01-19-2006, 01:06 PM
ஐயா குருக்கால போறவரே , கொன்சம் அந்த கட்டுரையை படித்து விடுங்களேன்
.
.
.
|
No Aryan Invasion---New and recent genetic proof.
|
01-19-2006, 01:25 PM
இது மறபனு அடிப்படையில் இல்லாத கட்டுரை
the myth of the aryan invasion By Svami B.V. Giri <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/indus-map.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <b>Introduction</b> The aryan invasion theory has been one of the most controversial historical topics for well over a century. However, it should be pointed out that it remains just that – a theory. To date no hard evidence has proven the aryan invasion theory to be fact. In this essay we will explain the roots of this hypothesis and how, due to recent emergence of new evidence over the last couple of decades, the validity of the aryan invasion theory has been seriously challenged. It is indeed ironic that the origin of this theory does not lie in Indian records, but in 19th Century politics and German nationalism. No where in the Vedas, Puranas or Itihasas is there any mention of a Migration or Invasion of any kind. In 1841 M.S. Elphinstone, the first governor of the Bombay Presidency, wrote in his book History of India: <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/seal2.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <i>'It is opposed to their (Hindus) foreign origin, that neither in the Code (of Manu) nor, I believe, in the Vedas, nor in any book that is certainly older than the code, is there any allusion to a prior residence or to a knowledge of more than the name of any country out of India. Even mythology goes no further than the Himalayan chain, in which is fixed the habitation of the gods... .To say that it spread from a central point is an unwarranted assumption, and even to analogy; for, emigration and civilization have not spread in a circle, but from east to west. Where, also, could the central point be, from which a language could spread over India, Greece, and Italy and yet leave Chaldea, Syria and Arabia untouched? There is no reason whatever for thinking that the Hindus ever inhabited any country but their present one, and as little for denying that they may have done so before the earliest trace of their records or tradition.’</i> <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/head1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <b>The Birth of a Misconception</b> Interest in the field of Indology during the 19th Century was of mixed motivations. Many scholars such as August Wilhelm von Schlegal, Hern Wilhelm von Humboldt, and Arthur Schopenhauer lauded praise upon the Vedic literatures and their profound wisdom, others were less than impressed. To accept that there was an advanced civilization outside the boundaries of Europe, at a time before the Patriarchs Abraham and Moses had made their covenant with the Almighty was impossible to conceive of for most European scholars, who harbored a strong Christian tendency. Most scholars of this period were neither archeologists nor historians in the strict sense of the word. Rather, they were missionaries paid by their governments to establish western cultural and racial superiority over the subjugated Indian citizens, through their study of the indigenous religious texts. Consequently, for racial, political and religious reasons, early European indologists created a myth that still survives to this day. It was established by linguists that Sanskrit, Iranian and European languages all belonged to the same family, categorizing them as ‘Indo-European’ languages. It was assumed that all these people originated from one homeland where they spoke a common language (which they called ‘Proto-Indo-European’ or PIE) which later developed into Sanskrit, Latin, Greek etc. They then needed to ascertain where this homeland was. By pure speculation, it was proposed that this homeland was either southeast Europe or Central Asia. <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/harrapa.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <b>Harappa</b> <b>Harappa and Mohenjo-daro</b> The discovery of ruins in the Indus Valley (Harappa and Mohenjo-daro) was considered by indologists like Wheeler as proof of their conjectures – that a nomadic tribe from foreign lands had plundered India. It was pronounced that the ruins dated back to a time before the Aryan Invasion, although this was actually never verified. By assigning a period of 200 years to each of the several layers of the pre-Buddhist Vedic literature, indologists arrived at a time frame of somewhere between 1500 and 1000BC for the Invasion of the Aryans. Using Biblical chronology as their sheet anchor, nineteenth century indologists placed the creation of the world at 4000BC 1 and Noah’s flood at 2500BC. They thus postulated that the Aryan Invasion could not have taken place any time before 1500BC. Archeologists excavating the sites at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro found human skeletal remains; this seemed to them to be undeniable evidence that a large-scale massacre had taken place in these cities by the invading Aryan hordes. Prof. G. F. Dales (Former head of department of South-Asian Archaeology and Anthropology, Berkeley University, USA) in his ‘The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daro’, states the following about this evidence: <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/mohenjo-daro-kunda.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/death-mask.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <b>Mohenjo-daro </b> ‘<i>What of these skeletal remains that have taken on such undeserved importance? Nine years of extensive excavations at Mohenjo-daro (1922-31) - a city of three miles in circuit - yielded the total of some 37 skeletons, or parts thereof, that can be attributed with some certainty to the period of the Indus civilizations. Some of these were found in contorted positions and groupings that suggest anything but orderly burials. Many are either disarticulated or incomplete. They were all found in the area of the Lower Town - probably the residential district. Not a single body was found within the area of the fortified citadel where one could reasonably expect the final defense of this thriving capital city to have been made…Where are the burned fortresses, the arrow heads, weapons, pieces of armor, the smashed chariots and bodies of the invaders and defenders? Despite the extensive excavations at the largest Harappan sites, there is not a single bit of evidence that can be brought forth as unconditional proof of an armed conquest and the destruction on the supposed scale of the Aryan Invasio</i>n.’ http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/...n-invasion.html
.
.
01-19-2006, 01:29 PM
<b>Evidence from the Vedas</b>
It was therefore concluded that light-skinned nomads from Central Asia who wiped out the indigenous culture and enslaved or butchered the people, imposing their alien culture upon them had invaded the Indian subcontinent. They then wrote down their exploits in the form of the Rg Veda. This hypothesis was apparently based upon references in the Vedas that point to a conflict between the light-skinned Aryans and the dark-skinned Dasyus. 2 This theory was strengthened by the archeological discoveries in the Indus Valley of the charred skeletal remains that we have mentioned above. Thus the Vedas became nothing more than a series of poetic tales about the skirmishes between two barbaric tribes. However, there are other references in the Rg Veda 3 that point to India being a land of mixed races. The Rg Veda also states that "We pray to Indra to give glory by which the Dasyus will become Aryans." 4 Such a statement confirms that to be an Aryan was not a matter of birth. An inattentive skimming through the Vedas has resulted in a gross misinterpretation of social and racial struggles amongst the ancient Indians. North Aryans were pitted against the Southern Dravidians, high-castes against low-castes, civilized orthodox Indians against barbaric heterodox tribals. The hypothesis that of racial hatred between the Aryans and the dark-skinned Dasyus has no sastric foundation, yet some ‘scholars’ have misinterpreted texts to try to prove that there was racial hatred amongst the Aryans and Dravidians (such as the Rg Veda story of Indra slaying the demon Vrta 5 ). Based on literary analysis, many scholars including B.G. Tilak, Dayananda Saraswati and Aurobindo dismissed any idea of an Aryan Invasion. For example, if the Aryans were foreign invaders, why is it that they don’t name places outside of India as their religious sites? Why do the Vedas only glorify holy places within India? <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/max_mueller.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <b>Max Mueller</b> <b>What is an ‘Aryan’?</b> The Sanskrit word ‘Aryan’ refers to one who is righteous and noble. It is also used in the context of addressing a gentleman (Arya-putra, Aryakanya etc). 6 Nowhere in the Vedic literature is the word used to denote race or language. This was a concoction by Max Mueller who, in 1853, introduced the word ‘Arya’ into the English language as referring a particular race and language. He did this in order to give credibility to his Aryan race theory (see Part 2). However in 1888, when challenged by other eminent scholars and historians, Mueller could see that his reputation was in jeopardy and made the following statement, thus refuting his own theory - "I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language...to me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar." (Max Mueller, Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas, 1888, pg 120) But the dye had already been cast! Political and Nationalist groups in Germany and France exploited this racial phenomenon to propagate the supremacy of an assumed Aryan race of white people. Later, Adolf Hitler used this ideology to the extreme for his political hegemony and his barbaric crusade to terrorize Jews, Slavs and other racial minorities, culminating in the holocaust of millions of innocent people. According to Mueller’s etymological explanation of ‘Aryan’, the word is derived from ‘ar’ (to plough, to cultivate). Therefore Arya means ‘a cultivator, or farmer’. This is opposed to the idea that the Aryans were wandering nomads. V.S. Apte's Sanskrit-English Dictionary relates the word Arya to the root ‘r-’ to which the prefix ‘a’ has been added in order to give a negating meaning. Therefore the meaning of Arya is given as ‘excellent, best’, followed by ‘respectable’ and as a noun, ‘master, lord, worthy, honorable, excellent,’ ‘upholder of Arya values, and further: teacher, employer, master, father-in-law, friend.’ <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/seal4.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/mohenjo-daro.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <b>No Nomads</b> Kenneth Kennedy of Cornell University has recently proven that there was no significant influx of people into India during 4500 to 800BC. Furthermore it is impossible for sites stretching over one thousand miles to have all become simultaneously abandoned due to the Invasion of Nomadic Tribes. There is no solid evidence that the Aryans belonged to a nomadic tribe. In fact, to suggest that a nomadic horde of barbarians wrote books of such profound wisdom as the Vedas and Upanisads is nothing more than an absurdity and defies imagination. Although in the Rg Veda Indra is described as the ‘Destroyer of Cities,’ the same text mentions that the Aryan people themselves were urban dwellers with hundreds of cities of their own. They are mentioned as a complex metropolitan society with numerous professions and as a seafaring race. This begs the question, if the Aryans had indeed invaded the city of Harrapa, why did they not inhabit it after? Archeological evidence shows that the city was left deserted after the ‘Invasion’. Colin Renfrew, Prof. of Archeology at Cambridge, writes in his book Archeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins’ - ‘It is certainly true that the gods invoked do aid the Aryas by over-throwing forts, but this does not in itself establish that the Aryas had no forts themselves. Nor does the fleetness in battle, provided by horses (who were clearly used primarily for pulling chariots), in itself suggest that the writers of these hymns were nomads. Indeed the chariot is not a vehicle especially associated with nomads’ <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/ratha.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <b>Horses and Chariots</b> The Invasion Theory was linked to references of horses in the Vedas, assuming that the Aryans brought horses and chariots with them, giving military superiority that made it possible for them to conquer the indigenous inhabitants of India. Indologists tried to credit this theory by claiming that the domestication of the horse took place just before 1500BC. Their proof for this was that there were no traces of horses and chariots found in the Indus Valley. The Vedic literature nowhere mentions riding in battle and the word ‘asva’ for horse was often used figuratively for speed. Recent excavations by Dr.S.R. Rao have discovered both the remains of a horse from both the Late Harrapan Period and the Early Harrapan Period (dated before the supposed Invasion by the Aryans), and a clay model of a horse in Mohenjo-daro. Since Dr. Rao’s discoveries other archeologists have uncovered numerous horse bones of both domesticated and combat types. New discoveries in the Ukraine also proves that horse riding was prevalent as early as 4000BC – thus debunking the misconception that the Aryan nomads came riding into history after 2000BC. Another important point in this regard is that nomadic tribes do not use chariots. They are used in areas of flat land such as the Gangetic plains of Northern India. An Invasion of India from Central Asia would require crossing mountains and deserts – a chariot would be useless for such an exercise. Much later, further excavations in the Indus Valley (and pre-Indus civilizations) revealed horses and evidence of the wheel on the form of a seal showing a spoked wheel (as used on chariots). <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/seal1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <b>An Iron Culture</b> Similarly, it was claimed that another reason why the Invading Aryans gained the upper hand was because their weapons were made of iron. This was based upon the word ‘ayas’ found in the Vedas, which was translated as iron. Another reason was that iron was not found in the Indus Valley region. However, in other Indo-European languages, ayas refers to bronze, copper or ore. It is dubious to say that ayas only referred to iron, especially when the Rg Veda does not mention other metals apart from gold, which is mentioned more frequently than ayas. Furthermore, the Yajur and Atharva Vedas refer to different colors of ayas. This seems to show that he word was a generic term for all types of metal. It is also mentioned in the Vedas that the dasyus (enemies of the Aryans) also used ayas to build their cities. Thus there is no hard evidence to prove that the ‘Aryans invaders’ were an iron-based culture and their enemies were not. <b>Yajna-vedhis</b> Throughout the Vedas, there is mention of fire-sacrifices (yajnas) and the elaborate construction of vedhis (fire altars). Fire-sacrifices were probably the most important aspect of worshiping the Supreme for the Aryan people. However, the remains of yajna-vedhis (fire altars) were uncovered in Harrapa by B.B. Lal of the Archeological Survey of India, in his excavations at the third millenium site of Kalibangan. The geometry of these yajna-vedhis is explained in the Vedic texts such as the Satpatha-brahmana. The University of California at Berkley has compared this geometry to the early geometry of Ancient Greece and Mesopotamia and established that the geometry found in the Vedic scriptures should be dated before 1700BC. Such evidence proves that the Harrapans were part of the Vedic fold. Objections in the Realm of Linguistics and Literature There are various objections to the conclusions reached by the indologists concerning linguistics. Firstly they have never given a plausible excuse to explain how a Nomadic Invasion could have overwhelmed the original languages in one of the most densely populated regions of the ancient world. Secondly, there are more linguistic changes in Vedic Sanskrit than there are in classical Sanskrit since the time of Panini (aprox.500 BC). So although they have assigned an arbitrary figure of 200 year periods to each of the four Vedas, each of these periods could have existed for any number of centuries and the 200 year figure is totally subjective and probably too short a figure. Another important point is that none of the Vedic literatures refer to any Invasion from outside or an original homeland from which the Aryans came from. They only focus upon the region of the Seven Rivers (sapta-sindhu). The Puranas refer to migrations of people out of India, which explains the discoveries of treaties between kings with Aryan names in the Middle East, and references to Vedic gods in West Asian texts in the second millenium BC. However, the indologists try to explain these as traces of the migratory path of the Aryans into India. <b>North-South Divide</b> Indologists have concluded that the original inhabitants of the Indus Valley civilization were of Dravidian descent. This poses another interesting question. If the Aryans had invaded and forced the Dravidians down to the South, why is there no Aryan/Dravidian divide in the respective religious literatures and historical traditions? Prior to the British, the North and South lived in peace and there was a continuous cultural exchange between the two. Sanskrit was the common language between the two regions for centuries. Great acaryas such as Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Nimbarka were all from South, yet they are all respected in North India. Prior to them, there were great sages from the South such as Bodhayana and Apastamba. Agastya Rsi is placed in high regard in South India as it is said that he brought the Tamil language from Mount Kailasa to the South. 7 Yet he is from the North! Are we to understand that the South was uninhabited before the Aryan Invasion? If not, who were the original inhabitants of South India, who accepted these newcomers from the North without any struggle or hostility?
.
.
01-19-2006, 01:32 PM
<img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/pasupati.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<b>Pasupati Siva</b> <b>Saivism</b> The advocates of the Invasion theory argue that the inhabitants of Indus valley were Saivites (Siva worshippers) and since Saivism is more prevalent among the South Indians, the inhabitants of the Indus valley region must have been Dravidians. Siva worship, however, is not alien to Vedic culture, and is certainly not confined to South India. The words Siva and Sambhu are not Dravidian in origin as some indologists would have us believe (derived from the Tamil words ‘civa’ - to redden, to become angry, and ‘cembu’ - copper, the red metal). Both words have Sanskrit roots – ‘si’ meaning auspicious, gracious, benevolent, helpful, kind, and ‘sam’ meaning being or existing for happiness or welfare, granting or causing happiness, benevolent, helpful, kind. These words are used in this sense only, right from their very first occurrence. 8 Moreover, some of the most important holy places for Saivites are located in North India: the traditional holy residence of Lord Siva is Mount Kailasa situated in the far north. Varanasi is the most revered and auspicious seat of Saivism. There are verses in the Rg Veda mentioning Siva and Rudra and consider him to be an important deity. Indra himself is called Siva several times in Rg Veda (2:20:3, 6:45:17, 8:93:3). So Siva is not a Dravidian divinity only, and by no means is he a non-Vedic divinity. Indologists have also presented terra-cotta lumps found in the fire-alters in Harappa and taken them to be Siva-lingas, implying that Saivism was prevalent among the Indus valley people. But these terra-cotta lumps have been proved to be the measures for weighing commodities by shopkeepers and merchants. Their weights have been found in perfect integral ratios, in the manner like 1 gm, 2 gms, 5 gms, 10 gms etc. They were not used as the Siva-lingas for worship, but as the weight measurements. <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/lingam.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/saraswati-map.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <b>The Discovery of the Sarasvati River</b> Whereas the famous River Ganga is mentioned only once in the Rg Veda, the River Sarasvati is mentioned at least sixty times. Sarasvati is now a dry river, but it once flowed all the way from the Himalayas to the ocean across the desert of Rajasthan. Research by Dr. Wakankar has verified that the River Sarasvati changed course at least four times before going completely dry around 1900BC. 9 The latest satellite data combined with field archaeological studies have shown that the Rg Vedic Sarasvati had stopped being a perennial river long before 3000 BC. <b>As Paul-Henri Francfort of CNRS, Paris recently observed </b>– "...We now know, thanks to the field work of the Indo-French expedition that when the proto-historic people settled in this area, no large river had flowed there for a long time." The proto-historic people he refers to are the early Harappans of 3000 BC. But satellite photos show that a great prehistoric river that was over 7 kilometers wide did indeed flow through the area at one time. This was the Sarasvati described in the Rg Veda. Numerous archaeological sites have also been located along the course of this great prehistoric river thereby confirming Vedic accounts. The great Sarasvati that flowed "from the mountain to the sea" is now seen to belong to a date long anterior to 3000 BC. This means that the Rg Veda describes the geography of North India long before 3000 BC. All this shows that the Rg Veda must have been in existence no later than 3500 BC. 10 With so many eulogies composed to the River Sarasvati, we can gather that it must have been well known to the Aryans, who therefore could not have been foreign invaders. This also indicates that the Vedas are much older than Mahabharata, which mentions the Sarasvati as a dying river. <img src='http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/indology/indus-river.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <b>Discoveries of New Sites</b> Since the initial discoveries of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa on the Ravi and Sindhu rivers in 1922, over 2500 other settlements have been found stretching from Baluchistan to the Ganga and beyond and down to the Tapti Valley. This covers almost a million and a half square kilometers. More than 75% of these sites are concentrated not along the Sindhu, as was believed 70 years ago, but on the banks of the dried up river Sarasvati. The drying up of this great river was a catastrophe, which led to a massive exodus of people in around 2000-1900BC. Some of these people moved southeast, some northwest, and some to Middle-eastern countries such as Iran and Mesopotamia. Dynasties and rulers with Indian names appear and disappear all over west Asia confirming the migration of people from East to West. With so much evidence against the Aryan Invasion theory, one wonders as to why this ugly vestige of British imperialism is still taught in Indian schools today! Such serious misconceptions can only be reconciled by accepting that the Aryans were the original inhabitants of the Indus Valley region, and not a horde of marauding foreign nomads. Such an Invasion never occurred. http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/...n-invasion.html
.
.
01-19-2006, 02:42 PM
<b>Following is the article written by David Frawley in "The India Times" David Frawley, a well-known Vedic scholar, runs the American Institute of Vedic Studies in santa Fe, New Mexico. He is also a famed Ayurveda doctor. Those interested in this subject may refer to his book "Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization". </b>
The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India By David Frawley One of the main ideas used to interpret and generally devalue the ancient history of India is the theory of the Aryan invasion. According to this account, India was invaded and conquered by nomadic light-skinned Indo-European tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100 BC, who overthrew an earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian civilization from which they took most of what later became Hindu culture. This so-called pre-Aryan civilization is said to be evidenced by the large urban ruins of what has been called the "Indus valley culture" (as most of its initial sites were on the Indus river). The war between the powers of light and darkness, a prevalent idea in ancient Aryan Vedic scriptures, was thus interpreted to refer to this war between light and dark skinned peoples. The Aryan invasion theory thus turned the "Vedas", the original scriptures of ancient India and the Indo-Aryans, into little more than primitive poems of uncivilized plunderers. This idea totally foreign to the history of India, whether north or south has become almost an unquestioned truth in the interpretation of ancient history Today, after nearly all the reasons for its supposed validity have been refuted, even major Western scholars are at last beginning to call it in question. In this article we will summarize the main points that have arisen. This is a complex subject that I have dealt with in depth in my book "Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization", for those interested in further examination of the subject. The Indus valley culture was pronounced pre-Aryans for several reasons that were largely part of the cultural milieu of nineteenth century European thinking As scholars following Max Mullar had decided that the Aryans came into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus valley culture was earlier than this, they concluded that it had to be preAryan. Yet the rationale behind the late date for the Vedic culture given by Muller was totally speculative. Max Muller, like many of the Christian scholars of his era, believed in Biblical chronology. This placed the beginning of the world at 400 BC and the flood around 2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it became difficult to get the Aryans in India before 1500 BC. Muller therefore assumed that the five layers of the four 'Vedas' & 'Upanishads' were each composed in 200 year periods before the Buddha at 500 BC. However, there are more changes of language in Vedic Sanskrit itself than there are in classical Sanskrit since Panini, also regarded as a figure of around 500 BC, or a period of 2500 years. Hence it is clear that each of these periods could have existed for any number of centuries and that the 200 year figure is totally arbitrary and is likely too short a figure. It was assumed by these scholars many of whom were also Christian missionaries unsympathetic to the 'Vedas' that the Vedic culture was that of primitive nomads from Central Asia. Hence they could not have founded any urban culture like that of the Indus valley. The only basis for this was a rather questionable interpretation of the 'Rig Veda' that they made, ignoring the sophisticated nature of the culture presented within it. Meanwhile, it was also pointed out that in the middle of the second millennium BC, a number of Indo-European invasions apparently occured in the Middle East, wherein Indo-European peoples the Hittites, Mit tani and Kassites conquered and ruled Mesopotamia for some centuries. An Aryan invasion of India would have been another version of this same movement of Indo-European peoples. On top of this, excavators of the Indus valley culture, like Wheeler, thought they found evidence of destruction of the culture by an outside invasion confirming this. The Vedic culture was thus said to be that of primitive nomads who came out of Central Asia with their horse-drawn chariots and iron weapons and overthrew the cities of the more advanced Indus valley culture, with their superior battle tactics. It was pointed out that no horses, chariots or iron was discovered in Indus valley sites. This was how the Aryan invasion theory formed and has remained since then. Though little has been discovered that confirms this theory, there has been much hesitancy to question it, much less to give it up. Further excavations discovered horses not only in Indus Valley sites but also in pre-Indus sites. The use of the horse has thus been proven for the whole range of ancient Indian history. Evidence of the wheel, and an Indus seal showing a spoked wheel as used in chariots, has also been found, suggesting the usage of chariots. Moreover, the whole idea of nomads with chariots has been challenged. Chariots are not the vehicles of nomads. Their usage occured only in ancient urban cultures with much flat land, of which the river plain of north India was the most suitable. Chariots are totally unsuitable for crossing mountains and deserts, as the so-called Aryan invasion required. That the Vedic culture used iron & must hence date later than the introduction of iron around 1500 BC revolves around the meaning of the Vedic term "ayas", interpreted as iron. 'Ayas' in other Indo- European languages like Latin or German usually means copper, bronze or ore generally, not specially iron. There is no reason to insist that in such earlier Vedic times, 'ayas' meant iron, particularly since other metals are not mentioned in the 'Rig Veda' (except gold that is much more commonly referred to than ayas). Moreover, the 'Atharva Veda' and 'Yajur Veda' speak of different colors of 'ayas'(such as red & black), showing that it was a generic term. Hence it is clear that 'ayas' generally meant metal and not specifically iron. Moreover, the enemies of the Vedic people in the 'Rig Veda' also use ayas, even for making their cities, as do the Vedic people themselves. Hence there is nothing in Vedic literture to show that either the Vedic culture was an ironbased culture or that there enemies were not. The 'Rig Veda' describes its Gods as 'destroyers of cities'. This was used also to regard the Vedic as a primitive non-urban culture that destroys cities and urban civilization. However, there are also many verses in the 'Rig Veda' that speak of the Aryans as having having cities of their own and being protected by cities upto a hundred in number. Aryan Gods like Indra, Agni, Saraswati and the Adityas are praised as being like a city. Many ancient kings, including those of Egypt and Mesopotamia, had titles like destroyer or conquerer of cities. This does not turn them into nomads. Destruction of cities also happens in modern wars; this does not make those who do this nomads. Hence the idea of Vedic culture as destroying but not building the cities is based upon ignoring what the Vedas actually say about their own cities. Further excavation revealed that the Indus Valley culture was not des- troyed by outside invasion, but according to internal causes and, most likely, floods. Most recently a new set of cities has been found in India (like the Dwaraka and Bet Dwaraka sites by S.R. Rao and the National Institute of Oceanography in India) which are intermidiate between those of the Indus culture and later ancient India as visited by the Greeks. This may eliminate the so-called dark age following the presumed Aryan invasion and shows a continuous urban occupation in India back to the beginning of the Indus culture. The interpretation of the religion of the Indus Valley culture -made incidentlly by scholars such as Wheeler who were not religious scholars much less students of Hinduism was that its religion was different than the Vedic and more likely the later Shaivite religion. However, further excavations both in Indus Valley site in Gujarat, like Lothal, and those in Rajsthan, like Kalibangan show large number of fire altars like those used in the Vedic religion, along with bones of oxen, potsherds, shell jewelry and other items used in the rituals described in the 'Vedic Brahmanas'. Hence the Indus Valley culture evidences many Vedic practices that can not be merely coincidental. That some of its practices appeared non-Vedic to its excavators may also be attributed to their misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of Vedic and Hindu culture generally, wherein Vedism and Shaivism are the same basic tradition. We must remember that ruins do not necessarily have one interpretation. Nor does the ability to discover ruins necessarily gives the ability to interpret them correctly. The Vedic people were thought to have been a fair-skinned race like the Europeans owing to the Vedic idea of a war between light and darkness, and the Vedic people being presented as children of light or children of the sun. Yet this idea of a war between light and darkness exists in most ancient cultures, including the Persian and the Egyptian. Why don't we interpret their scriptures as a war between light and dark-skinned people? It is purely a poetic metaphor, not a cultural statement. Moreover, no real traces of such a race are found in India. Anthropologists have observed that the present population of Gujarat is composed of more or less the same ethnic groups as are noticed at Lothal in 2000 BC. Similarly, the present population of the Punjab is said to be ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and Rupar 4000 years ago. Linguistically the present day population of Gujrat and Punjab belongs to the Indo-Aryan language speaking group. The only inference that can be drawn from the anthropological and linguistic evidences adduced above is that the Harappan population in the Indus Valley and Gujrat in 2000 BC was composed of two or more groups, the more dominent among them having very close ethnic affinities with the present day Indo-Aryan speaking population of India. In other words there is no racial evidence of any such Indo-Aryan invasion of India but only of a continuity of the same group of people who traditionally considered themselves to be Aryans. There are many points in fact that prove the Vedic nature of the Indus Valley culture. Further excavation has shown that the great majority of the sites of the Indus Valley culture were east, not west of Indus. In fact, the largest concentration of sites appears in an area of Punjab and Rajsthan near the dry banks of ancient Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. The Vedic culture was said to have been founded by the sage Manu between the banks of Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. The Saraswati is lauded as the main river (naditama) in the 'Rig Veda' & is the most frequently mentioned in the text. It is said to be a great flood and to be wide, even endless in size. Saraswati is said to be "pure in course from the mountains to the sea". Hence the Vedic people were well acquainted with this river and regarded it as their immemorial hoemland. The Saraswati, as modern land studies now reveal, was indeed one of the largest, if not the largest river in India. In early ancient and pre-historic times, it once drained the Sutlej, Yamuna and the Ganges, whose courses were much different than they are today. However, the Saraswati river went dry at the end of the Indus Valley culture and before the so-called Aryan invasion or before 1500 BC. In fact this may have caused the ending of the Indus culture. How could the Vedic Aryans know of this river and establish their culture on its banks if it dried up before they arrived? Indeed the Saraswati as described in the 'Rig Veda' appears to more accurately show it as it was prior to the Indus Valley culture as in the Indus era it was already in decline. Vedic and late Vedic texts also contain interesting astronomical lore. The Vedic calender was based upon astronomical sightings of the equinoxes and solstices. Such texts as 'Vedanga Jyotish' speak of a time when the vernal equinox was in the middle of the Nakshtra Aslesha (or about 23 degrees 20 minutes Cancer). This gives a date of 1300 BC. The 'Yajur Veda' and 'Atharva Veda' speak of the vernal equinox in the Krittikas (Pleiades; early Taurus) and the summer solstice (ayana) in Magha (early Leo). This gives a date about 2400 BC. Yet earlier eras are mentioned but these two have numerous references to substantiate them. They prove that the Vedic culture existed at these periods and already had a sophisticated system of astronomy. Such references were merely ignored or pronounced unintelligible by Western scholars because they yielded too early a date for the 'Vedas' than what they presumed, not because such references did not exist. http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/anci...an_frawley.html
.
.
01-19-2006, 02:43 PM
Vedic texts like 'Shatapatha Brahmana' and 'Aitereya Brahmana' that mention these astronomical references list a group of 11 Vedic Kings, including a number of figures of the 'Rig Veda', said to have conquered the region of India from 'sea to sea'. Lands of the Aryans are mentioned in them from Gandhara (Afganistan) in the west to Videha (Nepal) in the east, and south to Vidarbha (Maharashtra). Hence the Vedic people were in these regions by the Krittika equinox or before 2400 BC. These passages were also ignored by Western scholars and it was said by them that the 'Vedas' had no evidence of large empires in India in Vedic times. Hence a pattern of ignoring literary evidence or misinterpreting them to suit the Aryan invasion idea became prevalent, even to the point of changing the meaning of Vedic words to suit this theory.
According to this theory, the Vedic people were nomads in the Punjab, comming down from Central Asia. However, the 'Rig Veda' itself has nearly 100 references to ocean (samudra), as well as dozens of references to ships, and to rivers flowing in to the sea. Vedic ancestors like Manu, Turvasha, Yadu and Bhujyu are flood figures, saved from across the sea. The Vedic God of the sea, Varuna, is the father of many Vedic seers and seer families like Vasishta, Agastya and the Bhrigu seers. To preserve the Aryan invasion idea it was assumed that the Vedic (and later sanskrit) term for ocean, samudra, originally did not mean the ocean but any large body of water, especially the Indus river in Punjab. Here the clear meaning of a term in 'Rig Veda' and later times verified by rivers like Saraswati mentioned by name as flowing into the sea was altered to make the Aryan invasion theory fit. Yet if we look at the index to translation of the 'Rig Veda' by Griffith for example, who held to this idea that samudra didn't really mean the ocean, we find over 70 references to ocean or sea. If samudra does noe mean ocean why was it traslated as such? It is therefore without basis to locate Vedic kings in Central Asia far from any ocean or from the massive Saraswati river, which form the background of their land and the symbolism of their hymns. One of the latest archeological ideas is that the Vedic culture is evidenced by Painted Grey Ware pottery in north India, which apears to date around 1000 BC and comes from the same region between the Ganges and Yamuna as later Vedic culture is related to. It is thought to be an inferior grade of pottery and to be associated with the use of iron that the 'Vedas' are thought to mention. However it is associated with a pig and rice culture, not the cow and barley culture of the 'Vedas'. Moreover it is now found to be an organic development of indegenous pottery, not an introduction of invaders. Painted Grey Ware culture represents an indigenous cultural development and does not reflect any cultural intrusion from the West i.e. an Indo-Aryan invasion. Therefore, there is no archeological evidence corroborating the fact of an Indo-Aryan invasion. In addition, the Aryans in the Middle East, most notably the Hittites, have now been found to have been in that region atleast as early as 2200 BC, wherein they are already mentioned. Hence the idea of an Aryan invasion into the Middle East has been pushed back some centuries, though the evidence so far is that the people of the mountain regions of the Middle East were Indo-Europeans as far as recorded history can prove. The Aryan Kassites of the ancient Middle East worshipped Vedic Gods like Surya and the Maruts, as well as one named Himalaya. The Aryan Hittites and Mittani signed a treaty with the name of the Vedic Gods Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Nasatyas around 1400 BC. The Hittites have a treatise on chariot racing written in almost pure Sanskrit. The IndoEuropeans of the ancient Middle East thus spoke Indo-Aryan, not Indo-Iranian languages and thereby show a Vedic culture in that region of the world as well. The Indus Valley culture had a form of writing, as evidenced by numerous seals found in the ruins. It was also assumed to be non-Vedic and probably Dravidian, though this was never proved. Now it has been shown that the majority of the late Indus signs are identical with those of later Hindu Brahmi and that there is an organic development between the two scripts. Prevalent models now suggest an Indo-European base for that language. It was also assumed that the Indus Valley culture derived its civilization from the Middle East, probably Sumeria, as antecedents for it were not found in India. Recent French excavations at Mehrgarh have shown that all the antecedents of the Indus Valley culture can be found within the subcontinent and going back before 6000 BC. In short, some Western scholars are beginning to reject the Aryan invasion or any outside origin for Hindu civilization. Current archeological data do not support the existence of an Indo Aryan or European invasion into South Asia at any time in the preor protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural development from prehistoric to historic periods. The early Vedic literature describes not a human invasion into the area, but a fundamental restructuring of indigenous society. The Indo-Aryan invasion as an academic concept in 18th and 19th century Europe reflected the cultural milieu of the period. Linguistic data were used to validate the concept that in turn was used to interpret archeological and anthropological data. In other words, Vedic literature was interpreted on the assumption that there was an Aryan invasion. Then archeological evidence was interpreted by the same assumption. And both interpretations were then used to justify each other. It is nothing but a tautology, an exercise in circular thinking that only proves that if assuming something is true, it is found to be true! Another modern Western scholar, Colin Renfrew, places the IndoEuropeans in Greece as early as 6000 BC. He also suggests such a possible early date for their entry into India. As far as I can see there is nothing in the Hymns of the 'Rig Veda' which demonstrates that the Vedic-speaking population was intrusive to the area: this comes rather from a historical assumption of the 'comming of the Indo-Europeans. When Wheeler speaks of 'the Aryan invasion of the land of the 7 rivers, the Punjab', he has no warrenty at all, so far as I can see. If one checks the dozen references in the 'Rig Veda' to the 7 rivers, there is nothing in them that to me implies invasion: the land of the 7 rivers is the land of the 'Rig Veda', the scene of action. Nor is it implied that the inhabitants of the walled cities (including the Dasyus) were any more aboriginal than the Aryans themselves. Despite Wheeler's comments, it is difficult to see what is particularly non-Aryan about the Indus Valley civilization. Hence Renfrew suggests that the Indus Valley civilization was in fact Indo-Aryan even prior to the Indus Valley era: This hypothesis that early Indo-European languages were spoken in North India with Pakistan and on the Iranian plateau at the 6th millennium BC has the merit of harmonizing symmetrically with the theory for the origin of the IndoEuropean languages in Europe. It also emphasizes the continuity in the Indus Valley and adjacent areas from the early neolithic through to the floruit of the Indus Valley civilization. This is not to say that such scholars appreciate or understand the 'Vedas' their work leaves much to be desired in this respect but that it is clear that the whole edifice built around the Aryan invasion is beginning to tumble on all sides. In addition, it does not mean that the 'Rig Veda' dates from the Indus Valley era. The Indus Valley culture resembles that of the 'Yajur Veda' and the reflect the pre-Indus period in India, when the Saraswati river was more prominent. The acceptance of such views would create a revolution in our view of history as shattering as that in science caused by Einstein's theory of relativity. It would make ancient India perhaps the oldest, largest and most central of ancient cultures. It would mean that the Vedic literary record already the largest and oldest of the ancient world even at a 1500 BC date would be the record of teachings some centuries or thousands of years before that. It would mean that the 'Vedas' are our most authentic record of the ancient world. It would also tend to validate the Vedic view that the Indo-Europeans and other Aryan peoples were migrants from India, not that the Indo-Aryans were invaders into India. Moreover, it would affirm the Hindu tradition that the Dravidians were early offshoots of the Vedic people through the seer Agastya, and not unaryan peoples. In closing, it is important to examine the social and political implications of the Aryan invasion idea: First, it served to divide India into a northern Aryan and southern Dravidian culture which were made hostile to each other. This kept the Hindus divided and is still a source of social tension. Second, it gave the British an excuse in their conquest of India. They could claim to be doing only what the Aryan ancestors of the Hindus had previously done millennia ago. Third, it served to make Vedic culture later than and possibly derived from Middle Eastern cultures. With the proximity and relationship of the latter with the Bible and Christianity, this kept the Hindu religion as a sidelight to the development of religion and civilization to the West. Fourth, it allowed the sciences of India to be given a Greek basis, as any Vedic basis was largely disqualified by the primitive nature of the Vedic culture. This discredited not only the 'Vedas' but the genealogies of the 'Puranas' and their long list of the kings before the Buddha or Krishna were left without any historical basis. The 'Mahabharata', instead of a civil war in which all the main kings of India participated as it is described, became a local skirmish among petty princes that was later exaggerated by poets. In short, it discredited the most of the Hindu tradition and almost all its ancient literature. It turned its scriptures and sages into fantacies and exaggerations. This served a social, political and economical purpose of domination, proving the superiority of Western culture and religion. It made the Hindus feel that their culture was not the great thing that their sages and ancestors had said it was. It made Hindus feel ashamed of their culture that its basis was neither historical nor scientific. It made them feel that the main line of civilization was developed first in the Middle East and then in Europe and that the culture of India was peripheral and secondary to the real development of world culture. Such a view is not good scholarship or archeology but merely cultural imperialism. The Western Vedic scholars did in the intellectual spehere what the British army did in the political realm discredit, divide and conquer the Hindus. In short, the compelling reasons for the Aryan invasion theory were neither literary nor archeological but political and religious that is to say, not scholarship but prejudice. Such prejudice may not have been intentional but deep-seated political and religious views easily cloud and blur our thinking. It is unfortunate that this this approach has not been questioned more, particularly by Hindus. Even though Indian Vedic scholars like Dayananda saraswati, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Arobindo rejected it, most Hindus today passively accept it. They allow Western, generally Christian, scholars to interpret their history for them and quite naturally Hinduism is kept in a reduced role. Many Hindus still accept, read or even honor the translations of the 'Vedas' done by such Christian missionary scholars as Max Muller, Griffith, MonierWilliams and H. H. Wilson. Would modern Christians accept an interpretation of the Bible or Biblical history done by Hindus aimed at converting them to Hinduism? Universities in India also use the Western history books and Western Vedic translations that propound such views that denigrate their own culture and country. The modern Western academic world is sensitive to critisms of cultural and social biases. For scholars to take a stand against this biased interpretation of the 'Vedas' would indeed cause a reexamination of many of these historical ideas that can not stand objective scrutiny. But if Hindu scholars are silent or passively accept the misinterpretation of their own culture, it will undoubtly continue, but they will have no one to blame but themselves. It is not an issue to be taken lightly, because how a culture is defined historically creates the perspective from which it is viewed in the modern social and intellectual context. Tolerance is not in allowing a false view of one's own culture and religion to be propagated without question. That is merely self-betrayal. http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/anci...an_frawley.html
.
.
01-19-2006, 03:30 PM
ஒன்றுமட்டும் உண்மை. எதையும் திராவிடனோ, தமிழரோ சொந்தம் கொள்ளக் கூடாது என்பதில் பலர் கங்கணம் கட்டிக் கொண்டு இருக்கின்றார்கள்
[size=14] ' '
01-19-2006, 04:07 PM
ராஜதிராஜா நான் இணைக்கும் கட்டுரையையும் வாசியுங்க்கள் .இந்த மரபணு ஆராய்சியானது எவ்வாறான வகையில் அமெரிக்கர்களினால் தமது ஆதிக்க நோக்கங்களுக்காக நடைபெறுகிறது என்பதையும் பழங்கடி மக்கள் மற்றும் ஆளப் பட்ட ஆக்கிரமிக்கப்பட்ட மக்களின் அரசியற் போராட்டங்களுக்கான அடிப்படைகளைச் சிதைக்கும் அரசியல் நோக்குட்டன் மேற் கொள்ளப் படுகிரது என்பதையும் காணலாம்.மேலும் இது பற்றிய தகவல்களை இணைக்கிறேன்.இது விஞ்ஞான மூலாம் பூசப்பட்ட ஒரு ஆதிக்க சக்திகளின் அரசியல் செப்படி வித்தை.
http://www.ipcb.org/issues/human_genetics/...ction_geno.html IPCB Action Alert to Oppose the Genographic Project April 13, 2005 Dear Friends, By now you may have heard that the National Geographic Society and the IBM Corporation announced the launch of their five-year, $40 million “Genographic Project”. The project intends to collect 100,000 blood samples from Indigenous peoples around the world in order to “chart new knowledge about the migratory history of the human species and answer age-old questions surrounding the genetic diversity of humanity.” The Genographic Project is essentially a renewed attempt to further the goals of the much protested Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) which many of us worked hard to stop throughout much of the 1990’s. Similarly, we must oppose the Genographic Project for the same reasons. Below is a brief highlight of some of these concerns. 1. Speculation about Human Migration and Histories We know, in fact, that this kind of genetic analysis can only lead to new speculative theories about human history, or advance old theories. There’s nothing wrong with a study of human history per se, but this project is being undertaken at our expense. However, it is quite likely this project will advance new theories of our origins that may contradict our own knowledge of ourselves. There can be no claim as to which understanding is correct, and will result in a clash of knowledge systems. Moreover, there could be serious political implications that result from a so-called “scientific” assertion that Indigenous peoples are not “Indigenous” to their territories, but instead are recent migrants from some other place. This cuts at the heart of the rights of Indigenous peoples which are based upon our collective, inherent right of self-determination as peoples, under International human rights law. 2. Bioethical Issues All of the standard issues come to bear here, such as guarantees that insure strict adherence to free and prior informed consent, not only of the individuals involved but also of the Indigenous nations impacted or potentially impacted by this project. A standard ethical requirement in human research is that the benefits must equal the risk. In this type of research there will be no benefit to Indigenous peoples, yet the research creates substantial risk to the individuals and peoples affected. We’ve seen widespread secondary uses of genetic materials taken from Indigenous peoples without consent in well-known cases such as the Nuu-cha-nulth of British Columbia and the Havasupai Tribe of Arizona. The Genographic Project proposes to offer money to tribal groups in exchange for their participation. This could be considered a coercive act and constitute yet another ethical violation. 3. Commercialization of Human Genes Human genes, cell lines, data, and products derived from human genes are considered patentable subject matter in US patent law and further promoted in international trade agreements. As we’ve seen in the past, there have been attempts and even patents granted on the genetic material of Indigenous peoples. For instance, in 1994 a patent for a cell line derived from the Hagahai people of Papua New Guinea was granted to the US Department of Commerce. The US also sought patents over Solomon Islanders and the Guaymi of Panama around the same time. Most Indigenous peoples do not consider biological material extracted from their bodies to be commodities. On the contrary, many Indigenous peoples consider their biological materials sacred and imbued with a life force of it’s own. Even if the Genographic Project does not pursue commercial development of the genetic material, others with access to the materials may do so in the future. Even if no commercial products are developed, the basic premise that our human DNA is available for exchange for some benefit offered in exchange, typically called a “benefit sharing agreement,” results in the transformation of our genetic material into something marketable and alienable. The Genographic Project says they will benefit Indigenous peoples by offering money for education and cultural preservation. Education, health care, cultural preservation etc, are human rights and should not be tied to a requirement to have to give up your DNA in order to receive these basic human needs. The fact that the IBM Corporation is a key partner in the Genographic Project raises further concern. We all know that businesses are in the business of making a profit for their shareholders. 4. Promotes Genetic Research on Our Ancestors A serious concern is this type of research necessitates, promotes, and encourages genetic research on DNA extracted from the remains of our ancestors, referred to as “ancient DNA.” Any genetic analysis of human remains requires some destructive analysis, ie, the crushing of bones, extraction of tissue, hair, or bone marrow, etc. Needless to say, this is a horrific affront to the sanctity of our ancestors. 5. Racist Science This project intends to make us the subjects for scientific curiosity. The research is designed around a racial research agenda, when we know there is no biological basis for race. Race-based science is bad science, and results in racially interpreted outcomes. All of this occurs in a field in which there is no accountability, no legal framework to hold violators accountable for misuse of genetic material, and the risks for Indigenous peoples are many. Take Action It’s unfortunate that this type of exploitive project demands so much of our attention and energy, but as we know, many of our communities are vulnerable for exploitation. We must continue our efforts to inform our communities about the many risks that genetic research raises for our peoples and our future generations. We ask you to send letters of protest to the following contacts at National Geographic, IBM, and the Waitt Family Foundation. And, you can sign on to our petition that will be delivered to the collaborators of the Genographic Project at the end of May 2005. Visit our website for additional information: http://www.ipcb.org National Geographic Society Lucie McNeil Phone: (202) 857-5841 Email: lmcneil@ngs.org National Geographic Society 1145 17th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-4688 www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ IBM Corporation Nick Donofrio Senior Vice President IBM Corporation One New Orchard Road, Armonk, NY 10504 Phone: (914) 499-1900 Fax: (914) 765-6021 -or- Michael Loughran - mloughra@us.ibm.com Phone: (914) 499-6446 Waitt Family Foundation John Heubusch, President Phone: 1 858-551-4839 The Waitt Family Foundation Fax: 1 858-551-6871 P.O. Box 1948 La Jolla, CA 92038-1948 www.waittfoundation.org/past/Genographic.html Thank you for joining our efforts to protect the human rights of Indigenous peoples from exploitive genetic research. Sincerely, Debra Harry, Executive Director
01-19-2006, 04:27 PM
Rothman, Barbara Katz. Genetic Maps and Human Imaginations: The Limits of Science in Understanding Who We Are. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998. 272 pages.
In the first of these sections, Rothman examines the attempt to look at our evolutionary history in the Human Genome Diversity Project. By collecting DNA samples from 25 individuals in each of several hundred groups of indigenous peoples around the world, the project strives to tell us how we became who we are. Such an attempt provides a perfect example of how assumptions about genetics can lead to misperceptions in how we see the rest of the world: such a project is by its nature based on a presumption of difference and is therefore certain to show a difference. The project does not on any level take into account the fact that human beings are also social beings who develop into who they are, both as individuals and societies. Further, the project treats "human population diversity as if it were species diversity." We are all one species, and implying otherwise is racist. The author sees such attempts to view humanity purely in genetic terms as the first steps toward a world where race is a system of power and oppression, and genetic thinking is used to support that oppression. Indeed, this has already happened several times in the past, and the author points to the publication of The Bell Curve, in which the authors assert that African-Americans have a lower IQ, as a recent example. 
01-19-2006, 04:59 PM
உயிரியல் தொழில்நுட்ப வசதிகள் பாகுபாட்டியலில் கூட புதிய மாற்றங்களை தந்திருக்கிறது. நிச்சயம் மரபணுவியல் பல கட்டுக்கதைகளின் முடிச்சவிழ்க்கும் காலம் வெகுதூரத்தில் இல்லை. இன்று இதற்கான ஆய்வுகளை வெளிநாட்டுப் பல்கலைக்கழகங்கோடு இணைந்து தமிழர்களும் செய்து கொள்ளலாம். அதைவிடுத்து பழைய கட்டுக்கதைகளை காப்பாற்ற நினைக்காமல்.. அதன் உண்மைத் தன்மையை நவீன காலத்துக்கு ஏற்ப நிறுவ அல்லது மாற்ற முயலவேண்டும்..! <!--emo&
 --><img src='http://www.yarl.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tongue.gif'><!--endemo--> 
<img src='http://kuruvikal.yarl.net/archives/PETBIRD1.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
01-19-2006, 07:44 PM
kuruvikal Wrote:kurukaalapoovan Wrote:கலாச்சாரங்கள் மொழிகள் பழக்கவழக்கங்கள் இந்திய ஆரியர் என்று கூறிக்கொள்ளும் பார்பான்கள் வந்தேறுகுடிகள் என்றும் திராவிடர்கள் பூர்விகக்குடிகள் என்று நிரூபிக்கிறது. குருவி அண்ணா நான் படித்தவர் என்று ஜம்பம் காட்டவில்லை. எனக்கு உள்ள விளக்கத்தின் அடிப்படையில் தான் எழுத முடியும் அதைதான் செய்தேன். நான் மரபணு ஆராச்சியாளர் என்று இங்கு பூச்சுத்தவில்லை. உங்களுக்கு விளக்கம் கூடவாக இருந்தால் எல்லாருக்கும் விளங்கிறமாதிரி எழுதுங்கோவன். வாசித்து பயன் பெறலாம். ராஜாதிராஜா தந்தவற்றை வாசித்து விளங்கிக் கொண்டது... பார்பனர்கள் வந்தேறு குடிகள் என்ற வாதத்திற்கு மட்டுப்படுத்தப்பட்ட ஆராச்சியில் western Eurasia இல் கிடைத்த samples களிற்கும் பார்பான்களின் samples களின் இலும் உள்ள மரபணுக்களில் maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA) சார்ந்த ஒற்றுமைகளை (தொடர்புகளை) சான்றாக காட்டுவது தவறு என்று கூறவருகிறார்கள். காரணம் அவை haplogroup U தொடர்புகள். அவை 2 இனங்களுக்கும் (western Eurasia - Indo-Aryan/பார்பனர்கள் ) இடையிலான mtDNA அடிப்படையான தொடர்புகளில் கிட்டத்தட்ட 20 வீதமே என்கிறார்கள். அவர்கள் இந்தத் தொடர்பை 1.6million வருடங்களுக்கு முன்னர் உயிரினங்களின் பரிணாம வழர்ச்சியல் ஆரம் மனிதன் உருவான காலம் பழமையானது (Pleistocene) என்கிறார்கள். அதாவது இந்தக் காலப்பகுதி உயிரியல்ரீதியில் தற்காலத்து மனிதன் ஆசிய ஜரோப்பிய கண்டங்களுக்கு தன்னை விரிவாக்கம் செய்து கொண்ட காலப்பகுதி. ஆகவே இந்தக் காலம் சார்ந்த தொடர்புகள் ஆசிய ஜரோப்பிய பகுதிகளிற்கு முதலில் வந்தவர்கள் ஒரே இடத்திலிருந்த வந்த தொடர்பைத்தான் நிரூபிக்கிறது என்கிறார்கள். மேலும் haplogroup U சார்ந்த ஒற்றுமைகளை வைத்து ஆரியப்படையெடுப்பை நிரூபிக்க முடியாது என் என்றால் இந்த தொடர்பு Pleistocene காலத்திற்கு உரியது இந்த தொடர்பை எத்தியோப்பியா விலும் (ஆபிரிக்கா கண்டத்திலும்) அண்மையில் அவதானிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறது என்கிறார்கள். அதே போல் இந்தியர்களின் Y-chromosome ஆராச்சியில் R1a1-M17 வகை ஆசிய ஜரோப்பிய கண்டங்களில் பூகோளரிதியில் விளங்கப்படுத்த முடியாத முறையில் பரவியிருப்பதால் அந்த வகையின் (மூலம்) பூர்வீகத்தை உறுதி செய்ய முடியாமல் உள்ளது என்கிறார்கள். ஆனால் J2A வகை பரவலில் ஒரு படையெடுப்புக்கான அறிகுறிகள் இருந்தாலும் அதன் அடிப்படையில் படையெடுப்பை உறுதிப்படுத்த முடியாது என்கிறார்கள். பிறகு J2A பரவலுக்கு Pleistocene கால ஆதிமனிதர் ஒற்றுமை காரணம் என்கிறார்கள். :? ஆனால் 2 இனங்களுக்கும் (western Eurasia - Indo-Aryan/பார்பனர்கள் ) இடையிலான சிறிதளவு Caucasoid-specific mtDNA ஒற்றுமைகளிற்கு கிட்டடியில் (1.6million வருடங்களோடு ஒப்பிடும் போது) நடந்த கலப்பு காரணம் என்கிறார்கள். இதைப்பற்றி மேலதிகமாக இன்னமும் ஆராயப்படவில்லை. :roll: அதே போல் இந்தியர்களின் Y-chromosome ஆராச்சியில் J2a-M410 தனியே பார்பான்களில் மாத்திரம் தான் காணப்படுகிறது என்கிறார்கள். இதைப்பற்றிய மேலதிக விளக்கங்கள் தரப்படவில்லை. :oops: இங்கே மரபணு ஆராச்சி தகவல்கள் வெளியிடப்பட்டதும் விளக்கப்பட்டது பார்ப்பனர்கள் வந்தேறு குடிகள் அல்ல என்று கோணத்திலிருந்து போல்தான் எனது சிற்றறிவிற்கு தெரிகிறது. அதாவது மொழி கலாச்சாரம் பழக்கவழக்கங்கள் ஆகழ்வாராச்சிகளால் என்பவற்றால் பூர்வீகர்கள் யார் என்று நியாயப்படுத்தப்பட்ட ஒன்றை பிழை என்று நிரூபிக்க முயற்சிக்கிறார்களே தவிர மரபணு ஆராச்சி மூலம் western Eurasia - Indo-Aryan இடையிலான தொடர்பை (விசேட ஒற்றுமைகளை) அறிந்து கொள்ள முயற்சிக்கவில்லை. ஆராச்சியின் நேக்கம் என்ன? அதில் ஈடுபடுபவர்கள் என்னத்தை அறிய முயற்சிக்கிறார்கள் எந்த முடிச்சை அவிளக்க விரும்புகிறார்கள் எந்த முடிச்சை மேலும் இறுக்கிக் கொள்ள விரும்புகிறார்கள் என்றதையும் விளங்கிக் கொள்ள வேண்டும். இந்தளவு தான் இந்தக் கருத்துக் குழந்தைக்கு விளங்கியிருக்கு. குருவி அண்ண நீங்கள் உங்கள் விளக்கத்தையும் எழுதுங்கள். ராஜாதிராஜா கூறியது போல் மரபணு ஆராச்சி மூலம் பார்பனர்கள் வந்தேறு குடிகள் இல்லை என்று நிரூபிக்கப்பட்டு <b>விட்டதா</b> என்று அறிந்து கொள்ள ஆவலாய் உள்ளேன்.
01-19-2006, 08:32 PM
என்னப்பா ராஜாதிராஜா உங்க சித்து விளயாட்டு அவ்வளவு தானா, நீர் தந்த ஒரு இணைப்பை அழுத்தினால் இந்த ஆராய்ச்சி என்று சொல்லப் படுவது அமெரிக்காவில் மேற்கொள்ளப் பட்ட ஒரு சித்து விளயாட்டு என்று கூறுகிறதே நீர் தந்த இணைப்பு.
1. Harvard University takes charge What started as a threatened international scandal from Harvard University, has turned into a global Hindu conspiracy attempting to show that Hindu civilization was nurtured and developed by the Hindu. This conspiracy was hatched to reject aryan supremacy postulated through Aryan Invasion/Migration/Influx/Trickle-in Theory (AIT). 3. The roots of Hindu conspiracy It now turns out that the Hindu parents of Hindu children studying in US schools, have co-opted many universities and a large media moghul, the BBC, as part of an international conspiracy to counter an effective scandal so carefully engineered early in November 2005 and continued in December 2005. The conspiracy becomes complicated because of the technical DNA/Genetic terms used. The conspiracy simply tries to demonstrate using scientific jargon that people of India were indigenous to India, that there were no groups of people called Aryans and that the ‘Aryans’ (read: Indo-Europeans or ancestors of present-day Europe) never entered from elsewhere into India. The mt DNA (mother’s DNA markers) and Y-chromosome markers clearly demonstrate that the people of Bharat that is India are of indigenous, local origin from within India, thus negating the Aryan Invasion/Migration/Influx/Trickle-in Theory (AIT). http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_051219.htm நீங்க எந்தைனை நூற்றாண்டு ஆனாலும் இந்த எமாத்திற வேலைய விட மாட்டீங்க போல.முன்னர் கடவுள் என்று பூச்சாண்டி காட்டினீர்கள் இப்போது போலியாக விஞ்ஞானச் சொற்களை வைத்து சித்து விளயாட்டுக் காட்டுகுறீர்கள். இதில குருவி வேற ஆராச்சி என்று புலம்பிறார், தமது வரலாற்று ஆதிக்க நிலைகளை மறுதலிக்கும் அவசரத்தில் ஒரு சிறு துரும்பும் கிடைக்காதா என்று ஏந்தான் இப்படி தவிகின்றனோரோ தெரியவில்லை.
01-19-2006, 08:55 PM
காஞ்சி சங்கராச்சாரியாரும் ஆரியமும்
சில நாட்களுக்கு முன்னர் ஆற்றிய உரையில் காஞ்சி சங்கராச்சாரியார் அவர்கள் இந்தியாவில் உள்ள எல்லோரும் ஆரியரே. ஆரியர்கள் கைபர்-போலன் கணவாய் வழியாக வந்தவர்கள் என்பது தவறு. திராவிடர்-ஆரியர் என்பதெல்லாம் பொய். ஆங்கிலேயர்கள் இந்தியர்களைப்பிரிப்பதற்காகக் கையாண்ட தந்திரம் என்றெல்லாம் சொல்லி இருக்கிறார். இவருக்கு நம்முடைய பதில் இதோ. இந்தியாவின் தேசிய கீதத்திலே சொல்லக்கூடிய 'பஞ்சாப சிந்து குஜராத மராட்டா திராவிட உச்சல பங்கா' என்ற வரிகளில் வரும் 'திராவிட' எதைக்குறிக்கும். ஆரியர்களின் முதல் வேதம் என்ற கருதப்படும் 'ரிக்' வேதத்திலேயே ஆரியர் என்னும் பெயர் இடம் பெற்றுள்ளது. 'இந்திரா! நீ ஆரியர்களையும், தஸ்யுக்களையும் பிரித்துத்தெரிந்து கொள்' 'ஆரியர்களின் வீரத்தையும், புகழையும் அதிகப்படுத்து, இந்திரா!' 'இந்திரன் எல்லாப்போர்களிலும், வேள்விகளைச் செய்யும் ஆரியனைப்பாதுகாக்கிறான்' 'இந்திரன் தாசர்களைக்கொன்று ஆரிய வர்ணத்தைப்பாதுகாப்பாக வைத்தான்' இது போன்ற எண்ணற்ற வரிகள் வெள்ளைக்காரர்களால் திணிக்கப்பட்டதா என்ன? 'ஆரியர் துவன்றிய பேரிசை இமயம்', 'ஆரியப்படை கடந்த நெடுஞ்செழியன்' எனப்புறநானூறும் 'வட ஆரிய மன்னர் ஆங்கண்' என சிலப்பதிகாரமும் 'ஆரிய இளவரசன் பிரகதத்தனுக்கு கபிலர் அறிவுறுத்தியது' என குறிஞ்சிப்பாட்டும் விளிப்பது எவரை என ஜெயேந்திரர் விளக்குவாரா? ஆதி சங்கரர் திருஞான சம்பந்தரை 'திராவிட சிசு' எனக்குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளாரே அவர் என்ன வெள்ளைக்காரரா? மனு தர்ம சாஸ்திரம் 'பவுண்டரம், அவுண்டம், திராவிடம், காம்போஜம், யவனம், பாரதம், சீனம் போன்ற தேசங்களை ஆண்டவர்கள் சூத்திரர் ஆகிவிட்டார்கள்' என்கிறதே, மனு என்ன பிரித்தனைச்சேர்ந்தவரா? நன்றி: உண்மை ஆன்லைன்.காம் source: http://www.unmaionline.com http://amalasingh.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_...gh_archive.html
01-19-2006, 10:13 PM
இந்துதுவ வாதிகளால் இணயத்தில் பரப்பப்டும் புரட்டுக்களை சுட்டிக் காட்டுகிறது இந்த ஆய்வாளரின் குழுமத்திற்கான மின்னஞ்ஞல்.இந்த இந்துதுவப் புரட்டுக்களைத்தான் இங்கே சில கற்றுக் குட்டிகள் விஞ்ஞான ஆராச்சி என்று அவாவுகின்றன.திட்டமிட்ட ரீதியில் பரப்பபடும் இந்த புரட்டுக்களுக்கு ஆதாரமாகச் சொல்லப்படும் ஆய்வுகளில் உள்ள எரர் மாஜினை வைத்து எந்தவிகமான வரலாற்று நிகழ்வுகளையும் கூற முடியாது என்பது விஞ்ஞான ரீதியான கட்டுரைகளைப் படிதவர்களுக்கு, எழுதியியவர்களுக்கு விளங்கும்.இங்கே விஞ்ஞானம் என்று பார்ப்பனர்களின் இந்துத்துவ அரசியல் விற்கப்படுகிறது.இதனைத் தான் தமிழர்களுக்கான ஆய்வாக இங்கே ஒருவர் பிதற்றித் திரிகிறார்.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steve Farmer <> Date: Dec 18, 2005 5:05 PM Subject: [Indo-Eurasia] Biblical 'Creationism' and the California Business To: Indo-Eurasian_research at yahoogroups.com Cc: Steve Farmer <> Dear List, It's Sunday, and if you appreciate black humor, here's an example of the kind of disinformation related to the California issue now flying around the Web. Every time a new genetics paper appears that deals with the African dispersal of genes into the rest of the world -- normally dealing with temporal ranges on the order of 35,000+ years ago -- the Hindutva groups begin publicly claiming that the paper provides "proof' that any migrations of Indo-European speaking people ever occurred in S. Asia (in early historical times). These claims have become increasingly common since a paper by Kivisild et al. appeared on mitochondrial DNA in 1999, which first gave rise to such claims. (They even trotted this paper out at the California hearings on Dec. 2.) The fact that the temporal error bars in Kivisild et al. are longer than the distance that separates us from the composers of the RV (!), making the data in the paper useless in discussing historical rather than deep prehistorical events, conveniently gets lost in in the discussion. So do the profusion of papers that different sides in this highly politicized issue. Now for reasons that none of us have quite figured out, the Hindutva groups have added the claim that the so-called Aryan invasion theory is linked up with biblical 'Creation Science'. We haven't figured out the reasons behind this leap of imagination, but on it, see below. This little Hindutva 'news' item was just yanked off the Web and forwarded to us by a friendly correspondent. It would take a long exegesis to untangle this mess -- the stories falsely ascribed to Jim Heitzman, from UC Davis, are maybe the funniest of them all -- but so many of these stories right now are flooding the Net (I found out today too that I'm a believer in 'Creationist Science') that we can't keep up with all of them. So let's just let the story speak for itself. Michael has some similar stories that he might way to share with us. (There are things much worse than what you see below that we're being sent nearly every hour -- threats of lasuits, crank emails, and worse.) There is big money behind the Hindutva moves on California, and we are currently tracking down the money trail. Best, Steve
01-19-2006, 10:36 PM
தரப்பட்ட ஆய்வுக்கட்டுரை குறுக்கால போவன் சொன்னதுக்கும் மேலாக தெளிவாகச் சொல்கிறது. புரத அடிப்படையில் எப்படி மனிதக் குழுமங்களுக்கு இடையே வேறுபாடு உண்டென்பதை. குறுக்கால போவனும் நாரதரும் வார்த்தைகளால் அளந்து கட்டுவதை ஏற்க முடியாது. ஒரு ஆய்வென்றால் அதை இன்னொரு ஆய்வின் மூலம் டிஸ்புறூவ் பண்ண வேண்டும். தனி நபர்கள் காசுக்கும் விளம்பரத்துக்கும் எழுதும் கற்பனைகளை புறூவ் என்று கொள்ள முடியாது. அதனால் இவ்விருவர் வாதங்களுக்கும் பதில் வைப்பது வீண்..! :wink: <!--emo&
--><img src='http://www.yarl.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tongue.gif'><!--endemo-->
<img src='http://kuruvikal.yarl.net/archives/PETBIRD1.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
01-19-2006, 11:12 PM
குருவி அண்ண எனக்கு விளங்கினதை மாத்திரம் தானே அண்ணா எழுத முடியும். அது தானே கேட்டிருந்தேன் உங்கள் பார்வையில் எவ்வாறு மேலதிகமாக அந்த ஆய்வுக்கட்டுரைகள் சொல்லுவதை விளங்கியிருக்குறீர்கள் என்றும் எழுதுங்கள் அறிந்து கொள்ள ஆர்வமாக இருக்குறேன்.
நான் வார்த்தைகளால் அளக்கவில்லை ராஜாதிராஜ தந்த ஆய்வுக்கட்டுரையில் கூறப்பட்டவற்றை எனது விளக்கத்தின் அடிப்படையில் சாரம்சமாக எழுதியுள்ளேன். நான் தவறவிட்ட விடையங்களையும் தப்பாக எழுதியுள்ளதையும் நீங்கள் குறிப்பிட்டால் தெரிந்து கொள்ள உதவியாக இருக்கும் அண்ணா.
01-19-2006, 11:31 PM
Quote:II. North & South Bharatiyas Share mtDNA, Which Is Distinct From That of Europeans உங்கள் இருவருக்கும் ஆங்கிலம் தெரியும்..அதில விளங்க முடியாத அளவுக்கு பெரிய அளவு ரெக்னிக்கல் ரேம்சும் இல்ல...! இது இரண்டும் போதும் படிச்சுப் புரிஞ்சுக்கோங்கோ..! <!--emo& --><img src='http://www.yarl.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tongue.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='http://www.yarl.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='laugh.gif'><!--endemo-->
<img src='http://kuruvikal.yarl.net/archives/PETBIRD1.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
01-20-2006, 01:08 AM
[quote="kuruvikal"][quote]II. North & South Bharatiyas Share mtDNA, Which Is Distinct From That of Europeans
Extensive sequencing and statistical analysis of a part of mtDNA which has sustained mutations (the mitochondrial hypervariable region I, HVR I), [/quote] normally dealing with temporal ranges on the order of 35,000+ years ago -- the Hindutva groups begin publicly claiming that the paper provides "proof' that any migrations of Indo-European speaking people ever occurred in S. Asia (in early historical times). These claims have become increasingly common since a paper by Kivisild et al. appeared on mitochondrial DNA in 1999, which first gave rise to such claims. (They even trotted this paper out at the California hearings on Dec. 2.) The fact that the temporal error bars in Kivisild et al. are longer than the distance that separates us from the composers of the RV (!), making the data in the paper useless in discussing historical rather than deep prehistorical events, மேலே காட்டியதற்கு என்ன பதில் குருவியாரே?
01-20-2006, 05:12 AM
குருகால போறவன் நன்றி. நான் பார்பான் இல்லை. இங்கு கருத்தை திசை மாற்ற முயற்ச்சிகவில்லை. இன்னும் சில கட்டுரைகள் கிடைத்த பின் நான் மீண்டும் இனைகிறேன். நான் திராவிடர் கழகம் என்ற இன்றய கால கட்டத்தில் இருக்கும் அமைப்பை எதிர்கிறேன். அவர்களால் இந்து சமுதாய்தை கொச்சை படுத்தும் நோக்கம் தவிர வேறு இல்லை. இத்த மறபணு ஆராய்ச்சி மனித குலத்தில் ஆணி வேர் எது என்று தெரிந்து கொள்ளும் நோக்கில் நடத்த படுகிறது. இதில் நம் இடத்து விழயங்களும் வருகின்றன. யார் சார்பாபகவும் இது நடத்தபட்வில்லை. இன்னும் இதில் பல விழயங்கள் உள்ளன. இதை நாம் நடுநிலையோடு பேசி விவாதிக்க வேண்டிய விழயம்.இதில் தமிழ் மொழியின் உன்மையான வயது தெரிரிந்தால் நமக்கு இன்னும் பயன் கிட்டும். குருவி சொன்னது போல நாம் அந்த பலகலைகழத்தோடு இணந்து ஆராய்ச்சியில் பங்கு பெற்றால் நமக்கு இன்னும் பயன் கிடைக்கும் என்பது என் கருத்து.
.
.
01-20-2006, 05:19 AM
திரு நாரதரே சங்கராசாரியார் ஒன்னும் இந்து மதத்தின் முழுமையான தலைவர் இல்லை. அவர் சொன்னதுக்கு எல்லாம் நாம் பேசி கொண்டு இருக்க வேண்டாம். முல்லர் என்ற இங்கிலாந்து நாட்டு காரன் காலனி ஆதிக்க நேரத்தில் வெளியிட்ட கருத்து தான் ஆரியர் படயெடுப்பு. இந்திய தேசிய கீதம் அதற்கு பிறகு எழுதபட்டது.காலனி ஆதிக்கதின் அதிகாரத்தில் நம் மக்கள் முழுதும் பரப்பபட்டது ஆரியர் படையெடுப்பு. அது வரலாறை திரித்து கலாசாரத்தை குறைவுபடுத்தி மக்களை பிரிக்கும் முயர்ச்சி . இதை பற்றி இன்னும் ஒரு கட்டுரை இணைத்து இருக்குகிறென். வாசித்து பார்க்கவும்.
.
. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)