Dashratha and other Kings cum cousins, started moving in waves to South Europe and they established present countries of France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland etc.

 

Leftover of these in Babylon, when Muslims tookover Iraq by force. With fear of persecution and converting, about 1000 years ago, the leftover moved to North India. Because the story was there, that a king "Ram" from their own tribe, a son of their King Dashratha, was ruling north India and it was a peaceful country where there is no threat from Muslims. Of course they were not called Sikhs as yet. But because of Ashur-bani-pal a descendent of Dashratha was ruling Iraq, he was bearing turban and bearded. Ashur now the Christians of Iraq are the descendents of Ashura-bani-pal. In the ancient, most of the people lived in Egypt, Mediterranean and Babylon, who later turned to be Christians were fully bearded and turbaned. To prove so, I have a painting of St. Mark preaching Christianity to these people in Alexandria, Egypt, now the Coptic people. For information the Coptic Christian of Ethiopia are still bearded and turbaned. They are related to the Coptic Christians of Egypt. These Coptic are the descendents of Pharaoh, the ancient kings of Egypt. They decided to be Christians, the followers of Jesus, as their Aramaic cousins from where Mary, mother of Jesus have descended.

Jewish King David and most of his jewish subjects were fully bearded and turbaned.

 

(The Sikh Religion was founded about 550 years ago in Punjab, India. The founder of Sikh faith, Guru Nanak and tenth and the last Guru, Gobind Singh are the direct descendents of Hindus King/God Ram. The Sikhs themselves are the descendents of his father Dashratha, who was ruling Babylon (now Iraq) some 3200 years ago. Sikhs moved from Babylon to Punjab, India about 1000 years ago. 2000 years ago, from these tribes of Dashratha and his other cousins cum kings, Mary, mother of Jesus moved towards South of Mediterranean. Abraham of the Jews, Sikhs of India and Mary, mother of Jesus are descended from the same common source of related tribes of Babylon now Iraq.)

 

Sikhs were not fully immersed into the Hindu Aryans as yet. Muslims as Mughals (Ottoman) came to India and they tried their ways of persecution to convert Hindus into Muslims.They succeeded and Pakistan was born. Before the creation of Pakistan 55 years ago, India was bordering Iran. Thus making them to be called Indo-Iranian.

 

But Sikhs protested and fought back and decided they will neither be Hindus or Muslims. They preferred to be bearded and turbaned like their King in Iraq, Ashura-bani-pal and cousin King of Persia of Indo-Iranian stock, King Darius (He is also known as Huvakhshatra) who was also bearded, in whose army, the Sikhs served. The Sikhs defeated and dethroned Mughals (Ottoman) empire in India about 300 years ago. If Sikhs were not on the scene of North of India, the entry point of the Mughal armies, then whole of India was to be converted to Islam by force, against their will.

 

(Though their appearance seems to be of cruel nature. But they are absolutely not cruel. They saved Hindus and other Indians to be converted to be Muslims, thus they proved to be protectors and saviors of other religions, their dignity and honor. They have no quarrel or enmity with other faiths whether they are Hindus, Christians, Jews or Muslims. Because of the Sikhs don’t preach or force others to be Sikhs. They have no wish to convert others. In fact, they don’t accept converts. So they have no quarrel with other faiths or religions. Except they fought with the cruel rulers of the time but not their faith.)

 

In the meanwhile, their cousins in Europe turned to be Christians believing in One God. So as the Sikhs of India followed them to believe in One God starting about 550 years ago. This made the Sikhs to be called Indo-Germanic or Indo-European.

 

Christians of Europe can eat pork as they like and don’t have to have circumcision. Same as Sikhs are not encouraged to eat meat because of Hindus around them but they are not prohibited to eat meat and they can eat pork. They don’t eat halal meat. Circumcision is absolutely prohibited.

 

About 2500 years ago, a tribe moved towards Europe from Iran of Indo-Iranian stock and formed the kingdom of Rome. They also ruled England where they have found Mithra temples in London after Hitler ditched London with bombs. Romans also believed in Indra, Varuna and Mithra (air, water and sun) Gods like "Ram" the King/God of Indian Hindus and his father Dashratha of Babylon (Iraq).

 

Dravidians now of south India are living in India for the last may be 70,000 or more years. They started moving east through now Indo-China. While mixing with them and moving towards Australia and settled here. (Indo-Chinese are called Hakka, aborigine of China with very wide noses). Mixing with different tribes they form to be Aborigines of Australia. They also left their blood in now called Indo-China. Later about 1700 years ago, Indian Kings of Caucasian origin started ruling in now Indo-China. Indonesians and Malaysians are proud to call themselves “Bhumi Putra” from an Indian word of “Bhumi Puter means “sons of the land”. They still feel proud to keep Indian names of their cities and personal names. Ironically, Java is still a Hindu State worshipping Hindu Gods. People of Thailand are still proud to keep their Hindu names. (Indo mean India, nesia means, an island. Whole region is called Indo-China, a mix of Indians and Chinese.

 

In the course of time the blacks of Africa started moving towards Australia and while in Australia they mixed with the local population. That is why half of the Aborigines of Australia have thick and curly hairs. These black people moved further east to settle in Fiji and other pacific islands. Thus taking Australian Aborigine blood with them also.

 

The Polynesians of Pacific Islands and NewZealand, in their folk songs, sing “that they have come from “Iriha” and they have come from the West”. In the ancient, the name of India was “Viriha”.

 

I hope you will like it.

 

Unfortunately people tend to forget their own past and others dig the history from underground to remind them. I am not creating the history. History is already there. I am exploring it for my own knowledge.

 

By the way... Buddha was born Aryan, 2500 years ago. He was born near Patna, northeast India. His ancestors were also moved from Caucasia in ancient time.

 

Gautama the Buddha...Discarded his fathers Hindu beliefs and founded his own Karma. But his Karma is also basically a Hindu philosophy based on almost the similar principals.

 

Hindus were too strong in their beliefs. Buddha could not succeed in India to spread his beliefs. So Buddha eyed east and Chinese, Japanese and other nations accepted his teachings and preaching and they grabbed him gladly.

 

Hindus brought China into its fold culturally for the last more that two thousands years. India can't conquer China by force but they have conquered it spiritually and culturally.

 

China is in- waiting super power of this planet.

 

Thanks to the teachings and preaching of Buddha.... My uncle.

 

Mohammed was the direct descendent of Ishmael. They are being Sunnis. They believe that there is no continuance of spiritual line after Mohammed and Koran.

 

But Shiias, believe the continuance of seat of Mohammed and they believe that the spiritual line of Mohammed is not finished but continue (like Pope of Rome and the Christian believe that Pope is in the line of Jesus Christ) The lineage not being finished.

 

It so happened when Iran was forced to be converted to be Muslims, they being fanatic Aryans (as its name, I-r-a-n, suggests and spells like Aryan) believing in many Gods like Hindus of India still do, it became hard for them to decide to convert to Moslem faith. Then at last they decided, ok, they will convert to Muslims but will be the Muslims of Ali, son-in law of Mohammed who believed that Mohammed have established him as Imam to continue the throne of Mohammed. So Ali became first Pope for the Shiia Muslims and Imam of Iran being the present Pope and will continue like this. Shiias in Lebanon or anywhere are from Indo-Iranian stock. There is one tribe in the name of Alwi in Syria. This is also a branch of Shiias.

 

Jesus Christ was born to Mary, the Pagan from Babylon (now Iraq) whereas Joseph being from Jewish side. If elders of Pagans had accepted that Jesus was son of Joseph then they have also have to accept that Jesus is a Jew, which became very hard to decide for a tribe to say that they are Jews, though they were not. Being Pagans they decided to declare that Jesus is born of Virgin Mary. They cut of the link from the Jews forever, thus so deciding.

 

I feel glad to answer your questions. I came to the conclusions because I have studied the subject. I read Old Testament, Christian Bible, Koran and lots of other books on the ancient history.

 

Ist Testament asserts that Hebrews and Aramaic are the same people. Thus its authors wish to prove that Mary was Jewish thus Jesus was a Jew as his father Joseph.

 

Mary was Aramaic speaking as Jesus and others Paul and John the Baptist. The language they speak recognizes people. There are still people in Iraq they speak this language.

 

As Old Testament asserts that they are the same people but I can prove, they were not.

 

In fact, Hebrew came out of Aramaic language. (If you believe that the Jews are the descendents of Abraham, THEN where are the descendents of his father Tehra, as the Jews recognize him or Khalil, as the Muslims recognize him? He was the Chief of his tribe known as Chaldeas or Kaldu of Ur, now called Basra, south of Iraq. Later most of the descendents of Abraham’s father, Tehra, turned to be Muslims through Abraham’s first son Ishmael, born of his concubine Hagar. Many of them also turned to be Christians and Ashur of Iraq are the present Aramaic people.They still read and write Aramaic language. Hebrew and Aramaic is a similar language and its writing patterns are same. Aramaic language is originated from Babylon (Iraq). Abraham’s father ordered him out of Ur for his safety. Because of Abraham discarded the religion of his father and declared that he believe in One God. Thus the Stone of Kabbah. I will try to explain it later.

 

Communities are recognized from their eating habits and their life styles.

 

Jews can’t eat pork as it is forbidden. Aramaic can eat as they wish (Aramaic is most like the word Aryans as the Hindus of India called Arya and in Irish language called Erie as also Iran for Aryan)

 

Jews have to eat Hallal or Kosher meat whereas the Aramaic have the choice.

 

Jews have to have the circumcision whereas the Aramaic has the choice.

 

Thus I proved it that both are different.

 

Now the question is, if Mary and Jesus were Jews then why the rest of Aramaic speaking community did not turn to be Jews.

 

I think it was easy for them to drag two people back to their community than millions of Aramaic turn to be Jews. And they destroyed the link with the Jews thus declaring that Mary was virgin and God is the father of Jesus.

 

Regarding black stone of Kabbah, I am also puzzled that why Abraham have to chose a stone to make his belief that he believe in One God?

 

Abraham left his father, mother and all the relatives in Ur (now Basra, Iraq) and he did not care to be a chief of his tribe after the death of his father. He chose to leave Ur because of his belief that he doesn’t believe in stones, statues and cows or other images of his father. Deciding to choose that stone, is a puzzle. (In fact, alongwith the Black Stone, there were total of 360 religious artifacts and idols of belief.) But later he left that stone, idols and other artifacts for Ishmael and he became true believer in his faith of One God. But again the Jews also raised a wall of stones to pray The Wailing Wall.

 

These two great religions were based on the philosophy, not to believe in stones and idols, but again they are bowing to those stones and idols is a puzzle.

 

I tried to make my points.

 

Hindus of India think and believe that the sacred black stone of Kabbah, belonged to one of their God Shiva.

 

Hindus of India have like that black stone everywhere in their temples and they drench those stones with water 24 hours a day. These stones are called Shiva- Linga. The penis of Shiva. Why Abraham chose this Stone as Sacred and from where he got it? Did he have links with Hindu Gods and he knew the importance of this Sacred Stone? His father Khalil was practicing Hindu because of he was the chief of his tribe and he was worshipping stones, statues, cows and other idols like the Hindus of India still do.

 

Hindus believe that the stone in Kabbah is also asking for water. But no water goes near it. This sacred stone and other 360 religious artifacts and idols are under lock. Only King of Saudi Arabia have its key and he opens the lock only once a year and he got to be sure that no water goes inside, even his perspiration. He changes a new cloth over these idols. He locks it to be opened next year again.

 

 

 

 

[Raguraman 0]

Hare Krishna,

 

Dear guest,

 

Did you read the post given above.

 

Tamil(so called Dravidian) literature itself claims that AIT is nonsense.

 

Besides Aryans were supposed to have come into India at 1500 B.C., while Tamil cities were found through archaeology to be as old as 5000 B.C. Tamil texts claim their country to be between Kanyakumari and Tirupati which is present day Tamil Nadu for your information.

 

Just copying and pasting without understanding what is written there is irrational.

 

Start with the proof given above and tell me how AIT is true. To me the above evidence is enough proof to consider AIT a false theory.

Case closed.

[Guest guest]

Anyone who has heard about the Indo-European language group should know that the ancient Hittite language was Indo-European and that the names of Iran and Ireland are both derived from the ancient Indo-European word for Aryan. It seems resonable to me to assume that somewhere between Europe and India was where to look for the origin of the Indo-European languages. It seems that Iran may be the likely spot, since Hittites lived in that area as well as Persians.

[Raguraman 0]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Anyone who has heard about the Indo-European language group should know that the ancient Hittite language was Indo-European and that the names of Iran and Ireland are both derived from the ancient Indo-European word for Aryan. It seems resonable to me to assume that somewhere between Europe and India was where to look for the origin of the Indo-European languages. It seems that Iran may be the likely spot, since Hittites lived in that area as well as Persians.

 

 

Speculation.

 

In ancient world, the VEDIC religion was followed from Iran to India. Zorastrianism is influenced by Vedic religion. No wonder Hittites are an offshoot of these peoples.

 

The word ARYAN is a western terminology derived from Sanskrit word ARYA. This word does not refer to a race.

 

ARYA simply means NOBLE. Anyone following Vedas were called so. So did Iranians of that day. So to my knowledge Sanskrit was a language followed from India to Anatolia.

[Guest guest]

"The real thought behind "ayran race" is indo-european not

the indians of india. The actual tribe that people refer to the Ayran was only called ayran because not much is known about them only that they were white and had blonde,red, or other light coloured hair. There would be no trace of them left because the indians and other non-european interbreed with them until the dna of the tribe was gone.

The caste system is close to Nordic wisdom and differs in the respect that Nordic peoples did not use the evolutionary gauge to oppress people by keeping them poor. The truth is your culture is connected to White culture not asian. Without the ancient european incursions into asia Indian culture would not be as it is today. To prove this study Nordic mythology and you will see that. Only a fool would deny the truth when it is looking at him in the face. So which are you the Ubermensch or the untermensch? The real reason the term ayran is used is because people believe that it means noble and in that context it is more fitting to the european race which invented science and the concepts of freedon and it's own form of democracy. So the true homeland would not be india because The true home is most likely Atantis. Though there is no prove. The stories about that is they were tall and light skinned and had blue or grey eyes.

We use this term to encompas all europeans regardless of what sub-group they are and Indian is included in the indo-european chart because of sanskrit being close to other

native ancient languages of the european peoples"

 

 

Greeks, Persians, etc. have similar stories to Hindu myths as well. Besides that, are you implying that stories like the Mahabharata never happened? What about the existence of Dwaraka, the city ruled by Krishna until his death?

 

Why are you so adamant that Hindu mythology came from Norse mythology? Where's your proof? Just because they seem similar doesn't mean that they are similar. Mythology is about explaining natural events through the use of characters and stuff. These natural events happen all around the world, so why couldn't the Norse and Hindus develop similar creation stories independent of each other? IMHO it's very possible. It's like if two books were inspired by the same ideology: chances are there will be a ton of similarities between them, yet were conceived independently of each other.

[Guest guest]

 

The real thought behind "ayran race" is indo-european not the indians of india. The actual tribe that people refer to the Ayran was only called ayran because not much is known about them only that they were white and had blonde,red, or other light coloured hair.

 

 

Hmmm... Nice mythology like your Greek mythology. May be this can be better termed as Nazi mythology.

 

 

There would be no trace of them left because the indians and other non-european interbreed with them until the dna of the tribe was gone.

 

 

Am I comprehending you correctly ?

 

Previously you mentioned that all Aryans were blue eyed, blonde and white. Now here you say that there is no proof that they ever existed. So in comclusion you are saying that you are saying things which are not true.

 

 

The caste system is close to Nordic wisdom and differs in the respect that Nordic peoples did not use the evolutionary gauge to oppress people by keeping them poor.

 

 

 

So the caste system is similar. So what ? Is it not a fact that all Nordics are white. Europeans came to Africa, India etc. recently and discriminated so much to offset the balance. Remember Slavery in Christianity.

 

 

The truth is your culture is connected to White culture not asian. Without the ancient european incursions into asia Indian culture would not be as it is today.

 

 

As stated above by yourself, you have no proof of what you say or what you said already. It is your fertile imagination or perhaps learnt it from the Aryan nation, Ku Klux Clan or similar DIMWITS.

 

 

To prove this study Nordic mythology and you will see that. Only a fool would deny the truth when it is looking at him in the face. So which are you the Ubermensch or the untermensch?

 

 

May be the Nordics were influenced by Indians. How do you know who got influenced by whom.

 

 

The real reason the term ayran is used is because people believe that it means noble and in that context it is more fitting to the european race which invented science and the concepts of freedon and it's own form of democracy.

 

 

Long before you guys ever thought about these things, Indians were practising it ie. until Islam and barbarians from Europe started coming into India and subjugated us.

 

Perhaps India is the only nation in the world in all history where Jews were not tortured, while your Europe which according to you invented freedom, democracy etc. killed about 6 million of them.

 

Now frankly tell me who is more civilized here. Indians or Europeans ?

 

 

So the true homeland would not be india because The true home is most likely Atantis. Though there is no prove.

 

 

Sigh!

You yourself agree that you are probably speaking . here.

 

 

The stories about that is they were tall and light skinned and had blue or grey eyes.

We use this term to encompas all europeans regardless of what sub-group they are and Indian is included in the indo-european chart because of sanskrit being close to other

native ancient languages of the european peoples

 

 

May be all European languages were and perhaps are influenced by Sanskrit. Indians used to travel all over the world in those days. So out of India emigration and consequently Sanskrit and Vedic influence is most likely all over Europe.

[Guest guest]

Iran has only a few mention of aryans and it was during the Achamenian period which going by the surviving paintings show a dark-skinned people more like indians than current iranians.

 

Rama was black, Krishna was black, Veda Vyasa was black. Europeans were barbarians with no culture or written language until revent times. It is nonsense to claim that aryans came from Europe. Indians must not let these mischievous, racist foreigners spread their white lies anymore. The age of colonialism is over.

[Guest guest]

I agree most Indian belongs to the Aryan Race which originated in India. Rama is Aryaputra a son of an Aryan in Ramayana. This no one can remove the Aryan name from India.

also Iranians are pure aryans. Read this-----

 

I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings

The king of many countries and many peoples

The king of this expansive land,

 

The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid,

 

Persian, the son of a Persian,

 

'Aryan', from the Aryan race

 

[xxvvii 0]

-------------

Rela. between IEs & semite-hamites

-------------

The similarities between PIE & Afro-asian is remarkable. The major lang.s in this world can be classified into 4 classes:

 

a. Isolating with the type of Chinese

b. Agglutinating with the type of Finnish

c. External inflective with the type of Sanskrit in IEs

d. Internal inflective with the type of Arabian in semite-hamites

 

The latter 2 are both inflective. The dif is that Sanskrit inflects by fusing a stem with an inflective termination, while Arabian inflects mainly by vowel change. Ablaut & umlaut can scarcely be found in sanskrit, so a word can be told by its stem. In Arabian a word can only be told by its skeletons - consonants. This feature is also reflected in its writing system. Arabian can make very similar ext. infl., too, but simpler than Sanskrit. As I know, hamites are more close to PIE with a lot of single syllable stems.

 

The similarities also exist in race, white.

 

-------------

Homeland & dispersion

-------------

I think it to be of no problem from 2 aspects, geographical & lingual.

 

The earliest branches are 2, one, Hittites, to asia minor & the other, Tokharians, to central asia; the latter branches are 2, one to central europe & further to be Celts, Romans, Greeks, one to west europe to be Germans; the last branch is Indo-iranians, further into 3 branches to asia minor, Iran, & India; the remainders are Balts, Slaves, & Armenian.

 

In asia minor they met mediterraneans; in central asia they met diverse white & yellow races; in south & west europe they met mediterraneans & Iberians respectively; in north europe they met Iberians & Lapps; in Iran & India they met same races except that there were tibetan-burmeses in India; the remainders met Lapps, other Siberians, Caucasians, & etc..

 

The closer rela. among Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Albanian, and Balto-Slavic can be testified by satem theory.

[Guest guest]

JEWS AN UNFORGIVEN TRIBE|

 

 

While the Aryans occupied North India and Iran, a tribe named

 

Chaldees left North India about 5000 years before and settled across

 

Iran in Ur (at present Basra and became popular as chaldees of Ur After

 

500 years, 1 mean 4500 years before Abraham was born in Ur Abraham

 

changed his religion, said he believed in one God. His father Khalil

 

believed stones, statues and cows as the Hindus of India do, warned his

 

son Abraham that his tribe is loyal to him as a chief and can kill you

 

in jealous, better move from here to a safer place. As said God instructed

 

Abraham to go to Egypt. Before he left, Abraham married Sarah from his own

 

tribe and set for Egypt on the transport of the time, donkeys or camels

 

Some followers follow him too. When he reached desert (Saudi Arabia)

 

Abraham built Kabbah the Black stone and called his God Allah. He entrusted

 

Kabbah to some of his followers and traveled to Egypt with Sarah and others.

 

While in Egypt, where the King ordered him out because he lied, said

 

Sarah his sister and later settled north of Egypt in Canaan, (now Palestine)

 

Abraham became rich shortly having thousands of sheeps,horses,and camels

 

tents,servant’s etc. Given to him by the Egyptian Pharaohs. But no

 

child. Sarah spoke to Abraham that we have no child, in case your death,

 

the mission is impossible. She suggested to have relationship with the

 

maidservant, Hagar (a black African I and get the children from her.

 

Abraham had relationship with Hagar and from this union, Ishmael was born,

 

 

After a while God promised Sarah that soon, she would be having a son of her own.

 

Isaac was born of Sarah. Isaac got his wife Rebecca from Chaldees relatives from

 

whom Esau and Jacob born. The parents of Rabekah were still believing the

 

Gods of Khalil, the father of Abraham.

 

 

By the time the Chaldees established in Ur, 5000 years before, some

 

Indo-European tribes were settled in and around Jerusalem and Syria etc.

 

They prospered there and among them Hittite were well established.

 

Abraham was settled in Canaan, he was like a king, but no kingdom of his own.

 

 

Egyptians having a system of God-King, wanted no relationship with them,

 

Hittites and others wanted to have no relationship with them because of belief in

 

multiple Gods. Even his father's Khalil's people wanted no relationship with

 

them because of Abraham quitted from his father’s clan who also believed

 

in multiple Gods. So these Semitic people have to marry African black women.

 

That is why the Jews and other Semitic people tend to have thick and curly hairs.

 

They allowed marrying first cousins because of others around them

 

hesitated to give them their daughters as wives.

 

 

When Sarah died, Abraham has even no grave to bury her. he requested Hittites

 

to sell him a graveyard to bury Sarah.

 

 

Did God lied for 4500 years to Abraham and all his ancestors to give them

 

a land called Israel? Was it a hoax. Did God make the sketch of Israel Himself

 

or a fraud by the so-called prophets? Did Abraham challenged the established beliefs

 

of all the people around him, who in return said-NO LAND FOR YOU?

 

 

God never promised to give them a land and God never gave them an inch of land.

 

Hittite sold Abraham a graveyard 4500 years ago,which was his right and only ownership.

 

Once again, the Hittite (now English), after 4500 years (about 50 years ago),

 

Carved for them a land to be called Israel. Are the Jews thankful to Hittites or their God,

 

who never promised them anything.

 

English gave them the land minus peace of mind.

 

 

Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccans, Algerians, Lebanese, Syrians,

 

Never forgiven the Jews (these countries are the descendents of Ishmael),

 

Because of Isaac refused to share the property of Abraham with Ishmael,

 

His stepbrother. If Abraham had equally divided his property between Isaac

 

and his stepbrother Ismail, I suppose there was no struggle between the Muslims

 

(descendents of Ishmael) and Jews (descendents of Isaac).

 

Abraham made the mistake on the first place because of he acted upon

 

The advice of his wife Sarah, who favored Isaac to own all the property.

 

Fight for the share of the property between the two descendents of Abraham

 

never stopped and is there is any hope in the future?

 

 

Iraqis, Jordanians, Saudi Arabians, Kuwaitis and other Emirates

 

have not forgiven the Jews (these countries are the descendents of Abraham’s

 

father Khalil), perhaps Abraham challenged the established beliefs

 

of his father and the preferred to acquire the religion of first born Ismail,

 

born to his concubine Hagar.

 

 

Indo-Europeans have never forgiven the Jews, perhaps they still remember

 

the events of Mediterranean’s . Spanish, Portgues,French, Germans

 

(a branch of Hittites) prosecuted off and on.

 

Only India, Mother India, have forgiven them, when thousand year before,

 

Jews fled Iraq and landed at south coast, where a Hindu king said to the Jews

 

that" you build your temple next to mine"and a temple and

 

a Synagogue still there joined by a wall.

 

 

JEWS AN UNFORGIVEN TRIBE.

 

 

Mediterranean Christians,(left over of Hittite and other Indo-Europeans

 

later known as Pagans), confused between Jews and Romans, picked up

 

the religion of Jesus Christ, Son of Mary, son of an Aramaic, son of a Pagan,

 

their own blood, manipulated a bit to give a more Pagan look,

 

promoted it, took it to Europe as missionaries to their long lost

 

confused cousins, who grabbed it and Indo-European Pagans started turning

 

Christian’s en-masse some 1700 years before and the last Pagan king

 

Boris of Bulgaria, turned Christian only 700 years before.

 

 

(Regarding myself, I want to say that I am not racist at all. I am not a

 

community basher. And I have no links with any of the groups at all.

 

I just wanted to make the history straight. I am really sorry of

 

what happened to the Jewish tribe during world war IInd.

 

It was a tragdy against humanity. I am sorry of that.

 

 

[Guest guest]

THE ORIGIN OF THE ARYANS

 

Scholars have their different view points in regard the Aryans. Some advocates that the Aryans were indegeneous people of India, while to the other, these people came to India from outside. Provatansu Maiti holds that " The parent Aryans language from which modem languages like Sanskrit, Parsian, Latin, Greek, Geltic, Gothic have developed is known under the name Indo- European or Indo-Germatic. Secondly, the term Aryan is purely a linguistic conception and cannot be correctly applied to race" (Iran in the Ancient East, 194 1, p. 190).

In 1786, Sir William Jones pointed out in his address to the Asiatic Society ofbengal that the similarities among the languages like Sanskrit, Parsian, Greek, Roman etc. can be accounted by the fact that they originated from the same parent language called the Indo-European. Further researches by the other eminent scholars have shown that the languages belonging to the Indo-European are found extend from the Gangetic valley of India to the Atlantic basin in Europe. This has led to the complicated question as to the actual locality where the people speaking original Indo-European language lived and where from they migrated to these areas.

Some scholars hold the theory that India was the original home of the Aryans, and they migrated to other areas of the world from that country. The famous historian Pargiter in his work Dynasties of the Kali-Age has said that the Aryans migrated form India itself and settled indifferent lands. M.M. Gaunanath Jha, on the other hand, has suggested that the Aryans originally lived in Brahmarshi Desha of India, while D.S.Trivedi has stated Mult@ as the original home place to the Aryans. L.D. KaEa has advocated the theory that Kashmir and the Himalayan region was the original home of the Aryans. Contrary to it, there are other definite literary evidences in the great Vedas that the Aryans regard Sapta-Sindhu as their original home. The Sapta-Sindhu or seven rivers mentioned in the Rigveda are : the Ganges, the Yamuna, the Saraswati, the Shatadru, the Marudvridha, the Arjikiaya and the Indus or the Sindhu.

According to Prof. Hirt, the Aryans migrated from Lithuania to Caucasus. From the Caucasian land they entered Iran. From Iran they migrated to the Punjab. Eduard Meyer has rejected the theory of Prof. Hirt. He hold that the Aryans did not come to India from West Asia or Iran; they originally lived in a place between India and Iran. They spread eastward and westward form this place simultaneously.

 

With the expansion of the Aryan settlement, in the eastern and southern parts of India, the small tribal States of the Rigvedic period were gradually replaced by larger territorial units. With this transformation, many of the Rigvedic tribes lost their importance. The new Aryan tribes like the Kuru's and Panchali's etc. first rose into prominence. And, by the 6th century B.C., among the sixteen Mahajanpada's of the time, the region of Southern Bihar become very important and soon Magadha rose to a posifion of pre-eniience to build a vast empire including North-East. References are also found that through Manipur valley the Indian culture and civilisation reached up to the Far-East countries and established colonies there. The imperial Guptas made their penetrafion there contributing a lot to the cultural splendour of the regions.

A number of scholars advocates the theory of European origin of the Aryans on the basis of philosophical data. The flora and fauna known to the early Aryans points out their original home in Europe. It is to be mentioned here that the cerebral sound of Sanskrit reveal an admixture of Indo-European languages of the Aryans. The Sanskrit word Pitre, and Matre are essentially the same as Pater and Meter in Latin, Pater and Meter in Greek, Father and Mother in English and Vater and Mutter in German. In the Bishnupriya Manipuri language structure, which is claimed to be the Indo-Aryan group of family, has a number of IndoEuropoan wordings. Some examples has been quoted here for reference: behaviour>bever, chop>chopp, demon>demos, easy> ijju, ether>ithei, full>pullap, fly>f'or>fordani, gate> gangta>ganta, genital>gengwitol, gossip>gopchari>gop, hyman>heman, jerk>jakoron, jolt>joltong, photo>fotok, ram>ramgo, sentri>santiri, sanctity>seng>sanc, sanctuary>sengpham, stem>khem>dem, talk>tatorani>tek-tekani>tok-tokani, xanthippe>hinchapi, yelp>elou-palou etc.

C.L. Wrenn in his book: The English Language, (p.9-15) narrating t he nature and structure of the Indo-European family of languages states, " If one compares a number of languages, it probably soon appears that some of them have some sort of

 

relationship to one another while others may seen quite isolated. If then we are able to trace a group of these apparently related forms in several languages to a common ancestor by means of older writings, it may sometimes become almost certain that these fon-ns must be branches, as it were from a common root. By going further back, we may sometimes be able to compare a number of early forms each Of which is the ancestor of later developments in the different languages, so as to establish a strong probability that they in their turn must all be descended from a common prehistoric original.

This supposed original will be much older then the earliest written languages, so that it can never be verified with absolute certanity, but must remain only a strongly supported hypothesis. But if other qualifies in the languages we are comparing corroborate the relationship and common ancestry which have arrived at by the above method, we may find ourselves well on the way to being able to construct a genealogy of our languages- in other words to classify them into families. For example, if we take the words for is in some of the better known European, and Asiatic languages, we may reconstruct with fair probability the ancestral pre-historic word from which all must be decended: and this reiationship will be found to be confimed by other evidence. Latin est, Greek esti, Russian est, jest, German ist, Italian e, etc.

Now, by studying the earliest forms and the later history of each of these languages, we can be pretty sure that the ancestral form from which all descend was esti. We know, for instance, that in Sanskrit an original e - sound became a, and that the Italian pronunciation reduced the speculative specialist in the earlier Latin est to a form indicated by the modem spelling e' Thus, such for as esti should always be written with an asterisk to remind all concerned that they are only probable reconstructions of ancestral or primitive forms as distinct from those attested by writing. Though such starred forms are necessary to the early history of languages and in classification, for the student who is primarily only dealing with English, it is clear that the fewer of them he uses, the better.

 

English belongs, in all its stages, to the Indo-European family of languages, formerly called Indo-Germanic and still earlier Aryan. Indo-European is the name given to the set of @guistic forms from which nearly all European languages as well as those of Persia and a very large part of India can be shewn to have descended. We do not know that all these prehistoric forms coexisted or that they can properly be said to have been collectively an actual language; for languages and parts of languages change at differing speeds. Nor would it be right to assume that there was necessary ever a race of people who spoke this Indo-European as their language. Race, culture and language need not always correspond or be co-extensive, as many be seen in modem Switzerland.

Indo-European is used because it merely suggests that tile languages it comprises cover most of Europe and India, or that Europe and India mark the length of its confmes' The predominance and pioneering position of the German philosophist of the nineteenth century sufficiently accounts for the earlier term IndoGermanic. Aryan was the name (form the Sanskzit Aryan- noble) wbich the fair-skinned bringers of the Hindu civfflntion to India form the north gave themselves to (hs them from the darker and less cultured people whom they largely conqu@ and the belief among the predecessors of the more scientific German philolo,oists that Sanskrit, with its remarkably full @exious was the ancestor of all the then studied European and Asiatic languages may explain the use of the term Aryan for what we now call Indo-European.

Beginning at some period several thousand years B -C., this Indo-European starting perhaps at a point in Southern Europe near the Asian border, @ead itself both east and west. As it spread, with the changing needs of its speakers for different homes, it mixed with many non-Indo-European tongues and was modified by them variously at different stages. As speakers spread farther and farther from the starting point, their kinds of @Indo-European developed more and more qualities which made them different from their ancestor. In such way, very broadly, may be desc;ibed the gradual growth through successive stages of what have become the modem languages of Europe, Persia and India as we know them.

There are eight main groups of Indo-European languages, all traceable back to the Indo-European @tive ancestor. These are divided into roughly an Eastem and a Westem set of groups.The Eastern set comprises four groups of languages, which have in common certain basic changes form the original system, such as a general shift in the pronunciation of the so called guttural consonants g and k to a palatal position. Thus, for instance, the Indo-European assumed p@tive form for the numeral 100 is krntom; but whereas languages of the Western set of groups such as Latin (centum) retain the original k- sound, Sanskrit has changed the k to and sh- sound [sI (satam) and Russian has the word as sto. For this reason, the Western languages are commonly referred to as Centum-languages and he Eastern - after the old Persian or Iranian form of the word - as Satem languages.

The four Eastern groups are Balto-Slavic - including all the Slavonic tongues, ancient and modern and the related languages of Baltic countries such as Lithuania and Latvia; Indo-Iranian including the languages of old and new India of which Sanskrit is the type and of Iran-Persia; then Armenian ancient and modern with its various dialects and finally Albanian which is only spoken over a relatively small area but forms a separate groups by its nature none the less.

The Western group are Greek, ancient and modem with their many dialects, Latin and all its derivatives, Celtic which survives in ancient inscriptions and in the mediaeval and modern languages of Wales, Ireland, the Scottish Highlands and Brittany, and formerly existed in Cornwall and the Isle of Man, and finally the Germanic group, which comprises the languages of Germany, Scandinavia, Holland and the Flemish parts of Belgium as well as English, and includes these in some ancient and mediaeval forms also. It is only with this last, the Germanic group, that we are here concerned. But, what is it that makes this Germanic, and therefore English, Indo-European?

 

IndO-EurOpean is but one of a number of families into which the world!s languages may be divided, and it must be remembered, too, that there are still many languages, and even whole groups, that have not been examined scientifically or committed to writing yet, and hence cannot be fitted into any scheme of classification. Broadly speaking, it may be said that two outstanding characteristics indicate the Indo-Europeanness of a language; its structures and its vocabulary. Indo-European languages generally lend themselves in structure, at least if one knows something of their historical development, to that description of forms in vented by the ancient Greeks and named by them Parts o f Speech. A language may have inflexious fully retained relatively from the original Indo-European, like Russian, or it may have lost most of its distinctive word-endings like modem English; it may, as the grammarians Say, be synthetic with full inflexious or analytic with few or none- But, if we can think Of its forms fairly readily as nouns, verbs etc. that is to Say under the traditional classical terms Of Parts of Speech, it will probably be found to be Indo-European. Chinese, with its forms consisting not of parts of speech, but of what seen now to be merely monosyllabic roots, is therefore, not Indo-European again., even in Europe, there are what are called Finno-Ugrian or Urabian languages - Hungarian and Finnish for instance, which do not shew Parts o f Speech, or even words in our ordinary sense always. Here a kind of phrase - cornPlex takes the place of a clause or group of words and all kinds of things can be said about an object by building up a single root with Prefixes and suffixes. These languages are sometimes class as agglutinative or incor porating.

 

Many of the languages of Central Asia ( the then U.S.S.R.) of this kind. In the matter of vocabulary, secondly the Indo-European languages have so much in common, namely a shared nucleus of fundamental roots, that this common basis of vocabulary (often changed beyond recognition except by the linguistic specialist) may serve to distinguish them from all others. Tllus, for instance most of the names of family relationships of elementary domestic materials and of familiar animals, if compared in their historical early forms and traced back to what must have their pre-written ancestors, can be seen to be shared by the Indo-European languages and not to be found in those forms except by borrowing outside those groups. Germanic, then, is Indo-European in sense that it uses the Parts of Speech, whether with ftffl inflexious synthetically as in its ancient forms, or with reduced inflexious tending towards the analytic, as in modem Dutch or English, and because, secondly, it shares a fundamental nucleus of the vocabulary of the commonest things with others Indo-European tongues. There are other whi h perhap s should be applied but enough has been said to ndicate broadly what is meant by describing English as IndoEuropean."

 

 

---------------------------

CULTURAL HERITAGE OF NORTH-EAST INDIA written by Bidhan Singha, PUBLISHED BY India Continental, Guwahati,1999