A
Anonymous10/17/25, 15:02No.18081243Ancient "aryans"
So, what proof do you have that Sanskrit originated in the Ukrainian steppes? That's right—none. It's all based on conjecture. It all hinges on the r1a gene being linked to "Proto-Indo-European," which is a made-up language that doesn't actually exist. This artificially invented proto-language relies HEAVILY on Rigvedic Sanskrit as its foundation. So, it's ASSUMED that the people in the steppes spoke this made-up fantasy language. And after constructing it using Sanskrit, they say, "Hey, Sanskrit really comes from there." How convenient. Show me ONE kurgan burial in India with horses, chariots, and weapons, r1a skeletons—I'll be convinced of all of this. You make an incredible claim; show me the incredible evidence.
PIE is a made-up language—show me one, just one, PIE book or text. Sanskrit is real because we have texts in it. Lithuanian is real because we have texts in it. PIE is something a bunch of linguists "reconstructed" in the modern era, starting from the false assumption that there's something to reconstruct. And then they assume that this reconstructed language was spoken by people on the steppes. I mean, it's pretty comical if you think about it.
167
Replies
A
Anon10/17/25, 15:22No.18081301
Damn, what else could R1A mean then? There's no chance it's native to India. But you're just a little man with a wounded nationalist ego. We know that Sanskrit arrived from the steppes in 1500 by a population rich in Andronovo. We don't have confirmed Vedic samples, but believe me, when people like you come out, they'll have a mental breakdown.
A
Anon10/17/25, 15:24No.18081307
my condolences to anyone born indian. you can play a good hand, marry a good indian of high quality stock and try to evolve some small isolate of your people into a robust, durable, intelligent, thoughtful, and altruistic subset of indians.
A
Anon10/17/25, 15:44No.18081351
>The fabled 105 IQ Indian
>This is what his mind produces
A
Anon10/17/25, 16:18No.18081411
All right, there's obviously no helping a deluded person, but some people viewing the thread who are new to the topic might be wondering, "How do we know the Proto-Indo-European language was real? How do we know Sanskrit is descended from it instead of the reverse relationship where for example Greek ultimately descends from Sanskrit?"If this is a genuine area of uncertainty for you and you want to evolve beyond an armchair theorist or critic, you need to immerse yourself into some introductory historical linguistics material. You think you know better than a linguistics professor? Learn what they have to say first and then you can participate in the discussion as someone educated on the same technical topic. Otherwise you're just attacking a field of knowledge out of ignorance. Here are some books you can start with:
• Fortson IV, B. W. (2011). Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
• Beekes, R. S. (2011). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics.
• Ringe, D. (2017). From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
These will get you started on how Proto-Indo-European linguistic reconstruction is done. They are all available on Library Genesis so you have no excuse.And how do we know Sanskrit isn't the parent language? It's very simple: the study of historical sound changes implies a particular chronology and ordering of events, so it's obvious to any competent linguist that Sanskrit came later.
A
Anon10/17/25, 16:54No.18081487
Even in the case of Christianity there is actual genetic impact. You think it was all Northern Europeans passing along the gospel among themselves? Wrong! The spread of Christianity has much to do with the Roman empire. Southerners went north and had long-term influence even after Roman territory expansions were reduced. Romans did leave a genetic impact as far north as Britain (but it is marginal).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Roman_Britain
A
Anon10/17/25, 16:58No.18081495
Sanskrit came from the Steppes
Any linguist can tell you that
A
Anon10/17/25, 17:25No.18081560
Go learn Estonian. You'll see where Sanskrit really comes from, Saar.
A
Anon10/17/25, 17:33No.18081594
Fun Fact 1: there was ZERO writing of any kind in the entire subcontinent, despite literally billions of people being their for thousands of years. Indeed, it wasn't until contact with Alexander, and other blonde Greeks, that the Brhami script would eventually be created. This is why so many of the Ashoka columns are written in Greek and Persian Aramaic.Fun Fact 2: Greeks were among the Buddha(pbuh) very first disciples and are referenced throughout Buddhists texts. One can't help but see the "Greek" in the philosophy in the Buddha's teachings and vise versa. They are both cut from the same Aryan cloth.Fun Fact 3: """Modern Scholars""" now place the life of the historical Buddha as being nearly identical to that of Socrates and both lived to about the same age of 80, making the connections to the Western world all the more intriguing. Not to mention all the similarity in material culture like robes/togas, "rosary beads", the notion of birth/rebirth/cyclical life, class/caste based societies, etc.... Clearly, great (Aryan) minds think alike.In summary, everything people think of as """India""", aside from eating shit for fun, is entirely Aryan in origin, and has virtually nothing to do with the practices of the indigenous Dalit specimens.
A
Anon10/17/25, 17:45No.18081630
Enough arguing about the Rigveda.Let's be honest, none of you can interpret what it actually says, so let's leave it at that .but the Indian interpretation is the worst of all
A
Anon10/17/25, 17:53No.18081659
I'll try again.
Listen, everyone, it's quite obvious from these Suvastu samples, from the 2nd millennium BC to the historical period, that there was no massive influx from the steppes; this was somewhat obscure and circumstantial, as was evident. Archaeology has long predicted that there were no mythical steppe warriors residing in the Suvastu area, home to groups related to the Dardic and Nuristani. The same applies to cemeteries H, Pgw, and others... so we'll have to wait for likely migrations from the period I mentioned, which is around 800 BC, which fits the situation perfectly.
Sorry, any PIE reconstructions can solve the problem
A
Anon10/17/25, 17:57No.18081670
>It all hinges on the r1a gene being linked to "Proto-Indo-European
This isn't just R1a. These are archaeological finds of basal R1a Z93 in Eastern Europe. That is, the remains of the direct ancestors of the Indian Brahmins, as well as many Turkic and Iranian peoples.
A
Anon10/17/25, 18:10No.18081722
>kurgans
See Round tumuli(Stupas)
A
Anon10/17/25, 18:14No.18081736
some interesting books I found
A
Anon10/17/25, 18:21No.18081763
the hindu nationalists that i've seen and heard of online basically all seem to exhibit this bizarre kind of inferiority complex, like they feel that indian culture is inferior to the culture of really i don't even know where - and then reaction formation makes them go online and scream about indian supremacy on twitter
and i can never understand it
is a 3,500-year-old literary tradition, in a literary language that's a member of one of the largest language families on earth, and that played an instrumental role in the development of historical linguistics, really not enough for those people who care about their cultural pedigree to feel good about it?
and if they're descended from the indo-aryans, who were incomers to south asia rather than natives, then what reason do they have to be upset about that?
it might feel good to be able to say "our ancestors lived here seventy quadrillion years ago, and we their descendants still live here now," yeah, sure
but would saying "our ancestors were badass conquerors who invaded and made this place their bitch" not feel as good, or better?it's incomprehensible
A
Anon10/17/25, 18:33No.18081812
to everyone who wants to discuss in a civilized manner: ignore the spammer who appeared here
A
Anon10/17/25, 19:17No.18081975
Silly Dasa...
>We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamyIn other words, since the arrival of European Aryans in India, there has been a shift from free intermixing between groups to caste-based endogamy. Ironically, the photo meme is 50% correct in some ways.The Aryan invaders likely intermingled with the local populations
A
Anon10/18/25, 01:11No.18083004
>So, what proof do you have that Sanskrit originated in the Ukrainian steppes?
It didn't, it's descended from a language that originated there but it evolved from it in India.
>It all hinges on the r1a gene being linked to "Proto-Indo-European," which is a made-up language that doesn't actually exist.
You can dispute particulars of the reconstruction, but it is not really plausible for the Indo-European languages to not be related to each other.
A
Anon10/18/25, 02:41No.18083170
Braaaaaaaaaap
A
Anon10/18/25, 03:08No.18083231
Phenotype that composed Avesta and late Rigveda
A
Anon10/18/25, 04:06No.18083359
>writing posts with ChatGPT
lmao
A
Anon10/18/25, 04:36No.18083410
If I understand the anti-steppe argument here, what they're really proposing is that Swat be modeled as late Turanian farmer (so extra Anatolian), Siberian/ANE, and Indus Periphery, right? Shitty argument, i must say
A
Anon10/18/25, 07:31No.18083667
>Sanskrit is real because we have texts in it.
yes from like the 17th century AD>Lithuanian is real because we have texts in it.
yes from like the 17th century ADBtw notice how Google's jeetmini AI (actually indian) needs explicit instructions so as not to return the "billion years BCE" answer that just so happens to be oral and thus impossible to prove
A
Anon10/18/25, 07:47No.18083685
>So, what proof do you have that Sanskrit originated in the Ukrainian steppes?
Well no one really believes Sanskrit did. More like an ancestor of the language. And the actual origin place is nebulous at best. It is thought it was somewhere around Eastern Europe, though.
>This artificially invented proto-language relies HEAVILY on Rigvedic Sanskrit as its foundation.
Reconstructed*. And it does that because it was generally assumed to be a purer more conservative form of the ur-language because of the Orientalist currents of the time.
>And after constructing it using Sanskrit, they say, "Hey, Sanskrit really comes from there."
People noting the similarities between Indian and Latin go back to the 1500s at the very least. They didn't pull this out of their ass, scholars and researchers from Europe noticed Ancient Greek, Latin, Etc. were oddly similar to eachother and started to wonder why.
>Show me ONE kurgan burial in India with horses, chariots, and weapons, r1a skeletons—I'll be convinced of all of this.
I mean, all of those exist in the same rough geographic area, just not in one place.
A
Anon10/18/25, 20:58No.18085311
There is no proof that Sanskrit originated outside South Asia. But it is a fact that Sanskrit names appear in Bronze Age Syria and Iraq which indicates that the Indo Iranians who migrated to India in the Bronze Age had relatives who remained in the Middle East and Central Asia. Another piece of evidence are folkloric elements, e.g. the legend of Ashvins who are Lithuanian Ašvinai twins. However, that relationship is much older. A more recent sign is the folkloristic dichotomy of good and evil gods, the Devas and the Asuras. In Hinduism and Zoroastrian religion their roles are reversed indicating a very ancient religious dispute among Indo Iranians who probably lived around north eastern Iran close to the border with modern day Turkmenistan. Look up the Yaz culture of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC). Iranians began worshipping Ahuras and called Daevas evil spirits or daemons. This happened before oral Sanskrit literature originated. That both Devas and Asuras are religious beings foreign to India is quite clear. In Europe, gods were called Divinities in different language, like Deus in Latin or Tevas in Baltic, with only Germanics standing apart calling their gods Aesir, similar to Asuras. Names of divinities also indicate foreign origin, Varuna is identified with Ouranos of the Greek and Indra with Germanic Donar. However, Indo European religion and Indo Aryan languages lived their on lives in India and diverged very early, that’s why none of the original Vedic deities associated with Europe are commonly worshipped in India today.
A
Anon10/19/25, 01:01No.18085980
How long did the invading Aryans stay racially Aryan for? Did they mix with the natives immediately, or did parts of them stay pure for hundreds of years before eventually succumbing?
A
Anon10/19/25, 02:04No.18086137
>So, what proof do you have that Sanskrit originated in the Ukrainian steppes?
No one suggests it did. It probably developed in India after the arrival of Indo-Europeans. Many Hindu concepts are probably native in origin.Acknowledging Indo-European presence in India's story doesn't mean India is suddenly stripped of its heritage.