You might find the following post interesting (in case you haven't read it yet):
Dhu's post in the DNA thread containing images of similarities in SE Asian architecture (Indonesian Batak House) and Viking architecture of some church. Especially read what he writes.
The first image there doesn't work, but try here for a different image of the same.
<!--QuoteBegin-Raju+Nov 19 2007, 09:28 PM-->QUOTE(Raju @ Nov 19 2007, 09:28 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Added</b>: You talked about appropriating other cultures in case of China ... Only thing missing is the 'hard evidence' which I am sure will surface soon.[right][snapback]75418[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->When/if there's hard evidence, it's not appropriating (it's fact then). It's only speculations/theories presented as fact that constitute appropriation, especially when not all the sources they are based on are reliable.
<i>By the way, you don't require me to agree with you. I'm just another member here, like you.
I also tend to disagree a lot. It's of no consequence.</i>
Your prolific use of "Naga" is like others' use of "Vedic": everything begins and ends with Naga now, including things that yesterday others claimed were Vedic or Vedic-derived (Shiva, Krishna, Buddhism, ... NW of India, ... ).
IMO it seems rather that they're just two words for the same thing: Hindu/Dharmic culture. Well, Naga Devas were always part of Hindu culture... And so too obviously the Dharmic communities who worshipped them. (Worship of Naga Pambu, Naga Devas is rather mainstream in TN and possibly rest of India.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, we do know that Jat/Rajput are of hephthalite (him-taali)/snowy plains origin (or is that also in debate ?),<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Again, I'm not going to go there.
Though you might want to read Kaushal's post.
Dhu's post in the DNA thread containing images of similarities in SE Asian architecture (Indonesian Batak House) and Viking architecture of some church. Especially read what he writes.
The first image there doesn't work, but try here for a different image of the same.
<!--QuoteBegin-Raju+Nov 19 2007, 09:28 PM-->QUOTE(Raju @ Nov 19 2007, 09:28 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Added</b>: You talked about appropriating other cultures in case of China ... Only thing missing is the 'hard evidence' which I am sure will surface soon.[right][snapback]75418[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->When/if there's hard evidence, it's not appropriating (it's fact then). It's only speculations/theories presented as fact that constitute appropriation, especially when not all the sources they are based on are reliable.
<i>By the way, you don't require me to agree with you. I'm just another member here, like you.
I also tend to disagree a lot. It's of no consequence.</i>
Your prolific use of "Naga" is like others' use of "Vedic": everything begins and ends with Naga now, including things that yesterday others claimed were Vedic or Vedic-derived (Shiva, Krishna, Buddhism, ... NW of India, ... ).
IMO it seems rather that they're just two words for the same thing: Hindu/Dharmic culture. Well, Naga Devas were always part of Hindu culture... And so too obviously the Dharmic communities who worshipped them. (Worship of Naga Pambu, Naga Devas is rather mainstream in TN and possibly rest of India.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, we do know that Jat/Rajput are of hephthalite (him-taali)/snowy plains origin (or is that also in debate ?),<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Again, I'm not going to go there.
Though you might want to read Kaushal's post.