Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[Arjun]

Thanks Arjun ji for recognizing the problem.... all these arugments/counter arugments while keeping the original question open...and letting one walk away without being held responsible for making 'casual and careless remarks' which are never backed. Some forum members have successfully took the discussion to varoius tangents, and in all obejectivity, I commend them for their, intentional or otherwise, successful plan.

Glad you see things the same way.

In fact, the irony is that after pages and pages of back-on-forth arguments on low-level linguistics issues - NONE of the original higher-level questions have been refuted. I am including an earlier post below, where I had detailed some of these questions. Shiv and RajeshA ji have also raised others which went unanswered. ManishH ji is definitely not going to address them - he knows which battles are winnable and which ones to run away from.

Shiv, The problem-areas with comparative linguistics as I see them are-

1. Reconstruction of phonetics of dead languages from bilingual inscriptions containing scripts that are logo-graphic or logo-syllabic. This is something you've rightly unearthed - Akkadian, Hittite phonetic reconstructions would fall under this rubric

2. Many comparative linguistic methodologies- such as glottochronology and lexicostatistics stand discredited even within the linguist community

3. The most commonly used technique in comparative linguistics - the 'comparative method' for reconstruction is dependent on the neo-grammarian position that 'sound laws have no exceptions'. Unfortunately, even this has been proved wrong in the case of Maltese Guttarals.

4. Another problem with reconstruction methodology: Reconstructed Proto-Greek has some features that should make it precede Mycenaean Greek in evolution, but then Mycenaean seems not to have participated in linguistic innovations of Proto-Greek. That's a contradiction that's not been resolved.

5. Identification of cognates, 'false cognates', substrates and the like seems to be rather arbitrary. In fact, there are differences between the Nostratic camp and PIE camp on rules for cognates.

6. Comparative linguistics can be very clearly seen to be a continual 'curve-fitting' exercise. They thought they had everything figured out into neat categories - the discovery of Tocharian and Hittite turned things upside down. And now they have modified their theories again to fit the latest data...Now of course this is no different from any other science, but the key issue is that reconstruction is not 'falsifiable' using experiments unless more 'dead' languages are discovered. So 'reconstruction' of dead languages is very much a questionable science.

7. The tree model of language evolution, where proto-languages are surmised to be collapsible to a particular point in space and time in the past - is now widely regarded as an outdated concept by most linguists.

[shiv]

When one speaks of language coming into India or going out of India, the robustness of the theory should be tested for truth to see if the theory stand up to newer or more radical theories. The conventionally "accepted" theory of migration into India with Rig Veda being dated to 1200 to 1000 BC stands against other theories that seek to place the Rig Veda prior to 3000 BC. But what if the Rig Veda can be taken only as far back as - say 100 BC. What are the arguments for and against this?

Let me first start with truism:

A theory should stand on facts

What facts do we have?

On the one hand we have the incontrovertible archaeological fact of horses and chariots in graves in Central Asia dated to 2000 BC and earlier.

What is the connection with India?

• 1. Indo European language link. The language is assumed to have come to India from outside
  2. Mention of horses and chariots in India's oldest attested language, Rig Vedic Sanskrit

So how old is the Rig Veda? There are no dates. Here are the possibilities:

• 1. Rig Veda dates from before 3000 BC based on archaeo astronomic dating. But this date provides no proof of horse and chariot, mentioned in the Rig Veda in India. There is no evidence of Sanskrit having existed as a language at that time
  2. Rig Veda dated to 1200 BC. There is no proof of Sanskrit having existed as a language at that time. There is no incontrovertible archaeological evidence of horses and chariots in India around 1200 BC. But some horse remains have been found in Pakistan (Gandhara grave culture).
  3. Rig Veda dated to a century or two before 150 AD. This is the most plausible date. Sanskrit is known to have existed in 150 AD. There is incontrovertible archaeological evidence. Evidence of horses and domestication exist from this period.

So the Rig Veda can be confidently dated to a date no later than 150 AD. There is no evidence to support the existence of Sanskrit before 150 AD.

I wonder why the Rig Veda is dated by "scholars to the period 1500 to 1000 BC. It seems to me that this date has been cooked up only because it is convenient to explain a theory that people with language spread using horses and chariots and reached India by that time. But surely, 150 AD is an even better time for that. Sanskrit did exist in 150 AD. The Rig Veda perhaps dates just prior to that.

As I stated earlier, dating the Rig Veda to the late Bronze age but before the Iron age in India (1000 BC) just because the Rig Veda does not mention iron does not hold water. The Rig Veda does not mention any cities and can therefore be taken to mean that it dates from before cities were built. Clearly linguistic proof alone is insufficient for dating. Archaeological proof and proper attestation is needed is theory is to be built upon facts, which is a fundamental and unbreakable dictum.

What this means is that the timeline for the spread of Indo-European languages to India needs to be modified. But things get a little complicated here when we follow our little dictum:

A theory should stand on facts

Where did Indo European languages originally arise? In the Pontic steppe according to the theory that is being currently held as true by linguistic sch(lol)ars. We were told earlier:

No purely linguistic technique can be used to derive the homeland. One needs archaeological proof of linguistic markers. In the case of the AIT debate, the horse and chariot language terminology is one such marker.

There is no linguistic marker for language in the Pontic Steppe. Therefore horse and "chariot language terminology". Note that the words "chariot language terminology" are purely linguistic, but we need to ignore that contradiction when schlolars say it.

Horse evidence exists in Pontic steppe. "chariot language terminology" exists in many cultures. But when did it come to India? 150 AD is the best evidence we have. But how can Sanskrit with "chariot language terminology" from 150 AD be connected with Pontic steppe 2000 BC?

Sadly there is no evidence. If we are to follow the dictum quoted by Manishji: "A theory should stand on facts" The theory of origin of language in Pontic steppe in 2000 BC has no supporting fact.

If we should, as Manishji suggested , discard linguistic markers and use only horse and chariot terminology, still we find nothing in Pontic steppe. In India we have only linguistic markers (Rig veda with horse and chariot terminology) but no horse. We must discard ppurely linguistic markers. If we search fro truth, Sanskrit and horses are found in India by 150 AD, 2000 years after Pontic steppe. And Pontic steppe still has no language. Connecting the "Horse and chariot" linguistic markers of Sanskrit 150 AD with horse and chariot archaeological markers of Pontic steppe of 2000 BC has no demonstrable rationale. If some rationale exists, linguistic scholars are keeping it secret.

The fact is the scholars who have come out with this theory are sch(LoL)ars. They apply facts variably only when it suits them. They apply linguistic markers variably when it suits them. And they get really really angry when this is pointed out. That is of course the anger of cognitive dissonance. As I stated 20 pages ago, long before I was accused by falsely by ManishH of being a failed OIT supporter, one does not have to support "Out of India" (OIT) at all to show up the lies and faking by the current bunch of linguistic scholars. One can support AIT/AMT and still see that the schlolars are faking things to suit pre-established theories based on fiction, not fact.

[A_Gupta]

Shiv,
The first firm dates accepted in the history are those of Ashoka. Ashokan inscriptions mention some Middle Eastern contemporaries whose dates are known. The Buddha precedes Ashoka and the Rig Veda precedes the Buddha. There is absolutely no way that the Rig Veda dates to 150 AD.

FYI, I was informed that this appeared in the Washington Post today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

By using novel methods developed for tracing the origins of virus outbreaks, researchers say they have identified present-day Turkey as the homeland of the Indo-European language family.

The international team, led by Quentin Atkinson, a senior lecturer at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, used computational methods analyzing words from more than 100 ancient and contemporary languages, as well as geographical and historical data. By doing so, the scientists say they have pinned down the origin, about 8,000 years ago, of the largest global language to the region of Anatolia.

The results, published in Friday’s issue of the magazine Science, coincide with the “Anatolian hypothesis.” Based on archeological data, it states that Indo-European languages spread with the expansion of agriculture from Anatolia, beginning 8,000 to 9,500 years ago.

I think it may have been mentioned on this thread before.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6 ... 5cce7a2fc9

[shiv]

Shiv,
The first firm dates accepted in the history are those of Ashoka. Ashokan inscriptions mention some Middle Eastern contemporaries whose dates are known. The Buddha precedes Ashoka and the Rig Veda precedes the Buddha. There is absolutely no way that the Rig Veda dates to 150 AD.

Arun. If you change the date of Sanskrit from 1500-1000 BC to any date before 1500 BC or after 1000 BC you are screwing up the entire Indo-European language theory constructed by linguistic schlolars. That is why 1500-1000 BC for Rig Veda is considered sacrosanct.

OK. I accept 250 BC for Sanskrit

[shiv]

FYI, I was informed that this appeared in the Washington Post today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

By using novel methods developed for tracing the origins of virus outbreaks, researchers say they have identified present-day Turkey as the homeland of the Indo-European language family.

The international team, led by Quentin Atkinson, a senior lecturer at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, used computational methods analyzing words from more than 100 ancient and contemporary languages, as well as geographical and historical data. By doing so, the scientists say they have pinned down the origin, about 8,000 years ago, of the largest global language to the region of Anatolia.

The results, published in Friday’s issue of the magazine Science, coincide with the “Anatolian hypothesis.” Based on archeological data, it states that Indo-European languages spread with the expansion of agriculture from Anatolia, beginning 8,000 to 9,500 years ago.

I think it may have been mentioned on this thread before.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6 ... 5cce7a2fc9

This was discussed on a previous page starting here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1329024

[shiv]

If you are on a train looking for a friend whose seat you do not know, one logical thing to do would be to search from one one end and go all the way to the other looking at every possible seat.

The same logic should hold good while searching for a date for the Rig Veda. We could start from the latest known date for the existence of Sanskrit and work our way back in time.

From what point in time can we be absolutely certain that the Rig Veda existed? Clearly, the existence of Sanskrit should be a pointer. Sanskrit is proven to have existed in 150 AD which marks, to use a favorite expression of Shri Witzel - a "terminus post quem" after which Sanskrit is known to exist.

But did Sanskrit exist before 150 AD? If so what is the proof? And what are the proven references to the Vedas before that date. If we are to use science, we need to back up theories with known facts and then work our way backwards logically, quoting whatever proof is available for any date that we theorize for the existence of Sanskrit.

I have no time now. But will gat back to this in due course..

[KLP Dubey]

The Out-of-India theory is indeed correct for many other reasons, but looking to the Rg Veda for some kind of direct validation is a futile exercise. In such a pursuit, the seekers of truth become reduced (perhaps unwittingly) to almost the same level as the AIT/AMT proponents. Ultimately it undermines the significance of the Veda and the underlying Indian ethos that preserves the Veda in its correct form.

One may win the OIT battle but lose the larger war in the process. That is the main problem with the Kaks, Frawleys, Talageris, Elsts, Kazanases, Daninos, etc etc of this world. Agreed they are a tad better than the (nit)Witzels and other similars.

The Rg Veda (and indeed the Rgvedic sounds) are eternal, have no authors*, are impersonal, and have no specific connection to, nor any interest whatsoever in, to the human race or cultures. The roots of Vedic are not of human agency and their true meanings are unknown.

* By "no authors" it is not meant that "the authors are now too difficult to trace", but that there are literally no authors. As a matter fact, no Indian (or any human) ever claimed to have played a role in authoring the Vedas. At the most we find in the Puranas gods and sages claimed to have helped "preserve" or "compile" them. In the Bhagavad Gita the author makes Lord Krishna say that he is the "vedantakRt" (i.e., creator of Vedanta) but does not dare to claim being the "vedakRt"...instead remaining content with "vedavit" (expert in the Vedas). The ancient Indians had overactive imaginations, but they were honest men at the end of the day.

It is true that the words of the Veda have been associated with objects found on Earth in various ages and epochs. In that sense, it can be used for OIT/AIT argumentation, e.g., "I can prove that somebody in India in 3000 BCE assigned the RV word 'ashva' to the animal we call a horse". But to say that the RV was composed in India or Central Asia or on the Moon etc is absurd, since it has no specific connection with the human race or any specific location. It is entirely impersonal and universally valid.

From time immemorial, people have been trying to associate the Vedic roots with Earthly objects. Some good and not-so-good results of these attempts:

- The Vedic roots when associated with earthly objects by some Indians yielded the Sanskrit language culminating in Panini. This language spread over the globe in our present epoch thus originating the "Indo-European" language family.

- However, making the mistake of taking these "fake" Sanskrit meanings and trying to understand the Veda (i.e., a type of "reverse-engineering") is obviously a logical dead-end. It is quite obvious that there is no set of humanly-derived meanings that can interpret the Veda consistently. Most of these linguistic arguments fail Logic 101 in the first place, so it is nothing more than an idle pastime/cottage industry.

- Other Indians came up with the idea of performing "wishful-thinking" sacrifices with the words of the Veda serving as the essential component. The idea was to try and re-enact/emulate on Earth in some small way the cosmic processes of the Veda, and thereby have some hope of deriving a material benefit. This led to the Brahmanas and kalpasutras. Unfortunately these Yajnas don't work correctly as they are supposed to by the authors of the brahmanas.

- Some other guys started seeing "spiritual visions" in the Vedic words and started philosophical inquiry into things like the nature of the Self etc. The Upanishads. Vedanta. Etc. for example, one Shankara claimed that the ultimate reality (brahman) is "blissful and undifferentiated", while at the same time forcefully stating that the Vedic words are indeed eternal and cannot be altered. Another obvious logical failure.

- Some others started personifying certain sounds in the Veda (e.g., "Vishnu") and started manufacturing stories and legends (perhaps because these sounds have a certain power and those guys 'liked' these sounds). In other words, connecting Vedic word to human experiences in order to create legends. The vast corpus of Puranic literature.

- In the absence of knowledge regarding the "meaning" of the Vedic roots and derived forms, the best one can do is:
(i) Try to faithfully reproduce the originally "received" sounds as best as possible using the human vocal apparatus. This led to the discipline of phonetics.
(ii) Try to observe and catalog the patterns and rules in the formation of derived forms. This led to the discipline of grammar.

Best Wishes,

KL

[member_20317]

Nilesh ji, the biggest problem that I had with history is that it leaves a bigger hole than the path it reveals.

If your research of MBH is any indication and if the Hindu chronology has some basis, then we have, at least some basis to fill up the gaps. Adjusted for Human population growth, ideas like RV and the Dreaming practices of Native Australians could be some of the earliest practices of a man wondering about his place in the world.

The technology to deal with such matters is now there all that is needed is the rigour in understanding and contextualising the observations.

Nilesh ji, personally I see an opportunity in parts that do not make sense today using todays sense and sensibilities. The way initially in this thread debate arose on 'fame'. Such parts could be the ones that the ancients understood in a different light from our understanding of these parts. In fact even the sections that are not directly helpful in dating can be helpful in establishing the context.

I am yet to buy your book (waiting for book fair & hardcover) and while I still may not agree with your 'date' but the way you have explained your methodology gives me confidence that your 'periods' may be very believable.

BTW how long do you think it would take for you to complete your work on Ramayana?

[ManishH]

glottochronology was a fad long discredited in 60s itself.
<snip>
In modern literature, glottochronology isn't ever used to specify an out-of-india homeland for IE languages at all.

That's a partial bluff. Judging a language older or younger by sound change is certainly still used when convenient, but to prove an into India theory. This is what you wrote

Neither is the date of attestation of the Mitanni treaty make it older than Sanskrit, it's the phonetics of the Mitanni IA words

So the sound change that is judged to have occurred between Mitanni and Sanskrit makes Mitanni older. That is glottochronology.

Shiv: inspite of me giving you many pointers to linguistics textbooks, you are totally confusing two terms :

1. Diachronic sound change : sound laws which tell us relative order between languages. This is a phonetic method.
2. Glottochronology : estimating the age of the language based on the percentage of cognates. This is more a lexicostatistical method.

What I've consistently said is that #2 is discredited, not #1. You are totally out of depths with the technical terms, and therefore you keep parroting 'fake', 'bluff' etc.

To give an analogy, #1 is like establishing human parent-child relationships using DNA tests. And #2 is like trying to establish the same relationship using percentage of white hair or bald patch.

But these same bluffs and selctively applied rules are exactly what is done by the community of linguists to try and hold up untenable theories.

A. these are not bluffs but behaviours of human vocal tract
B. these sound changes are recognized by clinical speech therapists too - not just linguists.

The Pontic Steppe has no known language. Putting a language there has no proof whatsoever. Putting a cooked up non existent language there is an ironic joke, "Proof of language does not exist there, so we cook up proof for a non existent language"

The Pontic steppes have all the archaeological markers of chariotry and horse vocabulary which is common in an overwhelming majority of Indo-European languages.

The oldest "attested" language after that is ancient "Mycenaean" Greek. It was not the phonology of Mycenaean Greek that dated it. It was dating of the texts that have been found.

The relative place of Myc Grk in the IE tree is by phonetics alone.

The next oldest attestation of Indo European language are the Mitanni texts. It is not the phonology that dated them to 1500 BC.

And who said the 1500 BC comes from phonology ? The phonology only decided it's relative order in the IE tree.

[ManishH]

The Rg Veda (and indeed the Rgvedic sounds) are eternal, have no authors*, are impersonal, and have no specific connection to, nor any interest whatsoever in, to the human race or cultures. The roots of Vedic are not of human agency and their true meanings are unknown.

* By "no authors" it is not meant that "the authors are now too difficult to trace", but that there are literally no authors.

Quite right. In traditional vedic teaching, we are always taught X ṛṣi Y devataḥ before the mantra recitation. That comes from the vedic anukramaṇi. But what is also told is that these ṛṣis were revealed the mantra, they are not authors.

However, I've never found the "divine origin" theory in any brāhmaṇa or vedic literature. I'm inclined to think that this "divine origin" theory is a much later development. Neither the word ṛca, nor ṛṣi means one whom things are revealed.

The ṛgveda mantras themselves use the word a-takṣad (constructed) for the chanda-s ...

RV_01.164.23.1{18} yad gāyatre adhi gāyatramāhitaṃ traiṣṭubhād vā traiṣṭubhaṃ niratakṣata
RV_01.164.23.2{18} yad vā jagajjagatyāhitaṃ padaṃ ya it tad viduste amṛtatvamānaśuḥ

The verb takṣa implies a degree of skill as it's the same verb used for constructing the chariot (ratha)

Or even a well constructed mantra (sutaṣṭam mantaṃ) ...

RV_02.035.02.1{22} imaṃ svasmai hṛda ā sutaṣṭaṃ mantraṃ vocema kuvidasya vedat
RV_02.035.02.2{22} apāṃ napādasuryasya mahnā viśvānyaryo bhuvanā jajāna

All internal evidence from ṛgveda points to the fact that the seer was very comfortable with attributing the skilful authorship of these hymns to humans; while acknowledging Gods to be the inspirers eg. Sarasvati here called as the inspirer of good thought ...

RV_01.003.11.1{06} codayitrī sūnṛtānāṃ cetantī sumatīnām
RV_01.003.11.2{06} yajñaṃ dadhe sarasvatī

The "divine origin/revealed text" theory looks like a later development.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from a Sulekha Blog "Fabricating History – 2000 BC" by Rajee Kushwaha.

My contention is that language is always developing and refining and so did SANSKRIT of Nagas, when it left shores of India and when it returned as ARYANISED.

The word "Arya" has been used in Rig Veda itself, which is one of our oldest scriptures! It has been used in Ramayana and Mahabharata. It means noble in thought and deed!

Basically if you're saying Sanskrit came to India "Aryanized", then you are saying the concept of Arya did not exist in India before the "Aryans" came to India! And do you know why you are saying Sanskrit came "Aryanized" back to India? You are saying this because the Europeans are saying so!

They are saying "Aryan heritage belongs to us!" and you're saying "Take it!, We are very generous anyway!" They are saying, "We gave it to you", and you're saying "Then it must be true!" This is a Highway Robbery taking place here, and the cretins that we are, we say, "Oh take it! It is only our culture!" Instead we go ahead and spin some fairy tale speculations about Nagas, as "replacement culture"!

Your position is akin to putting up your hands even before the robbers arrive and later to say that you are being generous because you are so wealthy.

It is the Anglo-Germans who don't have any ancient history! On the basis of their media and education domination, they want to take your history, mold it to suit themselves, take away our Sanskrit calling it theirs, and you say, "We are fine with it. We have got Nagas"!!!!

Rajee ji,

we need to first free our minds from our obeisance and submissiveness to the European, and only then we can go and write our history!

There is no such thing as "Sanskrit came back ARYANIZED"! We are the Aryans from Lanka to Kashmir! And the Europeans can go screw themselves as orphans of history!

[RajeshA]

Even Kuhn, who I am not a fan of (but for some reason many seem to love him in academia as soon as subject of scientific progress is being discussed), admitted, that new theories are accepted by scientific community, not because many of them change their mind in the light of new evidence, but rather they die. And new generation grows up with awareness of these new theories.

So how do we speed up acceptance of new theories?

[RajeshA]

KLP Dubey ji,

you have just said that the Vedas are beyond our understanding. If that is the case, why are they called Veda - Knowledge? And if this knowledge is not accessible to our brains, then what is the need for humans to exert themselves in preserving them?

[Neela]

The Pontic steppes have all the archaeological markers of chariotry and horse vocabulary which is common in an overwhelming majority of Indo-European languages.

Can someone tell me what this means.
This is a genuine question. Am I the only one finding it very hard to understand?

[RajeshA]

The Y-Chromosome Haplogroup Tree



For some unexplained reason the root is called "Adam"!

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from a Sulekha Blog "Fabricating History – 2000 BC" by an AIT-Sepoy DMR Sekhar.

When did Aryans entered India? The age of R1a1 of Pathans of South Afghan should tell it. But you are refuting the research of Stepanov.

This is more on topic! Stepanov is not an evolutionary biologist. He is a statistician and has tried to make a case for certain alternate ways to interpret the data and made suggestions on methods for dating! His paper was rejected by Nature magazine, but it was published in another journal, considered somewhat less prestigious! But He has received quite a lot of criticism for his methods, mostly by people who hate the thought of India being the Urheimat! I cannot really comment on whether his methods were sound or not!

For Indians today and Afghans for some time, it may be difficult considering Afghans as part of the Subcontinental Mix, but if they are ANI & ASI, they are genetically Indians, regardless of ratio-mixture!

As seen in papers by Sahoo et al, Sharma et al, etc. R1a1 can be considered Indian. Historically Afghanistan was an extension of India. So regardless of whether the founder event for say R1a1a happened in Afghanistan or in Pakistan or in Kashmir, it still happened in historical India, but my guess is that Afghans expanded into Afghanistan more from regions like Punjab!

Shrikant Talageri makes this case in great detail in his book, "The Rigveda and The Avesta: The Final Evidence"!

[RajeshA]

The Pontic steppes have all the archaeological markers of chariotry and horse vocabulary which is common in an overwhelming majority of Indo-European languages.

Can someone tell me what this means.
This is a genuine question. Am I the only one finding it very hard to understand?

Neela ji,

all it means is that

1) in that climate the horse and chariot remains were well preserved, unlike in India!
2) somehow it wants to imply that the only way horses were distributed throughout Eurasia was through migrations and basically seems to reject the most obvious aspect of the horse - speed, which allows the horse to contribute to speedier travel and trade even over long distances!
3) somehow the statement also wants to imply that the people at the place of origin of Central Asian horse would decide the name for the creature in all of Eurasia, and not the dominant ancient civilization in the region - India. In India the Vedic Indians gave the horse its name - Aśvaḥ, so named after the Sun! The word Aśvaḥ was even accepted by the Central Asian domesticators of the horse!

[JE Menon]

>>For some unexplained reason the root is called "Adam"!

Not to mention the mitochondrial "eve"!!!

[ManishH]

The Pontic steppes have all the archaeological markers of chariotry and horse vocabulary which is common in an overwhelming majority of Indo-European languages.

Can someone tell me what this means.
This is a genuine question. Am I the only one finding it very hard to understand?

This post has more elaboration on the shared horse and chariotry vocabulary in IE languages:
viewtopic.php?p=1293202#p1293202

Combine this with archaeological evidence of earliest horse domestication (Botai : 3,500 BC) and chariotry (Sintashta-Arkaim : 2,100 BC) in the Eurasian steppes.

The combined evidence points to the origin of IE language speakers who had not only domesticated the horse but also developed chariotry technology in the Eurasian steppes.

PS: The claim that horse bones do not preserve well in the humid environment of India is a red-herring. I've already posted an example of well preserved human skeleton from 8,000 BC in the Gangetic plains (Mahadaha) - which was actually even more humid than Indus region where we expect to find horse bones. Remains of animals like cow, pigs, elephant, rhinoceros all are found by archaeologists. But somehow it's only the horse bones which are selectively subject to vagaries of the climate.

[member_22872]

Manish ji,
Obviously I am no linguist, but I am going by logic and what I understood so far:

1. Diachronic sound change : sound laws which tell us relative order between languages. This is a phonetic method.

and also one of theories on which this rests is:

Sound-change is regular and exceptionless


Now if there are exceptions, one would cringe to use it as a tool to solve each and every problem, that too when that method is to define and mould a nation's history. But sound change laws do have exceptions, I think Bji too pointed out,
I am linking here one example I could find:


http://www.macedonians.com.au/forum/sho ... setze-quot

also the sound change laws are considered 'regular', that means one is talking about a linear model. When the time lines under consideration are huge, when no room is left to include linguistic chaos to set in to influence this sound regularity, I would suspect that.

B. these sound changes are recognized by clinical speech therapists too - not just linguists.

But the exceptions one notes in this sound change law doesn't impact the working of a sound therapist as it does to writing on a nation's history when you are taking this phonetic sound change law to explain away everything without discretion. Just because mathematicians use different mathematical tools to solve different problems, doesn't mean you can use all/some/any to solve any problem. One has to consider the applicability.

So many times shiv ji has pointed out that one can't use circular argument to prove the PIE to exist and that Sanskrit is it's derivative:

one can't take sanskrit, march in time back ward with the assumption that sound changes are exceptionless and that the sound changes are regular which anyway have exceptions linked above and then come to unpronounceable language called PIE database and then come back and say 'hey Sanskrit hence is derived from PIE'.

[RajeshA]

The claim that horse bones do not preserve well in the humid environment of India is a red-herring. I've already posted an example of well preserved human skeleton from 8,000 BC in the Gangetic plains (Mahadaha) - which was actually even more humid than Indus region where we expect to find horse bones. Remains of animals like cow, pigs, elephant, rhinoceros all are found by archaeologists. But somehow it's only the horse bones which are selectively subject to vagaries of the climate.

Cow, Elephant, Rhinoceros are all native to the Subcontinent. Humans too are in the Subcontinent since say perhaps 85,000-50,000 Years. Pigs, though not native to India, tended to reproduce quickly giving birth to around 20 piglets a year!

Are horses native to the Indian Subcontinent? If not why would one expect bones of an animal which were so few and imported from elsewhere for much of Indian history?

Initially horses were used mostly by the royalty and increasingly by the cavalry, so one would expect the remains to be disposed of more methodically than with other animals, who were either wild or domesticated and available among the commons!

The methodicity may be either grave burials or cremation! Since mostly Indians used to cremate themselves, it is also not to be expected any kings and generals to be getting buried after their death with their favorite horse in tow!

[shiv]

A. these are not bluffs but behaviours of human vocal tract
B. these sound changes are recognized by clinical speech therapists too - not just linguists.

Manishji. You have got to be kidding. I am trying to be serious here. I have never said that sound changes do not occur. Your main plank seems to depend on making accusations against me. All I am saying is that the logic that is used in the reconstruction of P-IIr has fake and unprovable assumptions about the age and identity of the "daughter" languages that are used in reconstruction. In an ironic and hilarious act that is being touted by you as scholarship that reconstructed and fake mother language is then used as an example to show how the daughter languages (which you have used to cook up PIIr in the previous step) arose from it. Since you have used those daughter languages for the reconstruction in the first place - nothing is proved by this circular argument. You use the phonology of Avestan, Old Persian and Sanskrit to create a proto langauge word and then use that word as "proof" of how sounds change.

You are merely showing the possible sound shifts that could have occurred if the data you put in about the original daughter languages used in reconstruction was correct. If that is fake, like age of Sanskrit, The reconstructed language is a bluff even if the sound shift theory is correct. In common parlance it is called GIGO. There are endless possibilities and route that languages could have taken and many are dead. You merely use the existing ones and assume that the parent you define existed. This is not science. Please do not confuse this with sound pathology. The textbooks on sound pathology you quote are only for dramabazi. The peripheral mechanism at the mouth, tongue and gottis level may be similar but at the brain level there is no comparison with disease states and shifts in sounds in normal people.

The Pontic steppes have all the archaeological markers of chariotry and horse vocabulary which is common in an overwhelming majority of Indo-European languages.

That means zilch to a Sanskrit that is older than 3000 years old or less than 2000 years old. That is why linguists cling on to a fake date for Sanskrit. They need that "window" to support their linguistic theories.

The relative place of Myc Grk in the IE tree is by phonetics alone.

Bluff. The location and dating play a role that you do not want to acknowledge. All sources say that those shards of Linear A (or was it B?) were translated and connected with Greek. The dating suggested that it was early Greek and that gave linguists a tool to reconstruct proto Greek using sound shift.

No such lucky finds exist for Sanskrit and the dating remains fake, so theories about P-IIr and the dates are fake

And who said the 1500 BC comes from phonology ? The phonology only decided it's relative order in the IE tree.

How many cognate words of a language do you need to reach a dogmatic conclusion about sound shift due to age? How many IE words from Mitanni have been found that prove its age relative to Sanskrit? Would you like to hazard a guess about the error probability in dating Mitanni using the method you claim? Are you even aware of where errors could arise?

[RajeshA]

Since you have used those daughter languages for the reconstruction in the first place - nothing is proved by this circular argument. You use the phonology of Avestan, Old Persian and Sanskrit to create a proto langauge word and then use that word as "proof" of how sounds change.

Well at least the Linguists are good in Circular Geometry!

[Nilesh Oak]

Quite right. In traditional vedic teaching, we are always taught X ṛṣi Y devataḥ before the mantra recitation. That comes from the vedic anukramaṇi. But what is also told is that these ṛṣis were revealed the mantra, they are not authors.

The ṛgveda mantras themselves use the word a-takṣad (constructed) for the chanda-s ...

RV_01.164.23.1{18} yad gāyatre adhi gāyatramāhitaṃ traiṣṭubhād vā traiṣṭubhaṃ niratakṣata
RV_01.164.23.2{18} yad vā jagajjagatyāhitaṃ padaṃ ya it tad viduste amṛtatvamānaśuḥ

The verb takṣa implies a degree of skill as it's the same verb used for constructing the chariot (ratha)
Or even a well constructed mantra (sutaṣṭam mantaṃ) ...
RV_02.035.02.1{22} imaṃ svasmai hṛda ā sutaṣṭaṃ mantraṃ vocema kuvidasya vedat
RV_02.035.02.2{22} apāṃ napādasuryasya mahnā viśvānyaryo bhuvanā jajāna
All internal evidence from ṛgveda points to the fact that the seer was very comfortable with attributing the skilful authorship of these hymns to humans; while acknowledging Gods to be the inspirers eg. Sarasvati here called as the inspirer of good thought ...
RV_01.003.11.1{06} codayitrī sūnṛtānāṃ cetantī sumatīnām
RV_01.003.11.2{06} yajñaṃ dadhe sarasvatī
The "divine origin/revealed text" theory looks like a later development.

Finally something I and ManishH ji can agree on.

As to Archeo-astronomy, it would take us 1000s (archeo) or Lightyears (astronomy) to converge our thoughts, if ever, and assuming Earth lasts that long.

[Nilesh Oak]

Since you have used those daughter languages for the reconstruction in the first place - nothing is proved by this circular argument. You use the phonology of Avestan, Old Persian and Sanskrit to create a proto langauge word and then use that word as "proof" of how sounds change.

Well at least the Linguists are good in Circular Geometry!

Circular Geometry aka Tautology.

[Nilesh Oak]

Even Kuhn, who I am not a fan of (but for some reason many seem to love him in academia as soon as subject of scientific progress is being discussed), admitted, that new theories are accepted by scientific community, not because many of them change their mind in the light of new evidence, but rather they die. And new generation grows up with awareness of these new theories.

So how do we speed up acceptance of new theories?

By making new generation aware of developments in Science - Arecho-Astronomy, Genetics, Archeology/radiation-Thermoluminesce and other dating techniques, evolutionary biology, geology...many more.

As a small step, making my book an International Bestseller/NY Times Bestseller would do.

No activity related to Kuhn's description. Kuhn described 'what usually happened or happens' not 'what should happen'.

[Virendra]

All sources say that those shards of Linear A (or was it B?) were translated and connected with Greek.

One of these had more letters/signs and was decrypted easily. The other with lesser letters/signs like in harappa, is stil shrouded in mystery.
Not sure which was on which side.

[A_Gupta]

Can be found on the web:
Toomas Kivisild, Siiri Rootsi, Mait Metspalu, Ene Metspalu, Juri Parik, Katrin Kaldma, Esien Usanga, Sarabjit Mastana, Surinder S. Papiha & Richard Villems, “The Genetics of Language and Farming Spread in India,” ch. 17 in Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis, eds. Peter Bellwood & Colin Renfrew (Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2003), pp. 215–222.

The point of posting here - to illustrate the dangers of interpreting results from limited evidence. IMO, the small number of data points for linguistics from the ancient era pose a similar hazard.

Providing the quote in full so that no one can claim selective quoting.

Second, great caution is required when interpreting the dates deriving from Y-chromosomal STR coalescent calculations. Table 17.3 reveals that profoundly inconsistent time estimates can be reached when different calibration methods are used. Hence, it seems safer to operate with raw diversity estimates - to determine the polarity of the movement - leaving the time of origin question unanswered until reliable dating methods for Y-chromosomal STR diversity are worked out.

Yet, even if time estimates are avoided, there are some problems introduced by sampling strategies and differences in demographic histories. For example, in the study by Quintana- Murci et al. (2001), a decline in diversity stretching from Iran to India was observed in haplogroups 3 and 9 and the authors rushed to interpret this empirical observation in favour of directional gene flow to India during Neolithic period (haplogroup 9). They linked this finding to the introduction of Indo-European languages (haplogroup 3) to India. Time estimates for their spread were derived from the STR clock.

Here, however, the clock is just a secondary problem - the first being the Indian reference sample used. Indeed, the Indians included in this study consisted of a (limited) sample from Gujarat - one of the western maritime provinces of India. When extending the Indian sample with colIections from different states, a quite different, even opposite, pattern emerges (Table 17.3). Indians appear to display the higher diversity both in haplogroups 3 and 9 - even if a pooled sample of eastern and southern European populations was considered. If we were to use the same arithmetic and logic (sensu haplogroup 9 is Neolithic) to give an interpretation of this table, then the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture)and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe. We would also have to add that inconsistencies with the archaeological evidence would appear and disappear as we change rate estimates (Table 17.3).

For language, we do not have a clock any where as regular as the genetic clock; and even the genetic clock has problems. We also do not have anything approaching a population sample. What we have (e.g. Hittite, Old Iranian) are some stray texts written in a dead script that has been deciphered. We also have all the problems of connecting script to sound which is greatly a matter of lost, irrecoverable convention - as is evident even in today's web where the Roman script is used to represent so many languages - you wouldn't get the pronunciation right for most of them. Think of cuneiform in the same way.

PS: What I mean is that people knowledgeable of India would pronounce "Punjab" like "Panjaab" while native English speakers unaware of India would pronounce it like "Poonjab". There is nothing in the script to guide, it is a matter of convention. We do not know what conventions the scribes and readers of cuneiform used to translate cuneiform glyphs into sound for the different languages.

[Nilesh Oak]

Nilesh ji, the biggest problem that I had with history is that it leaves a bigger hole than the path it reveals.

Same thing is true of science - every new major discovery/leap creates bigger hole than the one it fills. This is to be cherished (As fellow Chemical Engineer and winner of Noble prize in Physics -Eugene Wigner said, "Eternal and ever growing ignorance is the basis for growth of science").

If your research of MBH is any indication and if the Hindu chronology has some basis, then we have, at least some basis to fill up the gaps. Adjusted for Human population growth, ideas like RV and the Dreaming practices of Native Australians could be some of the earliest practices of a man wondering about his place in the world.

Ok.

The technology to deal with such matters is now there all that is needed is the rigour in understanding and contextualising the observations.

Agree. Technology is always changing and with changing technology we may able to understand more of ancient Indian literature....both due to rigor but also the context.

In fact even the sections that are not directly helpful in dating can be helpful in establishing the context.

Agree. It is my experience that what I would have thought 'meaningless' or 'ordinary' statements/observations have been of enormous significance in dating certain historical events...but also in falsifying dogmatically held views and theories.

I am yet to buy your book (waiting for book fair & hardcover) and while I still may not agree with your 'date' but the way you have explained your methodology gives me confidence that your 'periods' may be very believable.

Now the kindle version is available for purchase in India, with special Indian price, in Indian Rupees via amazon. My offer of free PDF is still valid. I am still waiting for someone who vehemently opposes my proposed chronology of Mahabharata war of 18 days +/- 3 months time interval surrounding it. This is not to be confused with error. This is the time interval over which I have dated instances surrouding Mahabharata war, beginning with Krishna's departure from Upaplavya and ending with Bhishma Nirvana.

BTW how long do you think it would take for you to complete your work on Ramayana?

One year.

[RajeshA]

BTW how long do you think it would take for you to complete your work on Ramayana?

One year.

[RajeshA]

The other with lesser letters/signs like in harappa, is stil shrouded in mystery.

Sullivan Code

[Virendra]

Nilesh Ji have you read Kota Venkatachelum who in 1950s dated the Mahabharata war to 3136 BC?
Sorry if that was OT.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from a Sulekha Blog "Fabricating History – 2000 BC" by an AIT-Sepoy DMR Sekhar.

We should see research findings dispassionately. Stepanov’s article is a recent one and he must have taken note of earlier findings also. Reich’s team in their abstract also suggest that the major mix up of ANI and ASI took place somewhere around 2000 BC. We need to wait for the final article.

He does not take note of earlier findings or their conclusions. He just uses the data with the methods he and his colleagues developed. There was chatter that he didn't give his colleagues due recognition for their work! Anyway that is immaterial. Reich's article is btw more recent!

Reich's team however do say that both ANI and ASI are indigenous to the Indian Subcontinent and they had been living here for a long time. They said the major admixing happened around 2000 BCE but say some may have been going on earlier as well, and that is of course to be expected between neighboring people adhering to a common civilizational ethos.

As far as final article is concerned, well one can wait, but there is hardly any such thing as final article! We are still giving too much leeway to Western scientists here!

Indians have known for ages that we are an ancient civilization! Read Nilesh Oak's Book on the Dating of Mahabharata and how scientifically he has proven that the War started on October 16, 5561 BCE!

When Did the Mahabharata War Happen? The Mystery of Arundhati

[Nilesh Oak]

Nilesh Ji have you read Kota Venkatachelum who in 1950s dated the Mahabharata war to 3136 BC?
Sorry if that was OT.

Virendra ji,

Thank you for asking. I have read Rajesh Kocchar (847 BC) through S B Dixit (~7300 BC). Yes, I read Kota Venkatchalam's book. He proposed 3138 BC (small error of 2 year .. no big deal).

I have stated rationale of those who have proposed timing for MBH War 3102 BC + (going backwards) 36 years (+/- 5 years) time frame, in this thread. (sorry, i am still learning how to search, link etc.)

When you hear a date in this range 3136 BC -3145 BC, nothwithstanding the claim to contrary, these researchers have used very little astronomy evidence from Mahabharta (exception - P V Holay - 3143 BC) but all of them have assumed this date based on assumption for beginning of Kaliyuga (3102 BC) and then another reference - Krishna passing away/dwarka flood - 36 years after MBH war + Bhagavata purana refernces connecting the two. Once they decided on such date, they have spent rest of their efforts in justifying astronomy observations for their proposed year.

Few other reserachers (their proposals for MBH War) I have analyzed include,

PV Vartak, PV Kane, C V Vaidya, V R Lele, Modak, Holay, Raghavan, Achar, Ketkar, Karandikar, P C Sengupta, Anand Sharan, Mohan Gupta, RN Iyengar, Siddarth, Velandi Aiyer, Daftari, Khedwal, Kota Venkatachalam, Subhash Kak, R Vaidya, S Balakrishna.

And to briefly comment of Shir ManishH ji, comment "another Savvy OIT researcher (referrgin to Subhash Kak paper) suggest 3137 BC".....

Pluarlity of proposals is not the weakness of the method (e.g. Archeo-astronomy) but a reflection of a challenge that the discipline is trying to address. Growth of science would come to an end if there are no multiple theories and no conflicts between theory and observations.

There are multiple theories of geological formations, 'end of ice age', evolution and so on. Last time I attended conference on 'Quantum Mechanics' some 19 years ago at Berkley, there were 17 competing theories. My professor friend at Lawrence Berkley Lab tells me that number has grown since.

[RajeshA]

Wim Borsboom is writing a book. Some excerpts!



INTRODUCTION - An Ancient God Rediscovered




CHAPTER TWO - The Indus Valley Civilization Reappraised and its Ancient Language Understood

[Nilesh Oak]

Reading from right to left (not left to right) - Image on the left

I am doing this from memory. I don't have sullivan code in front of me.

First symbol is more like "Ni" (as in Nilesh).

If you ignore it, the rest reads (from right to left) Pra (pre)-na (an)-ya - Pranaya as in Romance.

Now look at the picture on the right... Does it appear to you as if they are Romancing? To me, it appears more like...they getting ready for fight, however, possibility of foreplay is not to be dismissed alltogether.

[member_22872]

Forget PIE. Assuming, Dr. Sullivan and Dr Kalyanaraman's decipherment to be in the right direction if not 100% correct, it is more tangible than PIE. So can this tell anything about language of Indus-Sindhu-Saravaswati Civilzation? it appears to be Sanskrit (obviously), but is it Vedic Sanskrit? can one use phonetics to this and draw conclusions as to it's progression?

[Virendra]

Now look at the picture on the right... Does it appear to you as if they are Romancing? To me, it appears more like...they getting ready for fight, however, possibility of foreplay is not to be dismissed alltogether.

Nilesh ji I think it could be because of how much and what we watch on TV
We the modern humans no longer mix with the nature as much as our ancestors did. I think our understanding is limited due to that.
Now I remember to have seen on TV so many times the Bull fight or race like famously is Spain. However I hardly remember to have seen a slow and sizzling hot scene between two grazing animals in the forest (ok those deliberately looking for it can find it - I don't deny that).
So my point is - our conditioning could be playing a part in the formation of opinion here.

Regards,
Virendra

[krithivas]

Mother of Sanskrit and related languages was spoken by Turkish farmers, says new study
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 633438.cms

The theory that Indo-European language spread riding piggy back on agricultural expansion was put forth by Professor Colin Renfrew in 1987. It says that the languages spread between 8,500 and 9000 years ago, with the spread of agriculture from what is now Turkey, but Anatolia. The latest research appears to confirm this, though many experts are not convinced.

The alternative and much more popular theory put forward by Maria Gimbutas is that pastoralists in the Russian and Ukranian steppes north of the Black Sea - the so called Kurgan culture - drove long distances in their chariots and settled in distant places. It is they who were responsible for the spread of the Indo-European languages some 5000 to 6000 years ago

[Nilesh Oak]

When one speaks of language coming into India or going out of India, the robustness of the theory should be tested for truth to see if the theory stand up to newer or more radical theories. The conventionally "accepted" theory of migration into India with Rig Veda being dated to 1200 to 1000 BC stands against other theories that seek to place the Rig Veda prior to 3000 BC. But what if the Rig Veda can be taken only as far back as - say 100 BC. What are the arguments for and against this?

Here is one.

Assuming Rigveda was in Sanskrit and not PIE, Panini was after Rigveda and knew Sanskrit

I have undelined and bold fonted my assumption this time...

Shiv ji, .. you are in trouble, watch out..

Panini mentions Shravisthadi ganana, i.e. Shravishtha (Dhanishtha) as first nakshatra
and assuming most conservative ancient date (little fantasy.. not more ) The timing of Dhanishta at winter solstice is during year precisely 1429 BC. Bingo! This is during 1500-1000 BC timeframe, much dreaded by you. But wait a minute, error probability is your friend. Aren't you eagerly waiting for what I am going to say next, with the same anticipation of a teenage girl on her first date......

You decide, where do you want to place Panini, as an self learned (mi solo) archeo-astronomer I can tell you that you can pick any number of your choice for this error probability (don't ask me what it is.. I don't know). But you can go +/- 1000 years from 1429 BC for time of Panini. Going backward by 71 years, let's make it 72 (remember, precession of equinoxes), will allow you skip dreaded time interval of 1500 BC -1000 BC

More help is on the way,

Panini has used many words from Ramayana, and assuming Ramayana occurred more than 72 years before Panini, it means Valmiki wrote in PIE. Oops, I meant to help you but had you in trouble.

I can not recall, if Panini has NOT used words from Mahabharata, if he has NOT, we are on good track again....

Panini was before Mahabharata and thus before 5561 BC and Dhanishtha was at Fall equinox in 9353 BC...but ooops.. again,

I can NOT use "Absence of evidnce = evidence of absence"

Where is my glass of red wine?