Aryan...

[Gaurav]

...invasion of India never happened? What are the scientific facts? :devil_smile:

[varun]

There aren't many scientific facts that it happenned either. Take a look at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies

[gorah_pindu]

...invasion of India never happened? What are the scientific facts? :devil_smile:

AIT was discredited almost from the day it was made :-) AMT (aryan migration theory) on the other hand is still disputed.

[Gaurav]

Any links against AIT?

[gorah_pindu]

I could post wiki articles, but thats kinda pointless :-) Basically the guy who proposed the idea of an invasion was selective in his archeology - for example, he attributed the existence of un-buried bodies in Indus Valley ruins to an invasion - when they werent even in the right strata, and could have mearly been squatters - also there was no sign of trauma. But the AIT's successor theory, the AMT, is less clear cut.

[gorah_pindu]

Okay, although CC will no doubt find some **** to complain about, let me give you the rundown on the AMT:

• Blue: Centum languages
• Red-orange: Satem languages
• Orange: Languages exhibiting augment
• Green: Languages exhibiting PIE *-tt- > -ss-
• Tan: Languages exhibiting PIE *-tt- > -st-
• Pink: Languages in which the instrumental, dative, and ablative plurals, as well as certain singulars and duals, exhibit endings beginning in -m-, rather than the usual *-bh-.

From Europe to India, there are a group of languages which share similar traits, called the Indo-European languages - and also the polytheistic religions spread across this same area share commonality between their Gods. Thus, somewhere between India and Europe, there must have been a common progenitor for Indo-European language and Indo-European religion. In colonial times, European nationalists claimed that Europe must be the fountain of civilization, spreading its languages and Gods across Eurasia - and today Hindu nationalists make the opposite claim that everything Indo-European must have come from India (although their evidence is slightly more compelling). Study of language and archeology however has led most scholars to conclude that the Indo-European traditions originated somewhere between the two extremes - the main two theories being either Anatolia (Turkey) or the Kurgan tribes (southern Russia/Central-Asia). Several innovations assotiated with Indo-European culture seem to have originated here and spread outward, such as the chariot (see below), funeral culture, etc. It is also far more likely that the langauges originated in the middle of their spread pattern, than at one of the extremes (Europe or India), and this is where the oldest evidence of Indo-European language has been found (for example in the Mitanni, a Hurrian kingdom from Anatolia). Since Indo-European languages outside of India do not bear any sign of interaction with the Dravidian languages, it also makes it unlikely that the progenitor Indo-European languages developed alongside the Dravidian languages (i.e. in the Indo-Iranian region, which is where Dravidian language can be found). This outside origin for Indo-European culture has led some people to believe that Indo-Europeans migrated into India and Indo-Europeanised the locals over time (the invasion theory made the un-substantiated claim that it was an invasion, but archeological evidence points to migration at most, and spread of ideas at least). Just as some Indian nationalists claim an unlikely 'out of India' hypothsis, others adopted the opposite idea of oppressive invaders or migrants coming into India en masse, to further their political ideologies (i.e. Dalit and 'Dravidian' nationalists). But the evidence dosent favour their extreme view either. Both Indo-European Vedic and allegedly 'Dravidian' animist type cultures seem to have existed side by side in ancient India (evidence of both have been found in the same strata of Indus Valley cities, leading some to speculate that the Vedic religion was from pastorial India, and made inroads into the urban Indus Valley Civilization later) - suggesting they developed alongside each other in relative peace, and were both 'native' (aside from the original Indo-European concepts). The Vedas seem to be speaking about north India, and not somewhere outside the subcontinent, leading some to believe that Vedism formed as a pastorial religion of small villages, while the Indus Valley culture was urban and had other traditions which would later merge with Vedism to form modern Hinduism). Genetic evidence of higher caste people resembling Europeans more in some areas could just be because of more recent migration, and the tendancy of higher castes to marry further afield (i.e. princes marrying Greeks, Kushans, etc). If you want my opinion - based on evidence ive seen, I think that Indo-European proto-language and proto-religion spread to India through natural migration of ideas, and that Vedism and Sanskrit were a subsequent native development of these traditions. In short I believe the Dalit/Dravidian nationalist drivel about Aryans coming and oppressing natives with a caste system seems to be bullshit (the reality was more like Indians oppressing other identical Indians), and the Hindu nationalist 'out of India' view of Indo-European culture originating in India and spreading its glory across Eurasia is also highly unlikely for the reasons mentioned above. As usual, the truth seems to lie in the well-reasoned but less glamerous opinion of scholarship - people would love to think that their culture originated world civilization - or would love to think they are 3000 year victims of glorious oppression - but the truth is probably more mundane - some primative tribe between India and Europe happened to form some of the basic ideas behind the languages and religions which would then be adopted by locals and expanded upon. Something like the Kurgan hypothesis pictured above probably took place.

[THX_1138]

Okay' date= although CC will no doubt find some **** to complain about, let me give you the rundown on the AMT:

lol now you know why i am not giving in to the temptation of contributing to this thread... i know that there are a few trolls who instead of debating for the sake of debating will merely lookj to instigate an argument.

[THX_1138]

GP what you wrote is pretty much what i had heard in the past too... the Mueller theory about the origin of languages and thus a common ancestory. i believe that theory is no longer popular amongst historians but in india, especially the theory has not been replaced from the NCERT texts since any adjustment might be seen as a form of revisionist propaganda by the nationalist hindus (or whatever it is that they are being called this week). nevertheless, it has always befudled me that such a distinct difference exists amongst indian (physiologically speaking), especially amongst those residing north of the vindhyachals and those residing to their south.

[gorah_pindu]

@THX - I understand what you mean - the first thing people usually think of if how north Indians seem different from south Indians - but genetically speaking, both groups still have more in common than north Indians do with West Asians - and there are other biological explinations for superficial differences - for example, skin tone seems to be dictated by regional climate more than anything:

[CC1981]

The problem i have with the linguistic analysis of human population is that we have very little linguistic evidence that goes beyond the last 4000 years, yet it is established that places like the fertile crescant, India, etc. had city-building civilizations for atleast 9000 years- giving us a lost phylum of 5000 years of human history from purely linguistic basis. It is also kinda stupid to pronounce verdict on human linguistics given the biological fact that our species had vocal development for language ( an elongated larynx) for atleast the last 200,000 years. So all in all, we have evidence for 2% of human history on linguistic basis- a rather insignificant subset of the language development timeline. The biggest counter to Aryan migration/invasion theory is that in the rich lore of indian mythologies and history, there is NEVER EVER a tribe mentioned by the name of the aryans and neither is any immigration/migration to India implied by any section of ancient indian society like is commonly noted in the lore of migrational societies ( like the turks, hungarians, israelies, etc). There is also mtDNA evidence that the prevailing caucasoid DNA marker ( R1A1 i think) shows development in the subcontinent and an outward flow from the subcontinent. I do not think OOI theory ( Out of India) is particularly strong either but so far,it makes more sense than common origin from Andronovo culture in the Russian steppes. mtDNA also shows that the subcontinent population base has remained stable through the last 20-25,000 years with occasional (and minor until 1200 yrs ago) influxes from the North-west, west & east. This biological evidence ( which is on a stronger footing than the limited nature of linguistic analysis) immediately blows apart the common Andronovo culture theory out of the air. If we slide the timescale back enough to the ice ages, it becomes clear that there were only two areas in Eurasia 12,000 years ago that could sustain a significant human population : Subcontinent & south China. it is commonly overlooked that where Andronovo culture is based, it were glacial tundra/temperate forests in the ice age period and the Sahara + Arabian desert were at a greater extent in the ice ages than today .It is a common misconception that during the ice ages the 'earth was way cooler' - it wasn't, since the total solar insolation received is more or less constant in that period ( 10K year is insigificant timescale in the sun's lifecycle for any major consistent output difference). Logical conclusion to this ( and geological data supports this) is that if the total insolation recieved is constant and much of Europe, Russia, Canada and northern USA are glaciated, then the subtropical areas would be compensating by being hotter & desertified. When the ice ages were in progress, Sahara streched a good 1000 km south than where it is today and formed an unbroken desert patch all the way from Morocco to the western banks of the Indus. The gobi desert penetrated south of the Yellow river and extended as far west as Kazakhstan ( essentially Gobi and Takla makhan were one unbroken desert, much greater in size than they are today). Desertification was also helped by significantly lesser river-flow in the world (much of Europe's rivers, russia's rivers and Canadian rivers didn't exist in the Wisconsin glaciation period, thus reducing humidity over land from evaporation of riverine systems). Central Africa was held together by the savannah and the tropical forests were a 10th of their size today. Much of the Amazon rainforests were savannah grassland with only the windward side of northern Andes being the tropical rainforest zone. In a world of this geography, it is easy to see that humanity would've been present in much more concentrated form but its main population bases ( Subcontinent, South China and equitorial Africa) were isolated. The human distribution of rest of Eurasia were significantly thinner and this is one of the reasons why India & China both have mythologies that go back to 'stupid amount of years' while the rest of eurasia has far lesser timescale depth to its mythologies. Another thing that blows apart any of this linguistic analysis of the Indo-Aryan language group : the dating of the rig veda. One thing that must be remembered beyond a shadow of doubt is that ancient India were thousands of years ahead of ancient Europe in its astronomical expertese- The rig veda identifies all the stars in the night sky as equivalents to our sun- a mindboggling fact that no western culture notes or even finds out ( and by west, i mean europe + middle east) till the last few hundred years. A heliocentric concept of the heavens are mentioned in very archaic sources as well. The authors of the vedas (whoever they were) realized the problem with empiric dating of human epoch. They had developed dating methodology far more accurate and logically advanced than the dating methodology in common use even today in the western circles- if they wanted a date of a particular event to be noted, they simply noted down the star-positions in the night sky at that time period (and with astounding levels of accuracy at that) and left it at that. If you think about it, it is a far superior concept of dating history- even today much of western history is held together by the BC/AD event (or the politically correct version : BCE and CE), tied to 2000 years ago with this Christ character. In a scenario where WWIII and a nuclear war happens, with humanity literally 'pushed back into the stone ages', some guy rooting through the ruins and finding our books would have very little idea how far seperated he is from the events of our times or Napoleon - humanity having stopped a collective watch over years for several centuries, fragmented in small micro-populations, would have no idea how far they are from our times. Ie, if we stopped counting & agreeing upon years, then the whole western concept of history goes to the sh!tter. But the way Rig Veda dates itself - through astronomical data- it is a fairly accurate concept once one is familiar with it (and has the means to verify it). You simply note the positions of the familiar stars mentioned in the text, plug it in and compare to the current day value, to find the rate of precession of the poles and then find how many years it has been. ( THIS(precession of the poles), FYI, is one of the main causes of the ice ages and 'hot planet' stages and not surprisingly, this matches up to our concept of 'yugas') This method is far more scientifically and logically sounder in its concept, yet western archaeology doesn't even begin to entertain its concept and its (rather awkward for them) conclusions. One of the reasons why so much ambiguity remains in dating Egyptian & mesopotamian history (despite a much better preserved artifact collection than India's or China's) is because their concept of 'history' was in 'years of the king'- they didnt have Christ to 'anchor' their history- they simply used '10th year of the king blahblah' as a mention of history and reading their history is nighmarish due to the constant calculations involved as well as amount of spurious data due to 'forgotten & discredited kings' just knocked off the perch alltogether. Its like reading history as '1st year of King A ----> 10th year of King---> King A dies in 39th year of his reign----> 4th year of King B---> King B dies in 19th year of his reign' etc etc. Far more subjective & spurious in its nature. Using astronomical data, Rig Veda's dates start falling between the 7000-9000 BC period, which is also confirmed by the presence of Mehrgarh as one of the remaining sites form that period. The application of scientific reasoning in certain fields are highly problematic as of now because of the nature of those fields. Outside of chemistry,physics & molecular biology & their applied fields, the mathematical thought process cannot be held as gospel in any other. Applying science to anchor facts in fields such as history, psychology, social science, etc. is far more limited in its scope because the nature of the investigation : in pure sciences we investigate extant phenomena and its implications, while in these 'hodge-podge sciences' we investigate extinct phenomena that is subject to continuous change through time. Ie, take all this 'scientific analysis' of history/psychology etc etc. fields with a grain of salt- they know far less in what they are talking about than the average physicist/compsci/engineer/biologist in their's. The nature of their field and the tools we have had so far dictates so.

[gorah_pindu]

The problem i have with the linguistic analysis of human population is that we have very little linguistic evidence that goes beyond the last 4000 years, yet it is established that places like the fertile crescant, India, etc. had city-building civilizations for atleast 9000 years- giving us a lost phylum of 5000 years of human history from purely linguistic basis.

Valid point, however, it still would not explain the main objections people have to the 'out of India' theory - for example, why Indo-European languages beyond the Indo-Iranian plateau have no trace of Dravidian or Munda influence - and why the spread of Indo-European language dosent contain India at the centre.

It is also kinda stupid to pronounce verdict on human linguistics given the biological fact that our species had vocal development for language ( an elongated larynx) for atleast the last 200,000 years. So all in all, we have evidence for 2% of human history on linguistic basis- a rather insignificant subset of the language development timeline.

Scholars who study Indo-European langauges are only making pronouncements on Indo-European langauges, and not other families, i.e. the antiquity of human langauge development is largely irrelevent to the study of one branch.

The biggest counter to Aryan migration/invasion theory is that in the rich lore of indian mythologies and history, there is NEVER EVER a tribe mentioned by the name of the aryans and neither is any immigration/migration to India implied by any section of ancient indian society like is commonly noted in the lore of migrational societies ( like the turks, hungarians, israelies, etc).

Yes you are right - I doubt a migration of anything more than ideas took place - and I believe based upon currently available evidence, that Sanskrit and Vedic culture were subsequently developed in India, by native Indians, based upon proto-Indo-European ideas.

There is also mtDNA evidence that the prevailing caucasoid DNA marker ( R1A1 i think) shows development in the subcontinent and an outward flow from the subcontinent.

Actually the only known migration out of India was that of the Roma, casting serious doubt on 'out of India' theories. And skeletal and genetic evidence suggests that the population of India hasnt changed much in the last 8000 years either, which silences the argument of 'AIT' proponents. According to Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (in Erdosy 1995), the biological continuity of prehistoric human remains from the Indian subcontinent with living peoples of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the border regions is well established. Chaubey et al. (2007) note the virtual absence of India-specific mtDNA haplogroups outside the subcontinent. There is no evidence of widespread genetic displacement of the male population in South Asia after the onset of settled agriculture, nor is there evidence of widespread genetic displacement in Europe after the Paleolithic. (Sahoo, Sanghamitra, et al. (January 2006). "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (4): 843-848). (G Chaubey et al. (2007). "Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste-tribe continuum in India". Bioessays 29 (1)) Cavalli-Sforza (2000) offers the introduction of Indo-European languages to India as an example of language replacement, when the language of a population changes accompanied by only minimal changes in its genetics. According to Witzel (in Erdosy 1995:113), 'their genetic impact would have been negligible and, as was the case in the Normans in England, would have been "lost" in a few generations in the much larger gene pool of the Indus people.' Vijendra Kashyap, one of the authors of Sahoo et al. (2006), states that the people of the Indian subcontinent are indigenous to South Asia, but that Indo-European languages aren't, and that language change resulted from the migration of numerically small superstrate groups that are difficult to trace genetically. To summarise all those articles - they all support what I said above - but do not support either 'out of India' or 'Aryan invasion'.

[gorah_pindu]

GP what you wrote is pretty much what i had heard in the past too... the Mueller theory about the origin of languages and thus a common ancestory. i believe that theory is no longer popular amongst historians but in india' date=' especially the theory has not been replaced from the NCERT texts since any adjustment might be seen as a form of revisionist propaganda by the nationalist hindus (or whatever it is that they are being called this week).[/quote'] Actually, the idea of a common origin for the Indo-European family of languages is still accepted - what isnt accepted is the Aryan invasion idea - which is still tought in some places in India, for political purposes - i.e. people who can stand to gain by claiming that they are victims of 5000 years of racism. Dalit parties for example like this idea, because it means they can claim caste-oppression is race-related, and use elements of 'black nationalist' type theory to polarise people. On the other hand, revision of history has gone to the other extreme in some political circles - Hindu nationalists are trying to claim that all Indo-European innovation came from India (like the Nazi party did when they claimed all Indo-European culture came from Germanic Aryans). Their position is helped by the fact that during colonial times, European scholarship indeed abused the idea of Indo-European ideas migrating around, through the Aryan invasion theory, etc.

[gorah_pindu]

CC, I may not have time to read your full edit, but this part struck me immediatly when my eyes met the text:

If we slide the timescale back enough to the ice ages, it becomes clear that there were only two areas in Eurasia 12,000 years ago that could sustain a significant human population : Subcontinent & south China. it is commonly overlooked that where Andronovo culture is based, it were glacial tundra/temperate forests in the ice age period and the Sahara + Arabian desert were at a greater extent in the ice ages than today

The Andronovo culture did not exist during the ice age!

[CC1981]

The Andronovo culture did not exist during the ice age!

Yes, that is exactly what i am saying. Andronovo culture didnt exist in the ice age- human geographic reach was significantly lesser during the ice ages and found in much more localized concentrations than in the post ice ages ( 10-12,000 years- present time). The answers to pre-ice age history lies in India, China and tropical africa, with the latter unfortunately with the most limited & least advanced state.

[gorah_pindu]

Why would the ice age limit a culture that took place 6000 years after the end of the ice age? What are you trying to say? I am having a hard time following this. You seem to have copy/pasted the edit above, judging by its formatting.

[CC1981]

it still would not explain the main objections people have to the 'out of India' theory - for example, why Indo-European languages beyond the Indo-Iranian plateau have no trace of Dravidian or Munda influence - and why the spread of Indo-European language dosent contain India at the centre.

I have no idea. My point is to show one theory to be bullshyte, not propose another one to take its place- as i said, i take everything in history with a grain of salt and mostly rely on my own conclusions- since an informed opinion in history from a consistent scientific standpoint is more or less equally valid.to that of an 'expert' in this field.

Scholars who study Indo-European langauges are only making pronouncements on Indo-European langauges, and not other families, i.e. the antiquity of human langauge development is largely irrelevent to the study of one branch.

And that is where they are wrong- language mutation is directly linked to and is a substrata of human migrations. the study of a branch of language can never be isolated from history or historical theories overriding it.

based upon proto-Indo-European ideas.

I find this view flawed because of one major reason : Human nature dictates that it is the financially mightiest one has the scope of largest influence. Today American 'culture' has the larges global influence no less due to their financial might. Several thousands of years ago, the subcontinent was the 'rich one' outside of China in the eurasian continent. If i am to assume any cultural transmission, i'd think it occured the other way round- subcontinent's larger human development AND population leads to the conclusion of a much powerful culture in the pre/post ice-ages period. So the seeds of any cultural thought was sown out of India ( and out of china in later times- we are at a better geo-political range with relation to the rest of Eurasia than China), not the other way round IMO.

Actually the only known migration out of India was that of the Roma, casting serious doubt on 'out of India' theories.

False. The Mitanni were also an out of India group who just 'showed up' in the middle east ( and unlike the Roma, they actually conquered and set up a little kingdom for a while in modern day Syria-north Iraq for a few centuries) some 3500 years ago. The Roma migration is the most documented one due to its significantly younger history- the mtDNA evidence spands 20-25,000 years, of which little or no historical knowledge ( or even consistent mythology) exists.

which silences the argument of 'AIT' proponents.

Yes, not just AIT ( Aryan Invasion Theory) but also AMT ( Aryan Migration Theory). I think a huge part of Indian and middle-eastern/european history is impacted by the Saraswati River and its death incident- in the ancient world, a timescale where the probable human global population was 200-300 million at best, a river housing atleast 20 cities/towns on its edges dying up would be an 'atom bomb' in proportions for history. ironically, we stand at the doorsteps of history repeating itself (even without realizing it) : The ganga-jamuna are about to dry up in the next hundred-two hundred years and so far, the ganga-jamuna watershed houses over 550 million people. That is, approximately 8 % of humanity in existance. in terms of geo-political significance, this 550 million 'ganges-yamuna river-system dwellers' is of a comparable population of the entire Eurasian continent that lies to its west (ie, entire Europe+ middle east + central asia). We cannot even begin to imagine the historical significance of a river like Ganga just drying up in terms of human history. A big part of the whole 'indo-european-middle eastern' history lies in the Saraswati drying up event- its most commonly noted dates are approximately 4000 years ago or 7000 years ago- either way, a large part of our answers to eurasian history lies in that event.

[CC1981]

Why would the ice age limit a culture that took place 6000 years after the end of the ice age? What are you trying to say? I am having a hard time following this. You seem to have copy/pasted the edit above, judging by its formatting.

No, i am not copy-pasting it, i am typing it as we go along. What i am saying, is that the seeds of this andronovo culture lies in cultural elements from subcontinent (in the large part) and China ( in lesser part), if we look from the ice ages event onwards. And no, we were really not the 'cave-dwelling ouga-chaka-ouga-ouga ' hunter-gatherers when ice age happened- atleast, when the most recent ice age ( Wisconsin glaciation period, that lasted from the 25000-10/12000 yrs ago).

[gorah_pindu]

False. The Mitanni were also an out of India group who just 'showed up' in the middle east ( and unlike the Roma, they actually conquered and set up a little kingdom for a while in modern day Syria-north Iraq for a few centuries) some 3500 years ago. The Roma migration is the most documented one due to its significantly younger history- the mtDNA evidence spands 20-25,000 years, of which little or no historical knowledge ( or even consistent mythology) exists.

"False." (AKA, "you are an idiot and I am right, la la la la la la la"). The Mitanni were not 'from India' - they are infact the best piece of supporting evidence of the Indo-European theory - a culture outside of India, using Indo-European language, that existed before the first evidence of Vedic Indian culture. Furthermore, your genetic evidence is "false", as shown by the numerous studies I mentioned above. Did you invent this genetic study out of thin air? It seems so. Well, I was kind enough to post several real studies above, I suggest you read them.

I have no idea. My point is to show one theory to be bullshyte, not propose another one to take its place- as i said, i take everything in history with a grain of salt and mostly rely on my own conclusions- since an informed opinion in history from a consistent scientific standpoint is more or less equally valid.to that of an 'expert' in this field.

Yes CC, you clearly know better than hundreds of people who have devoted their entire lives to the study of the past. Their field is mere intellectual drivel, to the extent that a person armed with Wikipedia and HinduWisdom.org can claim superiority over them. :hysterical: In your ****ing dreams.

[gorah_pindu]

CC, when we get to this stage - the part where you start blurting out the word 'false' at the start of every response - where you demonstrate belief in your own infallibility - where you redirect the argument away from issues you cant answer - where you start making logical fallacies - and where you use selective history - I just cant be bothered debating, so cya later - hopefully someone else will reply to this interesting topic by tommorow morning.

[CC1981]

"False." (AKA, "you are an idiot and I am right, la la la la la la la").

That is your interpretation of it- i said that your 'fact' isnt one and then provided the reason (Mitanni) as to why. By saying 'false' i am not attacking you- just questioning the credibility of what you hold true in this case.

The Mitanni were not 'from India' - they are infact the best piece of supporting evidence of the Indo-European theory - a culture outside of India, using Indo-European language, that existed before the first evidence of Vedic Indian culture.

Err no - a culture that just 'shows up' around 1500 BCE, with distinct sanskrit names and references ( how much more sanskrit does it get if your king is called Bharataratna and the capital is Vasukhani ?) with little or no historical continuity before 1500-1600 BCE period and after 1100 BCE period. Ie, a group that just 'showed up' , managed to establish themselves for a short while before getting absorbed into the cultural fold of the fertile crescant- if the huns can be absorbed into our culture, why can't a much smaller group of Indians be absorbed into the much larger cultural sphere of the middle east ?? I find it interesting that the Mitanni 'show up' in history merely 200-300 years after one of the two main drying up dates for the Saraswati drying-up event (which itself carries a 100-200 year uncertainty with it) : approx 2000 BCE. So lets see : a river drying up---> people migrating---> establishing a kingdom for a while--> getting absorbed few hundred years later...wow, such an implausable idea isn't it ? Like- it has never happened, will not happen and people just don't show up, establish themselves for a few hundred years and then get absorbed in the greater cultural sphere. Right !

Furthermore, your genetic evidence is "false", as shown by the numerous studies I mentioned above.

I can't be ars*d to go through wikipedia finding links to harvard all over again- Chaubey for eg, is categorically wrong- there is prevalence of the R1B1 mtDNA marker outside of the subcontinent and it has a distinct 'east-to-west' prevalence from India to Ireland.

Yes CC, you clearly know better than hundreds of people who have devoted their entire lives to the study of the past.

Maybe i do. Maybe i don't. That can be assessed only through debating my conclusions. So far, i've drawn attention to the holes in the theories made out by your western history. And you, an adherent of it, lashed out in quite predictable manner and instead of debating my own perspective, your response was to lump me with the 'opposite crowd' of indo-nationalist retards to give yourself reason to believe your spiel even more. Like, i did not expect that (not!).

Their field is mere intellectual drivel, to the extent that a person armed with Wikipedia and HinduWisdom.org can claim superiority over them.

An engineer who understands the limitations of science in various field is that person. Science is my field, i am more than qualified to debate the scientific reasoning and conclusions these people in Archaeology, history, etc. are drawing, given that my scientific expertese is significantly higher than their's. This is not because i am 'special'- it is because i happen to be an engineer interested in this field and it is rather funny to entertain the concept of an archaeologist trying to lecture me on just what conclusions can/cannot be drawn from a radio-carbon test, given that i am qualified enough to TEACH that 50 year old archeologist a thing or two about radio-carbon dating and isotope analysis. I suspect that if more engineers/physicists were to pursue history as a hobby, the field would be turned inside out a few times over and over again, given the shallowness of logic and failure to recognize its limiations that exist in your precious 'western intellectual attempt at unravelling history'. I happen to agree with some stuff from your hinduwisdom.org sites, some stuff i disagree with.