4 ms·
The reason for the number 3900, is that most British historian who were the authority were Christians. They refused to accept any civilizational could be older
by naruvimama 5y ago
The reason for the number 3900, is that most British historian who were the authority were Christians.
They refused to accept any civilizational could be older than 4000 years because of the great flood.
So often they tried to fit the evidence into their narrative. As we know today very many civilizations can be dated to much further in time.
- Ar-Curunir 5y agoNo, it is based on both linguistic and archaeological evidence. For example, read The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, which corroborates these two kinds of evidence Fwiw I’m Hindu.
- srean 5y agoFriendly, good faith hint: dont fall in to the trap of feeding trolls. Take a look at comment history to see what I mean.
- chakkepolja 5y agoI know these people are hard to convince, just writing factual evidence so that outsiders don't believe all the stuff these people write.
- naruvimama 5y agoPlease keep to my comment above. Character assassination based on your subjective psychoanalysis is not a polite thing to do on a public forum.
- naruvimama 5y agoJust because it is in a book doesn't mean it is true. 'The Horse, The Wheel, and Language' - those are slim evidences made to fit a narrative. The narrative clearly starts with negating the out of India theory instead to favour a Central Asia/European roots. But really what kind of evidence do we have for the existence of a sophisticated culture in Germany that predates Harappa.
- chakkepolja 5y agoOut of India theory is fringe at best. I don't know why Indian nationalists take a root at pontic Caspian steppes as an attack against antiquity of our culture. It doesn't take anything away from us. They were not Europeans or something. They didn't attack and invade the indigenous mostly mixed with them. Before them there were migrations from zagros mountains etc.. > Central Asia/European roots. They are not the same. > But really what kind of evidence do we have for the existence of a sophisticated culture in Germany that predates Harappa. You clearly have not read the book. It's not Germany, it's Pontic Caspian steppes, approximately in modern day Ukraine if I recall correctly.
- srean 5y agoHa! If you go by one of the revered figures, eminent scholar, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the pure Hindu people come from the land of the North pole. Fly in the ointment, there hasn't been any land at the North pole for quite some time. Why the choice ? perhaps to help themselves to some notion of exceptionalism, uniqueness, so on and so forth. I get it, everyone wants to feel a little special, it gets dangerous when that becomes a sizeable political force. More so, if they feel they have not been given their rightful due and/or humiliated. Wish there was a moral analogue of "now now dont be hurt, yes baby you are so very special, have a candy bar" in the international arena. I am ethnically Hindu but an athiest (which, by the way, does not disqualify me from being a Hindu)
- naruvimama 5y agoColonial theories especially when it flies in the face of observed evidence should not be trusted. There is a strong reason to believe it is biased. Let them produce physical evidence of cultural artifacts that predates and connects those found all accross the Indian subcontinent. We can then discuss out of India vs Aryan invassion theory.
- chakkepolja 5y agoThe current theory is neither out of India nor Aryan Invasion. It's almost universally agreed that IndoAryan migrations were slow defusion of Indo Aryan tribes into today's India, and mixed with native people. Everything including genetic evidence supports that. You seem to be highly convinced by nationalistic pseudoscience. Open your mind and apply some logic.
- chakkepolja 5y agoBruh. Read up on Indo European migrations. Not to belittle Rg Veda, but modern archeologists agree with GP. One thousand years doesn't take anything away from it though.
- KorematsuFred 5y agoThe 3900 number is mostly spread by a single researcher at Harvard who is quoted and self-quoted and cited by his own students somehow making his shoddy research some kind of "fact". Anyone trying to question this basically gets shunned from any conference this gentleman will be involved in and labelled as "revisionist". It is incredible that Wikipedia too just quotes this single individual on hundreds of pages somehow giving him and his claims credibility. His claims have been refuted by many using plethora of evidence but his citation cartel will simply dismiss it by attacking the authors instead of their research.