Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

[peter]

...In case of Persia the native religion was almost fully destroyed very quickly and there is no reason to convert.....

Absolutely correct observation. Zoroastrianism was destroyed very quickly. So the claim by Agnimitra that Turks became followers of Zoraster many hundred years after the initial conquest by Arabs seems far from truth.

[peter]

Can an expert unpack this paper:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/ ... 1450a.html
Does it go against Underhill's earlier paper? Or for?

Excerpt :

...We caution against ascribing findings from a contemporary phylogenetic cluster of a single genetic locus to a particular pre-historic demographic event, population migration, or cultural transformation...

It seems many of the geneticists don't like being dragged into AMT/OIT debates.

I am sure you don't mind commenting on what are the main tenets in the above paper? Does it still support OIT?

[peter]

Can you please stop parading your ignorance? TURKS DID NOT CONQUER PERSIA!
And here is a link with dates and place and actors involved. All Arabs no turks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia

peter ji, is it so difficult for you to concede a point? Even assuming we all adopt your ignorance that in the last few centuries Iran was not ruled by Turkic dynasties, I cited a few other examples of conquerors adopting the culture of the conquered. I don't understand your fanatical antics on this forum.

I have no problem in conceding a factually correct point. Turks issue is no go. Please see the earlier post.

Regarding Goths: European societies did not have caste system, rules on food pollution, rules on how foreigners are to be treated vis a vis the caste system and so on so forth.

To say that since it happened in rome it should have happened in India too is neither logical nor factual.

Do you understand what food pollution is? How about admittance of foreigners in the caste system? Do you know why the kashmir buddhist king could not be made a Hindu?

It is really important that you understand these points.

[Agnimitra]

peter ji, my last post on the subject:

I have no problem in conceding a factually correct point. Turks issue is no go. Please see the earlier post. ..."Zoroastrianism was destroyed very quickly. So the claim by Agnimitra that Turks became followers of Zoraster many hundred years after the initial conquest by Arabs seems far from truth."

I said pre-Islam. You seem to be very confused reading posts, or this is nothing more than trolling.
BTW, another correction - the population of Zoroastrians remained close to 50% in the Iranian countryside for centuries after the initial Islamic conquest. It was the final major push under the Qajars that completed the conversion.

Regarding Goths: European societies did not have caste system, rules on food pollution, rules on how foreigners are to be treated vis a vis the caste system and so on so forth.

To say that since it happened in rome it should have happened in India too is neither logical nor factual.

Do you understand what food pollution is? How about admittance of foreigners in the caste system? Do you know why the kashmir buddhist king could not be made a Hindu?

It is really important that you understand these points.

Do you realize that Zoroastrian society also has practices of food pollution, eugenics, etc? They protested even when the Macedonians intermarried with them. Yet they later assimilated - as long as the basic "system" was not destroyed.

When the Goths or Visigoths or any barbarian conquers a structured society, they often assimilate without destroying the system, but replacing or modifying some social actors.

Further, when a society with such a system conquers others, it often assimilates them, too. Even a very tribal society like the Jews did it very aggressively when they were on a conquering spree. But when they were being conquered, they did so reluctantly, and made up various theologies about it - to preserve the integrity of their system (see Halevi versus Maimonides on conversions).

It is absurd to suggest that the existence of laws of "social hygiene" precludes the assimilation of others, whether by victorious conquest, or reluctantly and diplomatically after being conquered.

Same case with Sanskritization within India - of willing clans who wanted to join, or victors in battle who wanted to be legitimized and civilized. The difference was that in India's case, the methods of "synthesis" and assimilation were often at a higher level than those of other civilizations - as pointed out by the quote from Aurobindo I had posted.

[Virendra]

I am sure you don't mind commenting on what are the main tenets in the above paper? Does it still support OIT?

I'm not even half an expert on genetics Peter ji. But I will read the paper and share my humble understanding of it.
----------------

Mesolithic-Neolithic Seafaring Migrations from the Indus Valley into North and South India Europe China the Pacific Archipelagos and South America
Recent paper by Wim J Borsboom.
Good read for a fresh 'connect the dots' exercise.
An exercise a day keeps the AMT away ..

[Murugan]

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/hara ... 39505.html

"Excavations show Harappan site died as Saraswati river dried"

"After Rakhigarhi, we can say that the Harappan civilisation was at least 1,000 years older than earlier thought. And contrary to our longheld, conventional understanding, it first emerged in the east and then moved west, originating as it did in the heart of the Ghaggar-Hakra basin, regarded by many as the place where the Saraswati once flowed," says Vasant Shinde, vice-chancellor of Deccan College who heads the team of archeologists - the largest Harappan site overtaking Mohenjodaro in Pakistan's Sind province.

[Murugan]

Iravathan Mahadevan Uvacha :

Noted epigraphist and Dravidologist Iravatham Mahadevan proposes the alternative interpretation to harmonise the core features of the ‘Agastya legend’, namely the northern origin of Agastya and his southern apotheosis as the eponymous founder of Tamil language and culture. An expert on Indus and Tamil-Brahmi scripts, Dr. Mahadevan has always maintained that ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ are two languages, and not races.

Noted epigraphist and scholar Iravatham Mahadevan insists that ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ are two languages, and not races.

[johneeG]

Iravathan Mahadevan Uvacha :

Noted epigraphist and Dravidologist Iravatham Mahadevan proposes the alternative interpretation to harmonise the core features of the ‘Agastya legend’, namely the northern origin of Agastya and his southern apotheosis as the eponymous founder of Tamil language and culture. An expert on Indus and Tamil-Brahmi scripts, Dr. Mahadevan has always maintained that ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ are two languages, and not races.

Noted epigraphist and scholar Iravatham Mahadevan insists that ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ are two languages, and not races.

It seems to me that they are neither races nor languages. Dravida was just a small kingdom within present-day Tamilnadu along with Pandyan and Chola. I am not even sure whether it was actually as ancient as the Vedhas.

The theory that Aryan and Dravidian are two separate language streams is just another way of saying that they are two distinct civilizations. If they are two distinct civilizations, then the chances of them being two separate races is quite high.

It seems to me that the whole Aryan-Dravidians thingy is just nonsense. What is astonishing is that most of this nonsense was developed in independent India.

Aryan Invasion theory was propounded in in 1944 by Mortimer Wheeler. And Dravidian parties were founded in 1949. British ruled India became Independent India in 1947. So, mostly, it was nehruvian regime, when Aryan-Dravidian thing became established as the indisputable.

From 1960s onwards, Aryan Invasion Theory gave way to Aryan Migration Theory as they themselves realized the inconsistencies in Aryan Invasion Theory. By 1980s, Aryan Migration Theory became more predominant in intellectual circles.

But even Aryan Migration Theory is just an attempt to keep the old Aryan Invasion Theory alive by making some cosmetic changes to it. Similarly, this theory that Aryan-Dravidian are two distinct language streams is the same attempt to keep the old theory alive.

In a way, it is back to basics. The whole exercise started with William Jones who had observed the similarity between Greek, Latin, Persian, and Sanskruth. He concluded that they must have the same origin. So, the colonials and later westerners have been trying to prove that Bhaarath is not that origin but something else even if they don't know what that something else is.

In short, the dravidian parties are based on a nonsensical, outdated and racist theory invented by colonial indologist which acquired prominence in Nehruvian era.

Its hightime to assert that entire Tamilnadu is not Dravidian leave alone entire South-Bhaarath. Chola and Pandya are mentioned along with Dravida. And of course, Andhras are mentioned separately in Puraanas where the word Dravida is seen. The word Dravida is not seen in Vedhas.

[Murugan]

Two different languages do not, necessarily make two different civilizations. Languages change, civilization remains same - e.g., India and Indian states.

For me Dravid is a geographical location below vindhya - where one aryan called Rahul Dravid hailing from Maharashtra lives

[johneeG]

Two different languages do not, necessarily make two different civilizations. Languages change, civilization remains same - e.g., India and Indian states.

For me Dravid is a geographical location below vindhya - where one aryan called Rahul Dravid hailing from Maharashtra lives

This is similar to some northies calling all southies as Madrasi. Are all southies Madrasis? Are all southies Dravidians? Madras/chennai is a city in TN. It is not even entire TN. The same applies to Dravida kingdom.

Two distinct language streams living together but being different does make them different civilizations(and high chances of different racial origins). This is especially true because many european languages are supposedly part of Aryan language stream.

So, Aryan language stream supposedly has European and North-Bhaarath languages. While Dravidian language stream supposedly has all south-Bhaarath languages. This theory quite clearly means that North and South Bhaarath represent two distinct civilizations and probably reason must be distinct racial origins.

BTW, how can Agasthya be connected Dhravidian thingy? Actually, Agasthya is supposed to be related to Chola rule according to some. So, are all south-Bhaarathiyas Cholans? These theories are just nonsense.

According to Vaalmiki Raamyana, Agasthya's ashram was near Tamraparni river(where Pandyas used to rule).

If Agasthya was the main reason for Thamil grammar, then where is the literature authrored by Agasthya in Thamil?

It seems to me that Agasthya is just a celebrated sage who lived near Tamraparni river and his origins are unknown. The northies seem to think that he was from South and deep Southies thought that he was from North. He supposedly married Lopamudra who was from Vidharbha.

Whether he personally contributed to Thamil language is unknown and unverifiable because no such work exists. The earliest extant work in Thamil is Tolkāppiyam which mentions Agasthya's migration from Dwarka.

But, when this work was written is uncertain. But, it seems to be a much recent work compared to the date of Agasthya. So, this work is unreliable to tell us correctly aboutly Agasthya.

Sangam literature doesn't seem to mention Dhravida or Agasthya. So, by the time of Sangam literature, the small Dravidian kingdom didn't exist. Pandya, Chola and Chera kingdoms ruled during the Sangam period supposedly. Sangam literature is the oldest extant literature from TN. And the word 'Sangam' itself seems to be closely associated to Sanskruth. This itself demolishes all the Aryan-Dravidian language theories.

[vishvak]

OT here. But consider possibility of traces of life found on Mars. Now can someone write a theory of Airyan Invasion?

AIT is just as absurd, no less. Regardless of its origin, which changes like a changing goal posts every some years, it is used to make invasion of a country ok, so that natives can present conveniences of invaders on demand - be it reverence, be it war, be it traditions, be it part of country - land minus population, and so on and so forth.

If tomorrow, Pakistan can pay someone to launch a spacecraft that travels similar to Mangal-yaan, will it make equal==equal to Indian efforts? The legitimacy of invaders is as absurd, regardless of life existed on Mars.

[peter]

I said pre-Islam. You seem to be very confused reading posts, or this is nothing more than trolling.

You are highly contradictory as is clear from your earlier messages. You said the following:

Shahnamah ends at the mohammedan conquest of Persia. So it does not support your argument.

I see you have trouble following simple posts. Let me summarize for you -
1. Post-Islamic Turks conquering Muslim Persians and adopting Persianized Islam is well known.

Question that you keep contradicting yourself on is whether any Islamic population adopted the fire worshippers religion and culture or not. You can't even make up your mind whether you want to talk about pre or post islamic conquest of Persia.

[peter]

I am sure you don't mind commenting on what are the main tenets in the above paper? Does it still support OIT?

I'm not even half an expert on genetics Peter ji. But I will read the paper and share my humble understanding of it.
----------------

Mesolithic-Neolithic Seafaring Migrations from the Indus Valley into North and South India Europe China the Pacific Archipelagos and South America
Recent paper by Wim J Borsboom.
Good read for a fresh 'connect the dots' exercise.
An exercise a day keeps the AMT away ..

Thanks! Now You will have to interpret the Borsboom article also since you posted it !

[Agnimitra]

I said pre-Islam. You seem to be very confused reading posts, or this is nothing more than trolling.

You are highly contradictory as is clear from your earlier messages. ...
Question that you keep contradicting yourself on is whether any Islamic population adopted the fire worshippers religion and culture or not. You can't even make up your mind whether you want to talk about pre or post islamic conquest of Persia.

The pre-Islam and post-Islam examples were separate - both of which support the point. Both, pre-Islam and post-Islam, Turkic tribes dominated and then adopted the religion of their Iranic hosts. Zoroastrianism and pre-Zoro religions in the first case, and Islam in the second case. It takes some special reading disability to conflate the two and ask for evidence of post-Islamic Turkic tribes adopting Zoroastrianism from the Islamized Iranian elites they conquered!

[JE Menon]

Peter despite clear explanations you are beginning to act like a troll here and that can be problematic.
First caution.

[A_Gupta]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0 ... rope-s-men

" How a few Bronze Age forefathers gave rise to most of Europe's men

New research suggests that the demographic expansion of Europe, beginning about 3,300 years ago, involved fewer men than women."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0 ... w-evidence

" Where did Europe get its languages? Scientists uncover new evidence.

An analysis of DNA from ancient Europeans points to a mass migration from the Eurasian steppe into Europe beginning some 4,500 years ago."

Need to harmonize these with out of India.
I think if Europe shows a mass immigration so clearly, and India does not, that is also very interesting.

[Prem Kumar]

Iravathan Mahadevan Uvacha :

Noted epigraphist and Dravidologist Iravatham Mahadevan proposes the alternative interpretation to harmonise the core features of the ‘Agastya legend’, namely the northern origin of Agastya and his southern apotheosis as the eponymous founder of Tamil language and culture. An expert on Indus and Tamil-Brahmi scripts, Dr. Mahadevan has always maintained that ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ are two languages, and not races.

Noted epigraphist and scholar Iravatham Mahadevan insists that ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ are two languages, and not races.

Iravatham Mahadevan has been saying this for some time I think. In "Breaking India", Rajiv Malhotra explains how, after Mahadevan ceased to be "useful" for the West, people like Steve Farmer attacked him when he said the above

[Prem Kumar]

This one is a LOT of fun! Iron Age in India is now dated to nearly 2200 BC

Rare discovery of daggers pushes back Iron Age in India (by a 1000 years!!)

[Prem Kumar]

Two different languages do not, necessarily make two different civilizations. Languages change, civilization remains same - e.g., India and Indian states.

For me Dravid is a geographical location below vindhya - where one aryan called Rahul Dravid hailing from Maharashtra lives

I don't know if this was discussed on this thread before, but the word Dravida was first used by Adi Shankara (referring to himself as Dravida-Sishu, meaning "Child from the Dravida region"). Dravida refers to a "land near the water" - i.e. the peninsular region of South India

[Nilesh Oak]

Two different languages do not, necessarily make two different civilizations. Languages change, civilization remains same - e.g., India and Indian states.

For me Dravid is a geographical location below vindhya - where one aryan called Rahul Dravid hailing from Maharashtra lives

I don't know if this was discussed on this thread before, but the word Dravida was first used by Adi Shankara (referring to himself as Dravida-Sishu, meaning "Child from the Dravida region"). Dravida refers to a "land near the water" - i.e. the peninsular region of South India

The word Dravid also occurs in Shrimad Bhagavad Purana. In the story of Manu and his rescue via Fish (avatar), Manu is referred to as Dravida King.

(My -highly speculative-theory likes to think of this time when Sundaland (around Indonesia) went under water - 18000 BCE - 15000 BCE)

[Virendra]

This one is a LOT of fun! Iron Age in India is now dated to nearly 2200 BC

Rare discovery of daggers pushes back Iron Age in India (by a 1000 years!!)

Lol .. there goes the "Aryans came and cleared Gangetic forests with their Iron weapons" argument of AIT
That was a very old and frequently used argument.

[Pulikeshi]

^^^

Aryans came and gave heathens real Iron on horses, whereas the SDRE were merely using fake Iron daggers riding fake horses!
</sarc never off>

[A_Gupta]

This one is a LOT of fun! Iron Age in India is now dated to nearly 2200 BC

Rare discovery of daggers pushes back Iron Age in India (by a 1000 years!!)

Lol .. there goes the "Aryans came and cleared Gangetic forests with their Iron weapons" argument of AIT
That was a very old and frequently used argument.

In the Mahabharata, the Pandavas cleared the forests at what became Indraprastha, by burning them down. Maybe they were too lazy to use their iron weapons.

[A_Gupta]

This one is a LOT of fun! Iron Age in India is now dated to nearly 2200 BC

Rare discovery of daggers pushes back Iron Age in India (by a 1000 years!!)

If you find the journal publication with these finds, please post here.

As far as I can tell, Optical Stimulated Luminescence can be used on the pottery, or on embedded sand grains on the iron objects, but not on iron directly.

[peter]

Peter despite clear explanations you are beginning to act like a troll here and that can be problematic.
First caution.

I am surprised you are accusing me of being a troll when in fact Agni has been changing the goal posts and has even changed the original question that was asked to fit it to the answers he is giving.

Please see this exchange where the original question is posed (http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1843811) :

And the Arabs converted the Fire Worshippers to their Mohamadden creed. Turks did not become fire worshippers as you seem to be alluding.

Now please tell me were the rulers of Iran before the Islamic conquest turks as Agnimitra is alluding to?

And did any Arab or Turk after the Islamic conquest of Persia embrace the religion of the conquered as in did they become fire worshippers?

And do not forget the context of how this debate started. The Sanskritization that is being alluded to in India makes the conqueror accept the religion of the conquered in this case hinduism.

I am merely pointing out that the example Agnimitra brings does not support his point.

Why is it so hard to see?

How am I a troll? Please take your statement back.

[peter]

I said pre-Islam. You seem to be very confused reading posts, or this is nothing more than trolling.

You are highly contradictory as is clear from your earlier messages. ...
Question that you keep contradicting yourself on is whether any Islamic population adopted the fire worshippers religion and culture or not. You can't even make up your mind whether you want to talk about pre or post islamic conquest of Persia.

The pre-Islam and post-Islam examples were separate - both of which support the point. Both, pre-Islam and post-Islam, Turkic tribes dominated and then adopted the religion of their Iranic hosts.

Were Sasannians Turks? Which book is your source for this? And please tell us which Sasannian "Turks" embraced Zoroaster religion?

And post Islam please educate us which turks became fire worshippers in Persia?

[Agnimitra]

So now you think I said the Sassanis were 'turks'?
I give up. I confess I have never seen someone tie things up in knots as oddly as you, dear peter ji.

To sum my points up -
1. It is absurd to suggest that the existence of laws of "social hygiene" precludes the assimilation of others, whether by victorious conquest, or reluctantly and diplomatically after being conquered.

2. It is a bogus claim that history is witness to nomadic clans victorious in battle against developed civilizations always impose their own culture at the cost of the native culture. Overwhelmingly, with a few exceptions, we find the exact reverse - of the less civilized invaders being assimilated by the host civilization without any loss to its integrity.

[A_Gupta]

NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/scien ... peans.html

...today’s Europeans descend from three groups who moved into Europe at different stages of history.
The first were hunter-gatherers who arrived some 45,000 years ago in Europe. Then came farmers who arrived from the Near East about 8,000 years ago.

Finally, a group of nomadic sheepherders from western Russia called the Yamnaya arrived about 4,500 years ago.
.....
......
Until about 9,000 years ago, Europe was home to a genetically distinct population of hunter-gatherers, the researchers found. Then, between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago, the genetic profiles of the inhabitants in some parts of Europe abruptly changed, acquiring DNA from Near Eastern populations.
....

The hunter-gatherers didn’t disappear, however. They managed to survive in pockets across Europe between the farming communities.
....
Between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago, however, hunter-gatherer DNA began turning up in the genes of European farmers.
....
About 4,500 years ago, the final piece of Europe’s genetic puzzle fell into place. A new infusion of DNA arrived — one that is still very common in living Europeans, especially in central and northern Europe.

The closest match to this new DNA, both teams of scientists found, comes from skeletons found in Yamnaya graves in western Russia and Ukraine.

....he Copenhagen team’s study suggests that the Yamnaya didn’t just expand west into Europe, however. The scientists examined DNA from 4,700-year-old skeletons from a Siberian culture called the Afanasievo. It turns out that they inherited Yamnaya DNA, too.

...For decades, linguists have debated how Indo-European got to Europe. ...The new genetic results won’t settle the debate, said Eske Willerslev, an evolutionary biologist at Copenhagen University who led the Danish team. But he did think the results were consistent with the idea that the Yamnaya brought Indo-European from the steppes to Europe.

....Dr. Heggarty noted that the studies showed the arrival of Yamnaya in Central Europe about 4,500 years ago. But Greek is an Indo-European language, and the oldest evidence of writing in Europe shows that Greek had developed about 3,500 years ago. By then, it was distinct from other Indo-European languages in Southern Europe, like Latin.

If the Yamnaya were the source of Indo-European languages, they would have had to get to southern Europe soon after they made it to Central Europe.

Dr. Heggarty speculated instead that early European farmers, the second wave of immigrants, may have brought Indo-European to Europe from the Near East. Then, thousands of years later, the Yamnaya brought the language again to Central Europe.

[shiv]

NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/scien ... peans.html
But he did think the results were consistent with the idea that the Yamnaya brought Indo-European from the steppes to Europe.

....Dr. Heggarty noted that the studies showed the arrival of Yamnaya in Central Europe about 4,500 years ago. But Greek is an Indo-European language, and the oldest evidence of writing in Europe shows that Greek had developed about 3,500 years ago. By then, it was distinct from other Indo-European languages in Southern Europe, like Latin.

If the Yamnaya were the source of Indo-European languages, they would have had to get to southern Europe soon after they made it to Central Europe.

Dr. Heggarty speculated instead that early European farmers, the second wave of immigrants, may have brought Indo-European to Europe from the Near East. Then, thousands of years later, the Yamnaya brought the language again to Central Europe.

Well I and others have posted a link several times on this thread about the connection between Lithuanian and Sanskrit which dates back over 5000 years. So there is no evidence that central Asia did not get IndoEuropean from India. From my unpublished book

A linguistic study of Vedic Sanskrit and Slovenian revealed similarities between the two languages in vocabulary, grammar and names. One in five Vedic Sanskrit and Slovenian words out of a total of over 1600 words were found to be similar. Even more fascinating was the finding that for all the similarities, there was no common word for metal. Since archaeological evidence suggests that metals came into use 5200 years ago, based on the finding of a metal axe with the well preserved 5200 year old body of the famous “Ice Man” of Tyrol, it is likely that Vedic Sanskrit and Slovenian were or a common earlier language were spoken by people more than 5200, years ago. This in itself places Vedic Sanskrit before 3000 BC.

Some people say Slovenian influenced Sanskrit. I say, and OIT says Sanskrit influence Slovenian. The proof lies in 12,000 year old M 17 (R1A1a1) subclade of the Y chromosome that originated in northwest India and spread as far as Poland. But another subclade M 548 originated in Poland 5000 years ago and is not found in India. That means there was net migration from here to there but not vice versa in the time period 12000 to 5000 years ago

[A_Gupta]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31695214

"An open question for us is whether the languages spoken by these steppe migrants were just ancestral to a sub-set of Indo-European languages in Europe today - for example, Balti-Slavic and maybe Germanic - or the great majority of Indo-European languages spoken in Europe today," Prof Reich told BBC News.

But he added that Indo-European languages spoken in Iran and India had probably already diverged from those spoken by the Yamnaya before the nomads blazed a trail into Europe.

[RajeshA]

Virendra ji,

Requesting some help here. Need to find out as much as I can about Bappa Rawal, however the info on the net seems to be limited. I feel the story of Bappa Rawal is placed much much too late. Do you know of any early texts which may not have undergone colonial revising?

[Prem]

AUM= Aryan Utratt Migrationvad

[peter]

Virendra ji,

Requesting some help here. Need to find out as much as I can about Bappa Rawal, however the info on the net seems to be limited. I feel the story of Bappa Rawal is placed much much too late. Do you know of any early texts which may not have undergone colonial revising?

Bappa Rawal as per my understanding existed in the early 8th century AD. His son was Khoman on whom the Khoman Raso was written.

From Mewar encyclopedia:
Ruler & Title:
Rawal KALBHOJ (BAPPA RAWAL) Founded the Mewar Dynasty Reign: 734-753
Capital:Chittor
Family:Guhilot

Mewar:
716, only 3 years old when Mahendra II dies; raised by Brahman priest, spends childhood in religious retreat in Nagda foothills where Eklingji worshipped. Harit Rashi teaches him to recognise Eklingji as supreme Lord of Mewar; gives Kalbhoj special blessing, predicting he will rule Mewar as Eklingji’s Diwan; gives specific code of conduct for him and successors. 734, Kalbhoj aged 21 learns his true identity, mounts an army and takes Chittor from Maun Mori, founds Mewar Dynasty. Given name of Bappa Rawal. Builds temple to Eklingji. Successful campaigns against invaders of Islam drive them back beyond western borders of Rajputana. Mewar becomes symbol of Rajput resistance and leading kingdom in Rajputana.

India:
c.725, great period of building under Rajput rule. 736, Tomara Rajputs found Dhillika (1st city of Delhi). 740, Chalukyas defeat Pallavas. 746, Gujara clan, the Chapas, found Andapura, principal city of west India till 1400s. c.750, Pala dynasty founded in eastern India by Gopala; earliest records of existence of Tamil language; Shore temples at Mamallapuram completed. 752, Dantidurga overthrows Chalukyas, establishes Rashtrakuta dynasty.

What dates are you working with for Bappa?

[RajeshA]

peter ji,

If Rama is considered ~67 generations after Ikshvaku, then Harita Rishi is considered 52 generations after Ikshvaku, as grandson of Ambarisha, an ancestor of Rama. So if Bappa Rawal is supposed to have met him, we are speaking of considerable antiquity.

Also there is speculation that the genealogy lists of Guhilots/Sisodias have become confused and with big holes.

Moreover he is said to have taken over from Raja Maan Mori of Mewar. The Moris would have been in power around Chandragupta Maurya's time, whose own coronation happens to be around 1534 BCE as per Puranas. So I am wondering if the Rajputs came about in the mid second millennium BCE.

[A_Gupta]

On the Proto-Indo-European Language of the Indus Valley Civilization (and Its Implications for Western Prehistory), in THE SINDHU-SARASVATI CIVILIZATION: NEW PERSPECTIVES (essays in honor of Dr. S.R. Rao) (2014) (peer-reviewed).

http://chicago.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID ... pdf&TYPE=2

[peter]

peter ji,

If Rama is considered ~67 generations after Ikshvaku, then Harita Rishi is considered 52 generations after Ikshvaku, as grandson of Ambarisha, an ancestor of Rama. So if Bappa Rawal is supposed to have met him, we are speaking of considerable antiquity.

Very interesting. But how do we ascertain that we had more than one Harit Rishi?

Also there is speculation that the genealogy lists of Guhilots/Sisodias have become confused and with big holes.

This is highly probable. Somani, Ram Vallabh in his book on Mewar does try to bring in all the extant evidence known upto his time on Mewar Genealogy. Inscriptions of various Guhilot families (they lived in multiple places) have been discussed by him and I find him the most believable. The other problem as you know was burning of libraries by the invading forces which did cause the destruction of many manuscripts.

Moreover he is said to have taken over from Raja Maan Mori of Mewar. The Moris would have been in power around Chandragupta Maurya's time, whose own coronation happens to be around 1534 BCE as per Puranas.

I think they have found either an inscription or a coin of Man Mori. They are considered a branch of Parmars. How I do not know because Paramars are the agnikund rajputs. I was hoping to engage KL Dubey and Agnimitra on the whole sanskritization and creation of rajputs theory but it got completely derailed.

So I am wondering if the Rajputs came about in the mid second millennium BCE.

Actually the textual evidence for their existence is from much earlier.

[Virendra]

Virendra ji,
Requesting some help here. Need to find out as much as I can about Bappa Rawal, however the info on the net seems to be limited. I feel the story of Bappa Rawal is placed much much too late. Do you know of any early texts which may not have undergone colonial revising?

I agree that information is scant on Bappa Rawal (after having tried myself before). But why do you think he should be dated considerably backwards? I don't seriously dispute any such opinion, just curious.
As per Airavat, the term 'Rawal' itself is a long traveled apabhransha of Rajkula (Rajkula>>>Rajula>>>Raola>>>Rawal).
Thus I think it is most likely contemporary of the time when north Indian kshatriyas were shuffling into the Rajaputra>>Rajput identity - i.e. post 5th century A.D.
Here's what I had summarized once. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3788&p=1337188&hilit=Bappa#p1337188
Following is a partially incorrect yet useful article - http://www.academia.edu/4500576/Bappa_R ... s_of_India
Two challenges with all researchers on Bappa are :
-- The name is generic and
-- The geneology/bardic records are messed up.

Is it his Iranian-Persian connection that has got you interested?

Regards,
Virendra

[Virendra]

peter ji,
If Rama is considered ~67 generations after Ikshvaku, then Harita Rishi is considered 52 generations after Ikshvaku, as grandson of Ambarisha, an ancestor of Rama. So if Bappa Rawal is supposed to have met him, we are speaking of considerable antiquity.

Also there is speculation that the genealogy lists of Guhilots/Sisodias have become confused and with big holes.

Moreover he is said to have taken over from Raja Maan Mori of Mewar. The Moris would have been in power around Chandragupta Maurya's time, whose own coronation happens to be around 1534 BCE as per Puranas. So I am wondering if the Rajputs came about in the mid second millennium BCE.

Interesting. The geneology lists have definitely, not speculatively, become confused because of the destruction and disruptions faced for more than a millennia. I had read somewhere that in one of the sieges of Chittor its libraries were burnt.
But Rajputs weren't around in 2nd century BCE. At least not with the identity of 'Rajput'. At that time there were kshatriya clans like Madra, Rajanya, Yaudheyas, Uttambhadra etc (same geography as Rajputs) whose historical trace is very limited - to coins and few inscriptions.
Just like ancient kshatriya term transitioned to medieval rajaputra >> rajput; the ancient Mauryas would have transitioned to medieval Mori? We have 8th century inscription of the Mori ruler.

[RajeshA]

Virendra ji,

thanks for your comments and help. I did read the academia.edu article earlier.

Well the Islamic sources do not mention him, so I was wondering if Bappa Rawal could be a figure from pre-Islamic times! It would be interesting to know for sure whether Bappa Rawal really took on the Arabs or simply some other Mlechha army occupying NW India. What is the level of certainty that he really fought the Islamics? Was it simply a convenient way to motivate other Rajputs to fight against the Islamics citing Bappa Rawal as having done it in his time as well? Considering that Bardic records are messed up, somebody may have "reused" the popular personality of Bappa Rawal and transported him centuries into his future to fight against the Islamics, even though he may have been a personality from much earlier. Just wondering!

[RajeshA]

the ancient Mauryas would have transitioned to medieval Mori? We have 8th century inscription of the Mori ruler.

I would think, it should be the other way round.

Mori >>> Maurya