India knew many distinct complexes, not just one, and of course, they're all indigenous.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
After years of wading through all the bullish!t they wrote about the cultures of Africa, I have a hard time dealing with arguments/insinuations that indigenous people - from whatever region - were not responsible for the achievements and feats that occurred in their own lands.
I'm of the mindset that precedence should always be given to the indigenous explanation, when the origins of cultures are evaluated, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
I've uploaded a Googlebook page that deals with Indian remains, you can search for it in Calabooz' Uploaded studies thread (but I forgot which page).
You can find it in no time by perusing the last couple of pages of that thread, using the search function (Ctrl+f) and typing in my screenname as a keyword.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If y'all thinking what I'm thinking. Finitio. It's a wrap. Holy Mary holler at me I'm free as a bird. :0)
Posts: 525 | From: Terra | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatbox, I don't think you understand. India is unique, At no point did any foreign force or culture, completely engulf India - not withstanding British rule which was complicated.
Thus the people are the same, though many have been modified by admixture. Likewise the cultures are the same, thought those too has been modified by admixture. Often admixture spawned new culture, but that was an adding on, not a loss of anything.
BTW - India has about 16 indigenous ethnicity's. They range from bushy headed Blacks to Australiods, to Mongols - and they all have their own cultures.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"India has about 16 indigenous ethnicity's. They range from bushy headed blacks" = typical Afrocentrist trojan horse to insert the Negro into non-Negro history.
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: "India has about 16 indigenous ethnicity's. They range from bushy headed blacks" = typical Afrocentrist trojan horse to insert the Negro into non-Negro history.
Confirming Truth - The Black man was the original settler of ALL the Worlds lands. Why would I need to make-up anything? Damn you're stupid.
ETHNIC GROUPS OF INDIA. Tribal peoples constitute roughly 8 percent of the nation's total population, nearly 68 million people according to the 1991 census. One concentration lives in a belt along the Himalayas stretching through Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh in the west, to Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland in the northeast. Another concentration lives in the hilly areas of central India (Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and, to a lesser extent, Andhra Pradesh); in this belt, which is bounded by the Narmada River to the north and the Godavari River to the southeast, tribal peoples occupy the slopes of the region's mountains. Other tribals, the Santals, live in Bihar and West Bengal. There are smaller numbers of tribal people in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, in western India in Gujarat and Rajasthan, and in the union territories of Lakshadweep and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The extent to which a state's population is tribal varies considerably. In the northeastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland, upward of 90 percent of the population is tribal. However, in the remaining northeast states of Assam, Manipur, Sikkim, and Tripura, tribal peoples form between 20 and 30 percent of the population. The largest tribes are found in central India, although the tribal population there accounts for only around 10 percent of the region's total population. Major concentrations of tribal people live in Maharashtra, Orissa, and West Bengal. In the south, about 1 percent of the populations of Kerala and Tamil Nadu are tribal, whereas about 6 percent in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are members of tribes.
There are some 573 communities recognized by the government as Scheduled Tribes and therefore eligible to receive special benefits and to compete for reserved seats in legislatures and schools. They range in size from the Gonds (roughly 7.4 million) and the Santals (approximately 4.2 million) to only eighteen Chaimals in the Andaman Islands. Central Indian states have the country's largest tribes, and, taken as a whole, roughly 75 percent of the total tribal population live there.
Dravidian ___________________________________ A "real" Dravidian Albino, (now known as Europeans).
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the KushitesDravidians). The Proto-Australoid race, Mongoloid race and Africoid/ Mediterranean skeletal remains were all found at Harappan sites. The Australoid people are a mixed group that combines the classical Mongoloid and pgymies. The speech of this group of Austroloids is believed to be Austric, a specimen of this language survives in the Munda speech.(Thapar 1972,p.26) The Africoid/Mediterranean group is associated with Dravidian culture. The Negritos founded the earliest culture in the Indus Valley at Mehrgarh in 6000 B.C. They had domesticated goats and sheep and grew cereals.
Archaeological and linguistic evidence indicates that the Dravidians were the founders of the Harappan culture which extended from the Indus Valley through northeastern Afghanistan, on into Turkestan. The Harappan civilization existed from 2600-1700 B.C. The Harappan civilization was twice the size the Old Kingdom of Egypt. In addition to trade relations with Mesopotamia and Iran, the Harappan city states also had active trade relations with the Central Asian peoples.(Winters 1990) Fairservis (1975) makes it clear that early cultures of Baluchistan are analogous to Early Dynastic Sumerian, this movement eastward of the ancient Kushites led to the rise of the Indus cultures. The Sumerians probably called the Indus Valley Dilmun. Dilmun was a rich trade center that provided Sumer with many valuable trade items.
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. The civilization here is called the megalithic, The ancient Indo-Aryan writings make it clear that the Indians were dark-skinned (varna) and had flat noses. (Durant 1935, p.396) This fact is supported by the Ali Tiraavitar (Old Dravidians) who are black as their African brothers with a difference in hair texture. In ancient Tamil poems they are described as mamai (black). In addition, the ancient Dravidians practiced a matriarchal system in Kerala and South Kanara.
In addition among the ali tiravitar, the system of inheritance passes from the uncle to his nephews, instead of to his sons (maru makkal Tayam) as in Africa. And in both South India and the Western Sudan of Africa, the dead were buried in terra cotta jars.
Dravidians used red-and Black pottery. They cultivated millet.
posted
Skin lightening is serious business in India
Opinion By Ronda Racha Penrice
For most African-Americans, it's hard to comprehend that India of all countries would struggle with issues surrounding light and dark skin. So many of us simply associate such realities with our own communities and don't realize that those issues also play out in other parts of the world. But the ample press that a Facebook page, officially known as "Vaseline Men Be Prepared", aimed at Indian men, not women, allowing them to upload their pictures and then adjust it to see how Vaseline products can lighten their skin for a "fairer" or "whiter" complexion, has generated certainly proves just how pervasive this issue truly is. Interestingly, many of the reports in this company have not centered upon the psychology of why skin lighteners are such a viable market in India. Instead, the prevailing question is: why would a product as respectable as Vaseline exploit that psychosis?
The easy answer is "profit". And, let's be clear, skin lightening products in India are very profitable. In fact, so much so that, even before this Facebook page appeared, BBC News had done a story about the market as early as 2003. Therefore, Vaseline isn't doing anything that is deemed culturally insensitive in India. It's quite the opposite. Pankaj Parihar, representing the global advertising firm Omnicom which designed the campaign, shared that "the response has been pretty phenomenal" with Agence Presse-France when questioned about the campaign that launched in the second week of June.
Back in the U.S., as previously suggested, the response hasn't been so rosy. Many Americans, white and black, are simply appalled. Given our knowledge of racism in this country, we understand that this market exists in India precisely because of racism. Like many other countries of color throughout the world, India has an entrenched history of colonialism and the preference for lighter skin is a lingering vestige of that. While many of us feel that it is in extremely poor taste for Vaseline to capitalize on that, we must realize that it's not very different from what the cosmetic industry does on a regular basis.
One does not need smooth skin to navigate life. It's desirable because, for women especially, men find smooth skin attractive. Last year, the Indian matrimonial site Shaadi.com conducted a poll of nearly 12,000 people and skin tone was the most important criteria for choosing a partner in three northern Indian states. For most of us in the United States, we don't really notice the difference in skin tone of most Indians. Even in the Facebook ad, Bollywood actor Shahid Kapur doesn't appear that dramatically lighter from image to image. In India, however, the slightest change is dramatic.
American companies or products as associated with the U.S. as Vaseline are often charged with racial insensitivity in incidents such as this one but Vaseline, like L'Oreal, Garnier and Nivea who also promote the skin lightening properties of their products in India, is not being racially insensitive in this instance. In the market Vaseline serves, they are culturally on the money. The market demand is for a product that lightens one's skin and they are meeting the market demand.
Morally, however, they fall short. In the United States, there are times in which we demand that our companies or beloved products take the high road and put social responsibility above profitability. Such demands are not necessarily made in other countries. Now, skin lightening creams also exist in the United States but they differ in the fact that many are not used as much to lighten the skin as they are to even out skin tones. Ambi, a leader in the field, zoned in on this message a few years back and now promotes its products as skin tone "eveners" and not "lighteners". Neutrogena even drafted Gabrielle Union at one point to also communicate the ability of their products to even out African American skin tones.
How does what is happening in India differ from the multi-million dollar African-American hair weave market in the United States? Although many African-American women style their hair in various ways, quite a lot of women who weave their hair are motivated by the fact that longer hair, curly or straight, is viewed as more attractive. In India, it's lighter skin.
While it's heartbreaking in the 21st century that a country such as India still feels that lighter skin is more attractive, it is reality. In April, Vogue India tried to promote darker skin as more desirable by featuring models with darker skin on its cover. If Vaseline stopped selling its product tomorrow, the desire for fairer skin would not disappear in India. That will only change through conscious efforts by magazines and other entertainment entities to promote all shades of beauty.
Even sadder, however, this controversy might not exist at all in this country if Vaseline had targeted women over men. After all, skin lightening creams have targeted Indian women for years now. Only recently, did it begin targeting men. There's a greater tendency in this country to believe that, physically, men are alright just the way they are. Had Vaseline implemented this Facebook tool for women, would it have generated as much media attention? After all, the multi-billion cosmetic industry thrives on exploiting women's insecurities and society's perceptions of what constitutes beauty. Where is the outrage about that?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did Indian civ result from Northern Indo-European speakers or from nearby from Central Asia (Mongolia)? ===========
The Indus Valley civilization c. 3000 BC was founded by Aryans (Indo-Europeans) who later moved into mainland India in the 1st millenium BC.
The Rig Veda and other ancient indian texts describes a race war between the blonde haired white Aryans invaders and the native dark skinned Dravidians.
Civilization was introduced by the Aryans.
Ar-ya = plough.
Aryans introduced advanced agriculture etc to the primitive dravidians.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
In India, as in North Africa, Turkey, and the Middle East: Whites and their "Wanna-be" Mulattoes have tried to write Blacks out of history. (Why the Mulattoes would wanna-be Albino, is beyond me, but such is the Human condition).
But in India, as everywhere else, the artifacts and "REAL" history defeats them.
The northwestern part of India, suffered a campaign by Alexander the Great in 327 B.C, he was pursuing his campaign to conquer the extremities of the defeated Achaemenian Empire. Having entered Gandhara, he campaigned successfully across the Punjab as far as the Beas River. Here his troops refused to continue fighting, because they had encountered the army of the Nandas. Some historians suggest that Alexander's Greek soldiers, may have mutinied out of fear of this army.
The Kshatriya (Warrior Class)
In Hindu India, the second-highest of the four varnas, or social classes, traditionally the military or ruling class. In ancient times before the caste system was completely defined, they were considered first in rank, placed higher than the Brahmans, or priestly class. The legend that they were degraded by an incarnation of Vishnu as a punishment for their tyranny may reflect a historical struggle for supremacy between priests and rulers. In modern times the Kshatriya varna includes members from a variety of castes, united by their status in government or the military or their land ownership.
The Laws of War
When society became organized and a warrior caste (Kshatriya) came into being, it was felt that the members of this caste should be governed by certain humane laws, the observance of which, it was believed, would take them to heaven, while their non-observance would lead them into hell. In the post Vedic epoch, and especially before the epics were reduced to writing, lawless war had been supplanted, and a code had begun to govern the waging of wars. The ancient law-givers, the reputed authors of the Dharmasutras and the Dharmasastras, codified the then existing customs and usages for the betterment of mankind. Thus the law books and the epics contain special sections on royal duties and the duties of common warriors.
It is a general rule that kings were chosen from among the Kshatriya caste. In other words, a non-Ksatriya was not qualified to be a king. And this is probably due to the fact that the kshatriya caste was considered superior to others in virtue of its material prowess. Though the warrior's code enjoins that all the Ksatriyas should die on the field of battle, still in practice many died a peaceful death. There is a definite ordinance of the ancient law books prohibiting the warrior caste from taking to asceticism.
Action and renunciation is the watch-word of the Ksatriya. The warrior was not generally allowed to don the robes of an ascetic. But Mahavira and Gautama protested against these injunctions and inaugurated an order of monks or sannyasins. When these dissenting sects gathered in strength and numbers, the decline of Ksatriya valor set in. Once they were initiated into a life of peace and prayer, they preferred it to the horrors of war. this was a disservice that dissenting sects did to the cause of ancient India.
When a conqueror felt that he was in a position to invade the foreigner's country, he sent an ambassador with the message: 'Fight or submit.'
More than 5000 years ago India recognized that the person of the ambassador was inviolable. This was a great service that ancient Hinduism rendered to the cause of international law. It was the religious force that invested the person of the herald or ambassador with an inviolable sanctity in the ancient world. The Mahabharata rules that the king who killed an envoy would sink into hell with all his ministers.
Megasthenes was a Greek ethnographer in the Hellenistic period, author of the work Indica. He was born in Anatolia (modern Turkey) and became an ambassador of Seleucus I of Syria to the court of Sandrocottus, who possibly is Chandragupta Maurya in Pataliputra, India. However the exact date of his embassy is uncertain. Scholars place it before 288 B.C.
Megasthenes noticed a peculiar trait of Indian warfare.
"Whereas among other nations it is usual, in the contests of war, to ravage the soil and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighborhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides, they never ravage an enemy's land with fire, nor cut down its trees."
The modern "scorched earth" policy was then unknown. "
Professor H. H. Wilson says:
"The Hindu laws of war are very chivalrous and humane, and prohibit the slaying of the unarmed, of women, of the old, and of the conquered."
At the very time when a battle was going on, be says, the neighboring cultivators might be seen quietly pursuing their work, - " perhaps ploughing, gathering for crops, pruning the trees, or reaping the harvest." Chinese pilgrim to Nalanda University, Hiuen Tsiang affirms that although the there were enough of rivalries and wars in the 7th century A.D. the country at large was little injured by them.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Nanda Dynasty was overthrown in 322 B.C. by Chandragupta Mauryaby who founded The Maurya Empire, and rapidly expanded his power westwards across central and western India taking advantage of the disruptions of local powers in the wake of the withdrawal westward by Alexander the Great's Greek and Persian armies. By 320 B.C. the empire had fully occupied Northwestern India, defeating and conquering the satraps left by Alexander.
It was the world's largest empire in its time. At its greatest extent, the empire stretched to the north along the natural boundaries of the Himalayas, and to the east stretching into what is now Assam. To the west, it reached beyond modern Pakistan, annexing Balochistan and much of what is now Afghanistan, including the modern Herat and Kandahar provinces. The Empire was expanded into India's central and southern regions by the emperors Chandragupta and Bindusara, but it excluded a small portion of unexplored tribal and forested regions near Kalinga (modern Orissa).
Under Chandragupta, the Mauryan Empire conquered the trans-Indus region, which was under Macedonian rule. Chandragupta then defeated the invasion led by Seleucus I, a Greek general from Alexander's army. Under Chandragupta and his successors, both internal and external trade, and agriculture and economic activities, all thrived and expanded across India thanks to the creation of a single and efficient system of finance, administration and security. After the Kalinga War, the Empire experienced half a century of peace and security under Ashoka:
India was a prosperous and stable empire of great economic power whose trade extended across Western and Central Asia and Europe. Mauryan India also enjoyed an era of social harmony, religious transformation, and expansion of the sciences and of knowledge. Chandragupta Maurya's embrace of Jainism increased social and religious renewal and reform across his society, while Ashoka's embrace of Buddhism was the foundation of the reign of social and political peace and non-violence across all of India. Ashoka sponsored the spreading of Buddhist ideals into Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia, West Asia and Mediterranean Europe. The Maurya Empire dissolved in 185 B.C. with the foundation of the Sunga Dynasty in Magadha.
The Gupta Empire existed from approximately from 320 to 550 A.D. and covered much of the Indian Subcontinent. It was founded by Maharaja Sri-Gupta, the dynasty was the model of a classical Indian civilization. The peace and prosperity created under leadership of Guptas enabled the pursuit of scientific and artistic endeavors.
This period is called the Golden Age of India and was marked by extensive inventions and discoveries in science, technology, engineering, art, dialectic, literature, logic, mathematics, astronomy, religion and philosophy that crystallized the elements of what is generally known as Hindu culture. Chandragupta I, Samudragupta, and Chandragupta II were the most notable rulers of the Gupta dynastys.
The high points of this cultural creativity are magnificent architecture, sculptures and paintings. The Gupta period produced scholars such as Kalidasa, Aryabhata, Varahamihira, Vishnu Sharma and Vatsyayana who made great advancements in many academic fields. Science and political administration reached new heights during the Gupta era. Strong trade ties also made the region an important cultural center and set the region up as a base that would influence nearby kingdoms and regions in Burma, Sri Lanka, Malay Archipelago and Indochina.
The earliest available Puranas are also thought to have been written around this period. The empire gradually declined because of many factors like the substantial loss of territory and imperial authority caused by their own erstwhile feudatories and the invasion by the Hunas (White Huns - Turks), from Central Asia. After the collapse of the Gupta Empire in the 6th century, India was again ruled by numerous regional kingdoms. A minor line of the Gupta clan continued to rule Magadha after the disintegration of the empire. These Guptas were ultimately ousted by the Vardhana ruler Harsha, who established an empire in the first half of the 7th century.
posted
Foreign invasions continued however, and at one time or another, India was invaded by almost all of the known powers. These included - Scythians, Parthians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Mongols, Turks and Arabs. It was with the Arabs that Islam was brought to India. Each invader in their turn, left their mark. In the 1700s A.D, reasonable stability and unification, was achieved with British rule.
posted
And Mike, please do tell what happened to the millions of slaves (and their descendants)exported to Asia?
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: And Mike, please do tell what happened to the millions of slaves (and their descendants)exported to Asia?
Albino fool, I am destroying your made-up world, and the best that you can do, is inject Albino foolishness?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Although Northern Indian,and Indian history in general is written from the Aryan perspective, many Dravidian and Non-Aryan rulers ruled India. For example tradition has it that monarchies were concentrated in the Ganges plain where Ethiopians or Kushites who had intermarried with the Indians. As a result, the Indian Republics of 600-321 B.C., were found by Black tribes in India, not the Vedic/Aryan tribes.
The founders of these Republics were called Kshtriyas, they did not accept Vedic orthodoxy nor did they honor the Brahmans and Vedic rituals. The Kushite origin of the Kshtriyas is obvious in the root of their name Ksh, which corresponds to the name Kush=Ksh.
The Kshtriyas primary interest was in agriculture. They did not recognize single ownership of land as among the Aryans. All the land in the Kshtriya Republics was acknowledged as being the property of the villagers.
Some of the Kshtriyas may have been descendants of the Nubian army , that tradition claims was led by King Chliaros, who conquered India, all the way to the river Ganges. The victory of this king in India may explain the identification by the Aryans of Meluhhaites in the Ganges region. This results from the fact that the name Meluhha was used to denote Nubia-Kush by the Sumero-Akkadians.
The title of the Kshtriya leaders was Rajbansis , a term corresponding to rajput or Raja. Social and political power lay with the rajas / rajput and the representatives of the elected assembly.The term rajput means "royal descent".
These ancient Indians held the woman in high esteem. This was anti-Aryan thinking. To the Aryans, women were recognized as chattel. But among the Kshtriya rajas, many of these rulers were influenced by the queen mother or dowager. Lineage was traced through the mother.
This form of succession was to dominate in India until the ascendancy of the Brahmans. The Kshtriyas practiced Buddhism rather than Hindus. It is interesting to note that when the Buddhist pray they call upon Ad. As we know from the historical literature the Kushites were the Adites, who occupied most of Arabia before the Aryan invasions.
The tribe of Ad is suppose to be the grandson of Ham, the Biblical ancestor of the Blacks. By calling on Ad the Kshtriyas were probably paying respect to their ancestors.
The descendants of the Kshtriya were conquered by Alexander the Great . Under Alexander, the Greeks learned about Indian science and culture. These Greeks later took the Indian sciences to Macedonia.
copyright 2011 Clyde Winters
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Under Chandragupta Maurya, the Indians regained their independence from the Greeks. The Mauryan empire lasted from 321-185 B.C. The Mauryans were non-Aryans.
The Mauryans as the Kshtriyas before them did not follow the Vedic traditions . Like the Kshtriya, the Mauryans worshipped Buddhism. Their greatest king was Ashoka, he wrote in the Brahmi script which was derived from earlier writing systems used by Blacks in both India and Africa. Brahmi and the Tamilian scripts also show affinities to the Indus Valley writing.
The Mauryans had good relations with the Abyssinians and the Dravidian kingdoms of Adhras and Chola. Under Asoka, grandson of Chandragupta, almost all of India was unified. Asoka established a Federal Republic.
Asoka was renowned for his support of the arts, trade and architecture. After his death weak rulers took control of India. Under these leaders India broke up into numerous minor states.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The next great empire in India was the Kushana empire. The Kushana came from Central Asia were called Yuehchih, by the Chinese. The Chinese literature claims that the Kushana originally came from Gansu province China before they were pushed into Central Asia as a result of Chinese expansion.
Winters (1986b) has suggested that Yueh tribes included Manding and Dravidian speakers. The Yueh, were also called Yueh or Kuishuang. The Yueh people came from West, i.e., K'unlun/ Kunlun mountains. (Lacouperie 1887, p.123) In western literature the Kuishuang are called Kushana or Tokharian.
The name Kuishuang for the Yuehchih people points to a western origin for some of the Yueh people. This is an historical reality given the Dravidian migration across Asia from Iran.
In 176 B.C., the Huns fell upon the in western Gansu,defeated their army and murdered their King. This battle led to the Kushana migration into Nanshan region, and thence to Bactria and North India. (Bagchi 1955, p.4)
The Kushana first occupied Transoxiana about 160 B.C. and established themselves in the Oxus Valley (Chi 1955, p.8) They later drove the Haumavorka Indo-European Saka people, from Bactria and founded the Kushana dynasty which lasted until the 3rd century A.D.
It was Kujuula Kadphises who united the Kushana people and made them into a single nation. Kadphises conquered India as far as the Indus. His capital was Purushapura near Peshwar, in Pakistan. Later Wiima Kadphises extended Kushana rule into the Punjab.
The Kushana conquered the Sakas and Parthians and took control of an empire stretching from the Oxus river in Afghanistan, to the Ganges plains of India.. This unite under one authority the former dominions of the Indo-Greeks and the Sunga dynasts.
The greatest king of the Kushana was Kaniska. Kaniska came to power between A.D. 78-144. (Thapar 1972, p.92)
Kaniska ruled an empire extending from Central Asia, to Varansi in the Ganges Valley. He supported the arts and repaired many Kushana monuments and cities.
Kaniska had two capitals. The capital in Central Asia was Bergraam or Kupura in Afghanistan, while in India the capital was established at Muthura.
The Kushana were not Vedic worshippers. As among the Egyptians and Nubians, the Kushana raised past kings to the status of "gods", and they dedicated temples to them.
The Kushana were great patrons of the Buddhists. They supported the Mahavana (Great Vehicle) school of Buddhism. Under the Kushana the Buddha, was depicted in the form of the Muthuras school. These Muthura school Buddhas had strong negroid features.
The Kushana king was called the raja or Maharajatiraja "king of Kings".
Another famous Kushana king, Kujula imitating the Roman denares (coins) was the first Asians to circulate coins in central Asia. It was Kaniska, who first put Buddha on Indian coins.
The Kushana made fine sculptures and engraved beautiful carved sheets of ivory. Their plaques are some of the finest art pieces in India.
The Kushana were at this time in control of the Silk Road, which took Chinese goods to the West. It was also under the Kushana that Buddhism entered China. The Kushana ruled India for almost 200 years.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Reich et al, Reconstructing Indian population history, Nature 461:489-494 claims that the Indian Cline divides Indians into two groups Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ANS).
The ANI are related to western Eurasians and speak Indo-Euopean languages. The ANS on the otherhand speak Dravidian languages. This genetic data clearly divides the North and South Indians, and supports AIT; and the replacement of an original Dravidian speaking people in the north by the invading Indo-European speaking Vedic people.
After the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms, these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads.
In Iran they probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Arya population. Here they may have met Indo-Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their culture , especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious terms and chariot culture. Joining forces with the Mitannian-Hurrian exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people who probably lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China.
I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Iranian speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization. Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc., I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran, India down into Afghanistan, since the Austro-asiatic people speaking languages related to Southeast Asian groups probably did not begin to enter India until after the fall of the Anyang Shang Dynasty sometime after 1000 BC.
This would explain why "the Vedic and Avestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other", they may have had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian and Mitanni people in Iran.
The Indo-Aryan speaking people became strong in India after 1000 B.C. The Aryans made the Dravidians and other native Indian people into slaves like the Munda. They organized a caste system based on race. The highest caste was based on the priesthood or Brahman, after him came the rajanya or warriors and aristocracy caste and then the craftsmen or [b]Varsya caste, and lastly the Sudra caste, called pariah. The Sudra represented the first Black population that lived in India before the coming of the Indo-Aryans.
In the early Indian writings the aristocracy and warrior caste was referred too as rajanya. After the kshatriya conquered the Indo-Aryans, the warrior class was called Kshatriya.
The Brahmanic civilization lasted from the 3rd to the 4th centuries B.C. During this period the Laws of Manu were written.
The Laws of Manu became India's first civil and political code.
There were two Indo-Aryan migrations into India. The first waves of Indo-Aryans arrived from the Indo-Iranian borderlands when ecological conditions had improved.These Indo-Aryans began to settle areas formerly occupied by Dravidian-speaking Harappans.
As the Aryans moved southward other Dravidian-speaking groups living in isolated villages in the Punjab and Haryana, probably allowed Indo-Aryan tribal groups to settle in their respected urban centers. This would explain the association of BRW with PGW in the Punjab dating between 1000-1300 B.C.( Singh 1982, p.xli) It would also explain the mention of the highly developed civilization of the non-Indo-Aryan speakers in the Rg Veda.
The second and major wave of Indo-Aryans probably entered northern India around 1000-800 B.C. This would explain why almost all the dependable PGW dates cluster around 800-350 B.C.(Agrawal & Kusumgar 1974, p.132)
By the advent of the second Indo-Aryan migration the Dravidians were weakened by drought and famine and they were easily defeated and pushed out of the Gajarat. The PGW folk appears to have pushed the Dravidians into the Dekkan.
Due to the early Dravidian presence in Northern India there is a Dravidian substratum in Indo-Aryan. There are Dravidian loan words in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders of this work were situated in the Punjab, which was occupied around this time by the BRW using Dravidians.
Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. The Dravidian loans in Indo-Aryan are expected to reach 750.
Indo-Aryan languages illustrates widespread structural borrowing from Dravidian in addition to the lexical loans. For example, Kuiper (1967) has noted the increasing frequency of Dravidian type retroflex consonants in Indo-Aryan. Southward (1977) has also recorded the Dravidian structural features borrowed by the Indo-Aryans.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soliloguy - You didn't say if they were "Normal" European children - he, he. Or Dravidian Albino children.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Mike if white skin etc is ugly, why are all the indian bollywood models those of Aryan (Caucasian) ancestry?
Most Indian bollywood models can literally pass as white europeans
Damn Albino fool, they ARE the SAME as White Europeans.
EXAMPLE.
Four of these children are "REAL" Dravidian Albino children. The other three are "Normal" European children. Can you tell which is which????
Geez, what a bunch of losers. Soliloguy was the only one to even try.
Answer: The first four children are Dravidian Albinos. The last three children are American child models.
But I admit it was kind of a trick question. The only real difference between the children is that the families of the Dravidian children look like this:
And the families of the American children look exactly like them. Albinos can ONLY make other Albinos!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soliloguy - I try to include as many pictures as possible, but even so, some reading skills are still essential.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anthropologists still debate the racial origins of the Dravidian Indians. However one thing for certain is that they are not negroid. Indians do not have wooly hair, and their facial structures lack prognathism. They are far closer to Caucasoid than Negroid.
Though afrocentrics reject anthropology and other sciences and have constructed only two races: melanin and 'lack of' melanin. In the former catagory afrocentrics lump all asians, native americans and africans despite the fact they are completely different races and have different phenotypes (e.g. hair texture, bone type).
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
He, he, you White boys are running around like chickens with no heads.
Caucasoid = No Melanin = Albino. Negroid = Lots of Melanin.
As to phenotype, come-on fool, how many pictures of needle-nosed Blacks do you need to see?
BTW - my guess is that if you called them White to their faces, they might kill your dumb Albino ass.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Races are not solely defined by complexion. There are many other aspects of phenotype that seperate the races.
There is no such thing as a straight haired or thin nosed negroid.
Negroids look like this -
Absolutely no phenotype diversity whatsoever. All blacks are wooly haired and snub nosed.
I posted you a scientific study before which proved before Negroids were colonised by White Europeans they didn't know what blonde or red hair was.
Physical diversity is only in white race (all hair shades and eye colours).
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Races are not solely defined by complexion. There are many other aspects of phenotype that seperate the races.
There is no such thing as a straight haired or thin nosed negroid.
Negroids look like this -
Absolutely no phenotype diversity whatsoever. All blacks are wooly haired and snub nosed.
I posted you a scientific study before which proved before Negroids were colonised by White Europeans they didn't know what blonde or red hair was.
Physical diversity is only in white race (all hair shades and eye colours).
You're DUMB!!!!!!
phe·no·type (fn-tp)
n. 1. a. The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences. b. The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences. 2. An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular phenotype. pheno·typic (-tpk), pheno·typi·cal (--kl) adj. pheno·typi·cal·ly adv.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Anthropologists still debate the racial origins of the Dravidian Indians. However one thing for certain is that they are not negroid. Indians do not have wooly hair, and their facial structures lack prognathism. They are far closer to Caucasoid than Negroid.
Though afrocentrics reject anthropology and other sciences and have constructed only two races: melanin and 'lack of' melanin. In the former catagory afrocentrics lump all asians, native americans and africans despite the fact they are completely different races and have different phenotypes (e.g. hair texture, bone type).
These Afro-loonies have lost their minds.
Dravidians are genetically completely Eurasian and have nothing to do with Africans.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Anthropologists still debate the racial origins of the Dravidian Indians. However one thing for certain is that they are not negroid. Indians do not have wooly hair, and their facial structures lack prognathism. They are far closer to Caucasoid than Negroid.
Though afrocentrics reject anthropology and other sciences and have constructed only two races: melanin and 'lack of' melanin. In the former catagory afrocentrics lump all asians, native americans and africans despite the fact they are completely different races and have different phenotypes (e.g. hair texture, bone type).
These Afro-loonies have lost their minds.
Dravidians are genetically completely Eurasian and have nothing to do with Africans.
The late Harvard anthropologist William Howells classified most Indians as Caucasoid. So do geneticists like Cavalli-Sforza & Spencer Wells. Those that are mixed with nearby populations, it's either Mongoloids or Australoids.
So I don't see how Negroid gets into this picture. It's not as if there are Negroid populations in countries neighboring India which could be a contributing factor.
Posts: 53 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic