Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The originators of Proto-Indo-European were neither Indian nor European. That is why it is called "Proto".
They are the ancestors of all those peoples/cultures.
The progenitors of Indo-European languages emanated out from the Eurasian steppes in successive waves of migration (due to wet/drought cycles). The cultures themselves, however, whether Hittite, Greek, Latin, Celtic, German, Slavic, Tocharian, Iranian, or Indian, were hybrids.
Its because Sanskrit is very relevant to the discussion. It is not European and that strongly supports the notion that British didnt create Hinduism.
Without British rule would Hinduism exist as a united religion? Obviously the sects of Hinduism would exist but they would not have felt a common identity.
Since you cannot answer and keep inventing terms , let me tell you something. Time takes care of everything but These languages themselves havent changed for over 5-10 milleniums. How old were these researches?? 100 years ?? 200 years??
There is a conflict in the middle east for last 70 years. What evidence do you have to prove that each fighting party is correct in their understanding??
The "out of India" theory you are pushing has been definitivelydebunked by the latest genetic studies. It was always a stretch, but until recently couldn't be absolutely ruled out. With Y-DNA, rather than just mtDNA, data now available, however, the theory that PIE (and thus Sanskrit) originated in India has been rendered utterly untenable. One can now cling to that theory only by rejecting science.
Contrary to what the British appear to have believed, it seems doubtful that the Brahmans were dominant within the material world in pre colonial Indian society. A cursory examination of any of the ruling families quickly shows a dearth families of the Brahmin caste. Rather, one finds that the majority, though by no means all, of rulers were Kshytria and occasionally Vashnia. This suggests that although the Brahmin caste had power in spiritual matters, their power and control within the material world was limited to the amount of influence that they could gain with individual rulers. No doubt there were instances when this was quite considerable but there is also little doubt that there were times when Brahman influence was very weak and insignificant. With this in mind, it is not difficult to imagine a situation where, Brahmans, seeing the ascendancy of British power, allied themselves to this perceived new ruling class and attempted to gain influence through it. By establishing themselves as authorities on the caste system they could then tell the British what they believed the British wanted to hear and also what would most enhance their own position. The British would then take this information, received through the filter of the Brahmans, and interpret it based on their own experience and their own cultural concepts. Thus, information was filtered at least twice before publication. Therefore, it seems certain that the information that was finally published was filled with conceptions that would seem to be downright deceitful to those about whom the information was written. The flood of petitions protesting caste rankings following the 1901 census would appear to bear witness to this.
A study by researchers from the National Institute of BioMedical Genomics (NIBMG) in West Bengal has looked at the genes of various communities to answer questions that have often been suggested in history books: when did caste become the dominant norm for ethnic communities of the region.
For most upper-caste communities, endogamy (that is marrying within one’s caste) started nearly 70 generations ago, or around the time of the Hindu Gupta period around 1,500 years ago, says the study published in the latest issue of the journal PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America).
“A lot of social transformation took place during the Gupta period. Notable among these was the enforcement of social strictures against marriage between castes, as enshrined in the Dharmasastra. This reveals that some social norms leave imprints on the DNA, which can be reconstructed by careful genetic studies,” says Partha P. Majumder, Director, NIBMG, who, along with Analabha Basu and Neeta Sarkar Roy, authored the study."
The "out of India" theory you are pushing has been definitivelydebunked by the latest genetic studies. It was always a stretch, but until recently couldn't be absolutely ruled out. With Y-DNA, rather than just mtDNA, data now available, however, the theory that PIE (and thus Sanskrit) originated in India has been rendered utterly untenable. One can now cling to that theory only by rejecting science.
OK I give it to you that Sanskrit did not come from India. What about the literature, scientific knowledge, astronomy, medicine et all?? They also came from Europe??
OK I give it to you that Sanskrit did not come from India. What about the literature, scientific knowledge, astronomy, medicine et all?? They also came from Europe??
The strong consensus is that PIE originated in the Eurasian steppes. If anything, it was Europe that culturally retrogressed during the "Dark Ages" following the fall of Rome, under the heels of an "anti-rationalist" Christianity, during which the classical heritage of Greece and Rome was almost lost.
Ultimately, it was Arabs, Jews, and Irish monks, and not the Church, who saved what became the foundation of the "Western Tradition" (Aristotle, et al), but which likely wouldn't have happened without the opening to Eastern influences and inventions (including arabic numerals, the number zero, algebra, gun powder, guns and cannons, steel, movable type, paper, hospitals and medical science, universities, and chess, for instance) following the Crusades.
Higher cultures, including Hinduism, it seems to me, are hybrids, rather than simple autochthonous developments. The search for unitary cultural grounds, rather than stages of dynamic synthesis, is futile.
Did the British create Hinduism? Heck no. Study ancient Indian history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
