http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Origin-Indian-Civilization-Marcantonio/dp/8124606404

About The Book
The earliest Indian inscriptions date from the third century before Christ. Arch-aeological and palaeo-anthropological evidence, as well as the Indian oral tradition, consistently point to the ‘continuity’ of the Indian Civilization back to a much earlier date. However, the question of the origin of Indian Civilization prior to that period remains open. There are three main schools of thought in this regard. Proponents of the Indo-European theory suggest that the Sanskrit language and civilization were an intrusion into India from the West. Proponents of the continuity theory, on the contrary, believe that they arose locally. The third school of thought proposes that the current scholarship is insufficient to trace the Sanskrit language and civilization back to pre-historical times, and that further research is required to develop a fair comparison between the European languages and the Indian languages. Published literature in the field often reflects one or the other of these perspectives, rather than offering an integrated view.

This volume seeks to address this gap, by proposing a possible resolution to this seemingly intractable issue. It results from a symposium held at the University of Massachusetts–Dartmouth in July 2011, with invited scholars representing each of the various camps. During the seminar it became apparent that these different traditions are actually much closer to one another than what is usually believed. Accordingly, this is an essential volume for scholars seeking a balanced view on the quest for the origin of the Indian languages and civilization.

http://www.livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html

The caste system in South Asia — which rigidly separates people into high, middle and lower classes — may have been firmly entrenched by about 2,000 years ago, a new genetic analysis suggests.

Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Combining this new genetic information with ancient texts, the results suggest that class distinctions emerged 3,000 to 3,500 years ago, and caste divisions became strict roughly two millennia ago.
(…)

http://www.ranprieur.com/readings/origins.html

(…)
Conclusion
'An animal is a survival machine for the genes that built it. We too are animals, and we too are survival machines for our genes. That is the theory. In practice it makes a lot of sense when we look at wild animals…. It is very different when we look at ourselves. We appear to be a serious exception to the Darwinian law…. It obviously just isn’t true that most of us spend our time working energetically for the preservation of our genes’ (Dawkins 1989:138).

Many ethologists have acknowledged difficulties in explaining civilised human behaviour on evolutionary grounds, in some cases suggesting that modern humans do not always behave adaptively. Yet since agriculture began, the human population has risen by a factor of 1000: Irons (1990) notes that 'population growth is not the expected effect of maladaptive behaviour’.

We have reviewed evidence from several areas of research which shows that cereals and dairy foods have drug-like properties, and shown how these properties may have been the incentive for the initial adoption of agriculture. We suggested further that constant exorphin intake facilitated the behavioural changes and subsequent population growth of civilisation, by increasing people’s tolerance of (a) living in crowded sedentary conditions, (b) devoting effort to the benefit of non-kin, and (c) playing a subservient role in a vast hierarchical social structure.

Cereals are still staples, and methods of artificial reward have diversified since that time, including today a wide range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological cultural artifacts whose function, ethologically speaking, is to provide reward without adaptive benefit. It seems reasonable then to suggest that civilisation not only arose out of self-administration of artificial reward, but is maintained in this way among contemporary humans. Hence a step towards resolution of the problem of explaining civilised human behaviour may be to incorporate into ethological models this widespread distortion of behaviour by artificial reward.
(…)

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2013/13/130425-indus-civilization-discoveries-harappa-archaeology-science/

(…)
Schug’s conclusions divide outside experts. Nancy Lovell, a professor emeritus at the University of Alberta who has also studied Harappan skeletons, says the study’s findings are „a really important contribution, because the tendency has been to think of Harappa as being fairly … peaceful.” Shaffer argues, however, that the violence reported in the new paper is not unexpected in a crowded city. Schug agrees but says her findings contradict previous opinions that Harappa was an oasis of serenity.
(…)

http://higherperspective.com/2013/10/10-mysteries-that-hint-at-forgotten.html

10 Mysteries That Hint At Forgotten Advanced Civilizations

P.S.
Tradycyjnie o niektórych odkryciach ani słowa…

Sawitar – to Światło-świat – Światoświt – Swąt – Świat-Witar = Światłouwiłt-Światłowiłt. Wić, uwić – stworzyć, uwiti/uwitati- zbudować. W starych podaniach ruskich – Najważniejszy z Bogów – Stwórca Wszystkiego i Wszystkich Bogów – ROD-Switok (odsyłam do Księgi Ruty – tam jest to wszystko).

„Okiem naszym jest Savitar – Stwórca,
i okiem naszym jest Słońce – to, które jest w górze.
Niech Stwórca okiem nas obdarzy. ”

Czy Savitar – Stwórca – to Swaróg?

Oto gdzie tkwią korzenie wypaczenia wszelkich nauk, nie tylko historycznych (także lingwistycznych, genetycznych, politycznych, biologicznych, archeologicznych, medycyny itp.), o czym ludzie wykształceni głębiej, -nie tylko przez powszechne licea i uniwersytety wiedzą od dawna:

Oświecenie, cytuję: – „wspaniała, wyzwolona z wszelkich więzów epoka, w której rozum ludzki miał być światłem rozjaśniającym drogę do poznania prawdy o świecie i człowieku”. Na ten propagandowy frazes stanowczo zareagował Einstein w liście do Wilhelma Reicha: „Podobnie idiotycznymi hasłami oznaczana jest niemal każda epoka, ale najtragiczniejsze jest to, że większość ludzi dała sobie wmówić wyższość Renesansu i Oświecenia nad pozostałymi epokami, co wytworzyło u nich fałszywy obraz dziejów. Obecnie przeciętny inteligent, w zasadzie będący pseudointeligentem, przeświadczony o presji wywieranej na niego przez społeczność podobnych mu pseudointeligentów, pozbawiony jest możliwości wystawienia swej osobistej oceny, jak też wszczęcia odważnego dyskursu czy podjęcia poważnej krytyki Renesansu i Oświecenia, o których to epokach nie posiada elementarnej wiedzy. Natomiast „wytresowany” jest w kwestii pozytywnej recepcji i akceptowania sloganów tych dwóch epok. W efekcie ów niedokształcony i bezmyślny pseudointeligent żyje w ciemnocie, przeświadczony, że Renesans i Oświecenie były epokami światłymi. Niestety, pseudointeligenci, stale poddawani niewidzialnej dla nich manipulacji, stanowią dziś większość w państwach Europy i Ameryki Północnej. Nie mają pojęcia, że istnieją dwie historie: historia w wersji oficjalnej, celowo skażona i zafałszowana – ta, której się naucza, historia „editio castrata, editio ad usum Delphini” – oraz historia tajna, przerażająca, gdzie tkwią prawdziwe przyczyny wydarzeń, historia haniebna. Wcześniej wskazywał już na ten problem Balzac. (…) Przez ostatnie dwieście lat zajmowano się głównie produkcją tej historii oficjalnej – zafałszowanej pseudonauki. Propagowano ją na skalę masową, skutkiem czego mamy społeczeństwa na niej wychowane. Teraz bez problemów można przekonać opinię publiczną, że zbrodniarz jest świętym.”

BARDZO WAŻNE,
O zapożyczeniach od proto/archeo/pra/słowiańskich/scytyjsko/aryjsko/hinduskich w tzw. językach indo-irańskich!!!

http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/june-2011/article/making-archaeology-speak-archaeology-and-linguistics

June 2011
Making Archaeology Speak – Archaeology and Linguistics By Maciej Wencel
Although linguistics and archaeology have been working togother for at least a century, there is still little agreement on how to infer about ancient languages from archaeological finds. In this article, I discuss the pitfalls that await all archaeologists that aim at studying linguistic past and suggest potential solutions.
(…)

http://borissoff.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/on-iranian-loans-in-slavonic/#more-705

(…)
Taking religious terms, Svarog cannot be an ‘iranism’ because of the Initial /s/, as will be explained below. However, it organically correlates with Vedic स्वर्ग svarga ‘going or leading to or being in light or heaven, heavenly, celestial; heaven, the abode of light and of the gods’. The other ‘classic’ example бог bog ‘god’ has a clear relation both to Avestan baga- ‘distributor’ and Vedic भग bhaga ‘gracious lord, patron (lit. ‘dispenser’); good fortune, happiness, welfare, prosperity; the Sun’. After a lengthy and meticulous treatment of this word Trubačev had to admit that “we do not have so far the data for a positive reply to the question whether the Slav. bogъ is a loan from Iranian” [3]. Similarly, the next prominent religious word рай rai ‘paradise’ may also be an ancient inherited word and not an iranism but, if one chooses to treat it as a loan, it may equally be related to Vedic रै rai ‘property, possessions, goods, wealth, riches’ and not necessarily to Avesatan raē- ‘wealth’.

Trubačev is also known for the discovery of a residual layer of pra-Indo-Aryan language in the Crimea and along the northern shores of the Black Sea in the area which has been traditionally considered as the domain of Iranian speaking Scythians [4] . The ethno-linguistic identity of Scythians still remains a controversial issue but it is generally believed that they spoke Eastern-Iranian dialects which presupposes that they arrived to the Pontic-Caspian steppes from the region of today’s Central Asia and Iran. They represented, therefore, a back wave of an earlier eastward migration of pra-Indo-Aryans which probably originated in the Pit-grave culture on the northern shore of the Black Sea, supposedly, around the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 2nd millennia BC [5]. If so, the language of the bearers of the Pit-Grave culture could well be considered as ‘proto-Indo-Aryan’ or even ‘proto-Sanskrit’ in terms of Vittore Pisani who used ‘proto-Sanskrit’ in the meaning ‘Indo-European’ as he believed that Sanskrit was the immediate continuation of the ‘lingua pilota’ representing the original Indo-European dialects [6].

It is generally accepted that the Pit-Grave culture was an organic Eastern continuation of the earlier Tripolye (Cucuteni) culture (4th millennium BC) and that it did not cease after the hypothetical departure of the proto-Indo-Aryans first to southern Siberia (Andronovo culture?) and then to today’s Iran and Hindustan. Therefore, we can reasonably presuppose that in the Circum-Pontic area there always remained an ethnos directly continuing the ‘proto-Sanskrit’ (non-Iranian) dialects. According to Trubačev, it was represented by the so-called ‘old Scythians’ while the newer returning wave of Iranians constituted the ‘young Scythians’.
(…)
At least in the 1st millennium BC the right-bank Ukraine was already a part (periphery) of the Slavonic linguo-enthic space. Since the complexity of the ancient ethno-georgraphy of Scythia is now revealing itself more and more insistently and we are arriving at the constatation of the actual preservation in its part (parts) along with the Iranian (Scythian) also of the Indo-Aryan (pra-Indian) component or its relicts, there arises the rightful question about the reality of also Slavo-Indo-Aryan contacts approximately in the Scythian time [7].

The important implication, directly flowing out of this discovery, is that we should not necessarily seek the origin of presumed iranisms in Slavonic only in Avestan or middle and late Iranian dialects because, at least, some of them may also derive directly from (or continue) the residual proto-Indo-Aryan (proto-Sanskrit) dialects.
(…)

http://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/was-scythian-an-iranian-language/

(…)
There is no doubt that some Iranian tribes and elements were present in the Circum-Pontic area in the last centuries B.C. and first centuries A.D. but it would be very short-sighted to brand the whole multitude of peoples populating the vast area from the Altai mountains to the Baltic Sea, whom the Greeks routinely named ‘Scythians’, as ‘Iranians’ and even more so to view them exclusively through the Ossetic language.
(…)

Znamy wszystkie dyskusje toczące się na Histmagu i cieszymy się, że zdecydowano się przywrócić do Internetu archiwum tego forum. Na naszych stronach cytowaliśmy w 2011 roku i wcześniej fragmenty co ważniejszych wypowiedzi stamtąd w kontekście artykułów poświęconych genetyce i językoznawstwu – Znajdują się one na Czarnym Pasie. Niektórzy dyskutanci z Histmagu.org po zamknięciu tamtego forum zaczęli się pojawiać u nas na blogu i są obecni do dzisiaj – co jest dla nas bardzo ważne. Pozdrowienia dla nich wszystkich – to były bardzo cenne i solidne dyskusje i materiały.

BARDZO WAŻNA DYSKUSJA!!!
Na podobny temat i nie tylko:

http://histmag.org/forum/index.php/topic,10317.msg221384.html#msg221384

Z tego samego linka, etymologii ciąg dalszy:

Wojewoda 2011-03-16, 13:02 #121

Quote Originally Posted by Loxias View Post
So would the word for black/dark in Sanskrit (kṛṣṇa) share the same root with the modern Slavic word for red and beautiful? I wonder how such a thing could have happened. Perhaps a connection to blood (krov?) that can look both red and dark according to circumstances?

Here is the standard etymology:

Krishna eighth avatar of Vishnu, 1875, from Skt. krshnah, lit. „the Black One,” from PIE *kers-no-, suffixed form of base *kers- „dark, dirty” (cf. O.C.S. crunu, Rus. coron, Serbo-Cr. crn, Czech cerny, O.Prus. krisnas „black,” Lith. kersas „black and white, variegated”).

Quote Originally Posted by Mahabrahata
„Arjuna said, 'I will, O son of Virata, tell thee my ten names. Listen thou and compare them with what thou hadst heard before. Listen to them with close attention and concentrated mind. They are Arjuna, Falguna, Jishnu, Kiritin, Swetavahana, Vibhatsu, Vijaya, Krishna, Savyasachin and Dhananjaya.”

„Uttara said, 'Tell me truly why art thou called Vijaya, and why Swetavahana. Why art thou named Krishna and why Arjuna and Falguna and Jishnu and Kiritin and Vibhatsu, and for what art thou Dhananjaya and Savyasachin? I have heard before about the origin of the several names of that hero, and can put faith in thy words if thou canst tell me all about them.’

„Arjuna said, 'They called me Dhananjaya because I lived in the midst of wealth, having subjugated all the countries and taking away their treasures. They called me Vijaya because when I go out to battle with invincible kings, I never return (from the field) without vanquishing them. I am called Swetavahana because when battling with the foe, white horses decked in golden armour are always yoked unto my car. They call me Falguna because I was born on the breast of the Himavat on a day when the constellation Uttara Falguna was on the ascendent. I am named Kiritin from a diadem, resplendent like the sun, having been placed of old on my head by Indra during my encounter with the powerful Danavas. I am known as Vibhatsu among gods and men, for my never having committed a detestable deed on the battle-field. And since both of my hands are capable of drawing the Gandiva, I am known as Savyasachin among gods and men. They call me Arjuna because my complexion is very rare within the four boundaries of the earth and because also my acts are always stainless. I am known among human beings and celestials by the name of Jishnu, because I am unapproachable and incapable of being kept down, and a tamer of adversaries and son of the slayer of Paka. And Krishna, my tenth appellation, was given to me by my father out of affection towards his black-skinned boy of great purity.’

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04044.htm

But „krishna” sounds indeed much more like „krasna” which means both „beautiful” and „red”/”bright red” in the feminine gender:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Polish

If I new anything about linguistics I would bet some money that in Vedic Sanscrit „krs” or „krsn” meant also „beautiful”. But unfortunately I don’t.

EDIT: Here we go:

ākṛṣṭa — attracted; SB 4.26.13
http://vedabase.net/a/akrsta, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attractive

EDIT: Bingo!

The very name Kṛṣṇa indicates the all-attractive person, and thus Lord Kṛṣṇa, the source of all beauty and pleasure, is certainly „the favorite thing or person; delight; and pleasure.” Ultimately these terms can refer only to Kṛṣṇa. http://bhagavatam.net/sb/10/27/4/

Odrobina z Ved dla porównania :

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/7771-Original-Aryans?p=324291&viewfull=1#post324291

Pioterus 2011-03-16, 11:59 #117

Quote Originally Posted by Prithvi View Post
T
Dark skin in Sanskirt is „Krsna Tvac” and Light skin is „Shweta Tvac”

Rama is described as Krsna Tvac and he is descended from Vedic Solar Dynasty and Goddess Saraswati is described as Shweta Tvac and she is mother of Vedas.
Geez – did anyone of slavic speakers noticed that? Krsna Tvac sounds almost like Krasna/ Krassiwija Twarz – Beautiful Face (in some mix between russian and polish languages) and Shweta Tvac is Święta/ Świetlista Twarz – meaning (in contemporary polish I mind you!) Saint Face/ Radiating Face.

I think someone should make some studies on similarities between living slavonic languages and sanskrit and do it NOW

Pioterus 2011-03-16, 12:19 #120

(…)
Also Tvac – Twarz (more or less Tvash for english speakers)

I suppose a lot of Ph.D’s could be written on this, the problem is that western „slavic langauges specialists” can’t even speak any slavic language (I mean really speak!) – how could they make any research?

I know it is almost impossible to learn Polish, but hey – Norman Davies, a welsh historian, did it very well.

I see a field for russian/ polish/ balcan/ etc… researchers, young and rebellious ones. REBEL against old wisdom, research new discoveries.

Polecam całą dyskusję, z której cytuję fragment komentarza:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/23242-proto-Slavic-synonymous-with-proto-Indo-European-%28split%29-mod?p=616245&viewfull=1#post616245

(…)
A couple of years ago I gave a public lecture at SOAS in London and demonstrated how with the help of a Sanskrit dictionary and using the same methodology which is applied for interpreting (translating is not the right word) ancient texts (i.g.Shumerian) one can understand a whole passage of a Pushkin’s verse. You should have seen the faces of the Indian folks

Even the notorious Soviet anthem starts in Sanskrit:

Soyz nerushimyj respublik svobodnykh…

It my special transcription it would look like this (I divided compounds for convenience):

sa-yus ne-ruṣ-imiy respublik svabod-nih

There is only one loan word here „respublik”, the rest can be easily interpreted with a basic knowledge of Sanskrit. This is the glossary

sayuj united, a companion, comrade
sāyujya intimate union
(sa connected with {saha} – an inseparable prefix expressing `” junction „’, `”conjunction. When compounded with nouns to form adjectives and adverbs it may be translated by `” with „’ , `” together or along with „’ , `” accompanied by „’ ,`” having „’ , `”possessing”+ yuj „to yoke or join or fasten or harness (horses or a chariot); to join , unite , connect , add , bring together”)
na not, no, nor
ruj breaking, crushing, shattering
ruś to break , injure
svābhāvya – self-existent , existing spontaneously ; own peculiarity, own nature
svabhūta – being one’s own
(…)