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

[johneeG]

But couldn't they say that horses thus found in India or their immediate ancestors may have been brought in by Aryans themselves.
Or that horses mentioned so are wild and the ones brought in by Aryans would be domesticated and later other native horses were domesticated as well by Aryans?

Effort should be to prove that domesticated horse existed in India before 2000 BCE.
Sadly there are controversies and no clear verdict yet. On one hand the Horse vs. Onager debate is going on and on other hand the native domesticated species that far back are hard to find (like Equus Sivalensis) and verify.

Regards,
Virendra

Saar,
AIT is based on following reasoning:
Foreign researchers listened to Rig Vedha and noted that it has many mentions of horses(wild and domesticated). Then, the Harrappa and Mohenjodaro was discovered and were called Indus Valley Civilization. Supposedly, they did not find any horse remains there.

So, the foreign indologists came up with a theory that there were two civilizations:
a) One with the horses(who also happened to have Rig Vedha).
b) Another without horses(who lived in harappa in Indus valley).

Now, the next step was to ask the question: where did the Rig Vedhic people get their horses from?
There are no major sources of wild horses in Bhaarath according to these foreign Indologists. So, these horses must be foreign. If the horses were foreign, then the people who brought them must also be foreign. So, it was theorized that the Rig Vedhic people must be foreign. And they migrated or invaded the locals who used to live in harrappa.

Now, if it is shown that Rig Vedha clearly tells us that horses are actually found in Saraswathi bed river. Further, it is already shown that Indus Valley Civilization is actually spread around Saraswathi river. It means:
a) The horses are not foreign. So, the people of Rig Vedha are not foreign.
b) The people of Rig Vedha and the Saraswathi-Indus civilization are one and the same.
c) They were advanced enough to domesticate horses and elephants.

The mention of elephants indicates a possible southern geography also.

Essentially, it means that there is no logical reason to talk about 'Aryans' coming from outside Bhaarath. So, AIT is dead.

[Mukesh.Kumar]

JohneeG: Great summarization of facts, just one nitpick. Elephant origin does not have to be South based. Even today Elephants are found in Eastern Himalayas and the lower Gangetic valley. if in the past dense forest cover extended across North India, it is likely that elephants would have been local for most of Jambudwipa

[shiv]

Some moron came and found that "horse" was a convenient way of telling Indians that you morons had to learn from the west. And we still hang on to that argument. After the disproving of AIT on so many grounds I am astonished to see the fear uncertainty and doubt here - asking people that we need more proof. Come on people. Stop whining and wake up.

[devesh]

I know of a clear-eyed Hindu nationalist who thinks AIT is real and happened, though not on the time scale given by Western theorists. He used to be on BRF several years ago but back then his ideas were considered to too 'extreme' and he was kicked/forced out apparently. Many here follow his blog and twitter line too, I think. manasataramgini.

He's also a molecular biologist, and his research of the genetic evidence makes him a believer of AIT. so anybody who wants to argue with him will have to be a well-grounded biologist who can refute the genetic evidence which he believes supports AIT.

I'm bringing it up just as a pointer. Having no background in biology, most of the bio studies on genetics are way over my head.

[Tuvaluan]

devesh, this is an old one that explains the state of the art pretty well.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... of-humans/

[svinayak]

I know of a clear-eyed Hindu nationalist who thinks AIT is real and happened, though not on the time scale given by Western theorists. He used to be on BRF several years ago but back then his ideas were considered to too 'extreme' and he was kicked/forced out apparently. Many here follow his blog and twitter line too, I think. manasataramgini.

He's also a molecular biologist, and his research of the genetic evidence makes him a believer of AIT. so anybody who wants to argue with him will have to be a well-grounded biologist who can refute the genetic evidence which he believes supports AIT.

I'm bringing it up just as a pointer. Having no background in biology, most of the bio studies on genetics are way over my head.

The migration of humans between Europe and the Indian subcontinent is atleast from 150k before present year. Only thing is that it is not called AIT theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations

AIT was used by Europeans to create a European history to replace the church created history.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7447100/The-A ... ory#scribd

AIT was created by the Europeans and for Europeans only.
Due to colonization Indians got trapped in it.

[shiv]

I know of a clear-eyed Hindu nationalist who thinks AIT is real and happened, though not on the time scale given by Western theorists. He used to be on BRF several years ago but back then his ideas were considered to too 'extreme' and he was kicked/forced out apparently. Many here follow his blog and twitter line too, I think. manasataramgini.

He's also a molecular biologist, and his research of the genetic evidence makes him a believer of AIT. so anybody who wants to argue with him will have to be a well-grounded biologist who can refute the genetic evidence which he believes supports AIT.

I'm bringing it up just as a pointer. Having no background in biology, most of the bio studies on genetics are way over my head.

It's his belief and his prerogative to hold a different viewpoint. I think he is wrong and I am sure he would be as happy to accept a difference of opinion as I am, apart from the fact that I have some grounding in the same biology as him. The problem that I am talking about here is lack of belief in one or the other - the anxiety and worry that people have not stopped believing in AIT and therefore there must be a germ of truth.

There will always be people who believe in AIT, but one has to weigh the available information and decide what one wants to believe. I have no doubts whatsoever in this regard.

[johneeG]

JohneeG: Great summarization of facts, just one nitpick. Elephant origin does not have to be South based. Even today Elephants are found in Eastern Himalayas and the lower Gangetic valley. if in the past dense forest cover extended across North India, it is likely that elephants would have been local for most of Jambudwipa

True. But, it seems the best elephants were found near Vindhyas or south of it.

I know of a clear-eyed Hindu nationalist who thinks AIT is real and happened, though not on the time scale given by Western theorists. He used to be on BRF several years ago but back then his ideas were considered to too 'extreme' and he was kicked/forced out apparently. Many here follow his blog and twitter line too, I think. manasataramgini.

He's also a molecular biologist, and his research of the genetic evidence makes him a believer of AIT. so anybody who wants to argue with him will have to be a well-grounded biologist who can refute the genetic evidence which he believes supports AIT.

I'm bringing it up just as a pointer. Having no background in biology, most of the bio studies on genetics are way over my head.

I don't know anything about genetics, but it seems to me that genetics in itself would not be able to tell the direction of migration. At most genetics might indicate that there are some connections. However, genetics will not be able to give direction of migration.

One could easily explain away all the connections using Aryan Invasion or Out of India. Both would be able to explain the connections.

But, within the Rig Vedha and others, is there anything suggesting that they were foreigners migrating or invading to unknown lands? No.

One has to realize that in this case, the onus to prove AIT is on AITists because they are the ones claiming the Rig Vedhics came from outside. Those who believe Rig Vedhics must be from Bhaarath, are just stating the obvious. Because:
a) Rig Vedha talks about Bhaarath.
b) Rig Vedha survives in Bhaarath.

So, Rig Vedhics must be from Bhaarath.

Now, it is the opposite camp which has to prove their point.

Why Perpetuate Myths? ~ B B Lal

April 18, 2014
konarak

By B. B. Lal, Director General (Retd.), Archaeological Survey of India Lecture given at the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), New Delhi

For a pretty long time the following four myths have been obscuring our vision of India’s past:

Myth 1: ‘There was an Aryan Invasion of India’

Myth 2: ‘The Harappans were a Dravidian-speaking People’

Myth 3: ‘The Rigvedic Sarasvati was the Helmand of Afghanistan,’ and

Myth 4: ‘The Harappan Culture became Extinct’

And here is how these myths came into being. In the nineteenth century a German scholar, F. Max Muller, dated the Vedas, on a very ad hoc basis, to 1200 BC. Granting that the Sutra literature may have existed in the sixth-fifth centuries BC, he assigned a duration of two hundred years to each of the preceding literary periods, namely those of the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Vedas and thus arrived at the figure of 1200 BC for the last-named texts. However, when his own colleagues, like Goldstucker, Whitney and Wilson, challenged him, he stated that his dating was ‘merely hypothetical’ and confessed: ‘Whether the Vedic hymns were composed in 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC, no power on earth will ever determine.’ However, the saddest part of the story is that his blind followers, both in India and abroad, even today swear by 1200 BC and do not dare cross this Laksmana rekha.

Be that as it may. The first quarter of the twentieth century witnessed the discovery of an altogether unknown civilization on the Indian subcontinent, datable to the third millennium BC. Called variously the Harappan, Indus or Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, it is characterised, amongst other things, by systematic town-planning, an underground drainage, excellently engraved seals, a monumental script, a refined system of weights and measures and some beautiful statuary.

However, recent excavations have thrown new light on various other aspects of this civilization, which call for a fresh look at many issues connected with it. Radiocarbon dates indicate that its roots go back to the 5th millennium BC, while its peak period lay between 2600 and 2000 BC, after which began its decline.

With the discovery of Harappan Civilization there also started a debate about its authors. Because of Max Muller’s fatwa that the Vedas were not earlier than 1200 BC, it was argued that this civilization could not be associated with the Vedic people. Since the only other major language spoken on the subcontinent was the Dravidian it was but natural at that point of time to assume that the Dravidian-speakers were its authors.

In 1946 Sir Mortimer Wheeler carried out further excavations at Harappa and discovered a fortification wall around one of the mounds. However, his interpretation of it was nothing more than a mere flight of imagination. Since the Rigveda refers to Indra as puramdara (destroyer of forts), he jumped at the idea that there was an ‘Aryan invasion’ which destroyed the Harappan Civilization, and the latter became ‘extinct’. To give a prop to his thesis, he referred to certain skeletal remains found at Mohenjo-­daro, which, he held, provided evidence of a ‘massacre’ by the invaders.

If these skeletons are at all to be associated with a massacre by invaders, one expects that these would have come from the latest level. But the hard fact is that these came from various levels, some from the middle and some from the late, and some were found in deposits which accumulated after the site had been abandoned. Thus, there is no case for a massacre; and Professor George F. Dales of the University of California, Berkeley, has rightly dubbed it as a ‘mythical massacre’. Further, if there at all was an invasion, one expects at the site the weapons of warfare as also some remains of the material culture of the invaders. But there was no such evidence. On the other hand, there is a clear case of cultural continuity, not only at Mohenjo-daro but also at other Harappa Culture sites.

Commenting on this issue, Lord Colin Renfrew (UK) avers: ‘If one checks the dozen references in the Rigveda to the Seven Rivers, there is nothing in any of them that to me implies invasion… Despite Wheeler’s comments, it is difficult to see what is particularly non-Aryan about the Indus Valley Civilization.’

After a thorough analysis of the skeletal data, Professor Hemphill (of USA) holds: ‘As for the question of biological continuity within the Indus Valley, two discontinuities appear to exist. The first occurs between 6000 and 4500 BC. The second occurs at some point after 800 BC but before 200 BC.’ It is, thus, abundantly clear that no new people entered the Indus Valley between 4500 BC and 800 BC. So, where is any case for an ‘Aryan invasion’ around 1500-1200 BC?

Now to the second myth, viz. the ‘Harappan = Dravidian’ equation.
It has been made out that the Aryan invaders drove away the ‘Dravidian-speaking’ Harappans to South India but a small section somehow managed to stay on in Baluchistan, speaking the Brahui language. However, many scholars do not agree that Brahui belongs to the Dravidian group. Some even hold that the Brahui-speaking people migrated to that region from elsewhere during the medieval times. Further, if the so-called Dravidian-speaking Harappans were pushed down to South India, one expects some Harappan sites over there. But the hard fact is that i none of the four Dravidian­-speaking sates of South India, viz. Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala do we have even a single site of the Harappan culture !! On the other hand, what we do have in South India about that time is a neolithic culture. Do then the proponents of the ‘Harappan = Dravidian’ equation expect us to believe that the urban Harappans, on being sent away to South India, shed away overnight their urban characteristics and took to a Stone Age way of living?

Again, it has been observed all over the world that even if the original inhabitants are pushed out of an area, some of the rivers, mountains and towns in that area continue to bear the original names. Thus, for example, even after the Europeans overran North America and gave their own names to the towns, such as New York, New Jersey, etc., many of the names of the towns and rivers given by the earlier inhabitants, viz. the Red Indians, may still be noted: for example, Chicago and Massachusettas those of towns and Missouri and Mississippi as of rivers. But in the entire region once occupied by the Harappans there is not even a single name of river, mountain or town which can claim a Dravidian origin. Why? The obvious answer is that the Harappans were not a Dravidian-speaking people.

Let us deal with the third myth, viz. that the Helmand of Afghanistan was the Rigvedic Sarasvati.
This is totally wrong. According to RV 10.75.5, it lay between the Yamuna and Sutlej (imam me Gange Yamune Sarasvati Sutudri stotam sachata Parusnya…). RV 3.23.4 states that the Drishadvati and Apaya were its tributaries (Drishadvatyam manusa Apayam Sarasvatyam revadagne didihi… ). Further, RV 7.95.2 clearly mentions that the Sarasvati flowed all the way from the mountains to the sea (ekachetat Sarasvati nadinam suchir yati giribhya a samudrat… ). In Afghanistan there are no rivers by the name of Yamuna and Sutlej, nor are there Drishadvati and Apaya. Further, there is no sea in Afghanistan. So how can the Rigvedic Sarasvati be placed there? All this evidence ¾ positive in the case of India and negative in the case of Afghanistan ¾ clinches the issue: the present-day Sarasvati-Ghaggar combine, though now dry at places, does represent the Rigvedic Sarasvati (see Figs. 1 and 2); the Helmand of Afghanistan does not.

Earlier we had established that the Harappans were not a Dravidian-speaking people. Were then they the Sanskrit-speaking Vedic people? Against such an equation the following four objections have been raised. First, the Vedic Aryans were ‘nomads’, whereas the Harappan civilization had a major urban component. Secondly, the Vedas refer to the horse, whereas the Harappan Civilization is thought to be unfamiliar with it. Thirdly, the Vedic carts had spoked wheels, whereas the Harappan vehicles are supposed to be bereft of such wheels. And finally, since according to the dating of Max Muller the Vedas cannot be earlier than 1200 BC and the Harappan Civilization belonged to the third millennium BC, how can the two be equated?

Unlike nomads, the Vedic people lived a settled life and even constructed forts. In RV 10.101.8 the devotee’s prayer is: ‘[O gods] make strong forts as of metal, safe from assailants (purahkrinadhvamayasi-radhrista). RV 4.30.20 refers to ‘a hundred fortresses of stone’. Sometimes these had a hundred arms (RV 7.15.14: purbhava-satabhujih).

The Vedic people carried on trade, not merely on land but also across the sea. RV 9.33.6 states: ‘From every side, O Soma, for our profit, pour thou forth four seas filled with a thousand-fold riches (rayah samudranchaturo asmabhyam soma visvatah. Apavasva sahasrinah)’. Further, the ships used in sea-trade were not petty ones but could be as large as having a hundred oars (sataritra, RV.116.5).

Even on the political and administrative fronts, the Vedic people were highly organised. Not only did they have sabhas and samitis which dealt with legislative and perhaps judiciary matters, but they also had a well-established hierarchy amongst the rulers, viz. samrat, rajan and rajaka. Thus, in RV 6.27.8 Abhyavarti Chayamana is stated to be a Samrat (Sovereign), while RV 8.21.8 states that, dwelling beside the Sarasvati river, Chitra alone is the Rajan (king) while the rest are mere Rajakas (kinglings or petty chieftains). That these gradations were absolutely real is duly confirmed by the Satapatha Brahmana (V.1.1.12-13), which says: ‘By offering the Rajasuya he becomes Raja and by the Vajapeya he becomes Samrat, and the office of the Rajan is lower and that of the Samraj, the higher (raja vai rajasuyenestva bhavati, samrat vajapeyena l avaram hi rajyam param samrajyam).

The horse.
In his report on Mohenjo-daro, Mackay states: ‘Perhaps the most interesting of the model animals is one that I personally take to represent the horse.’ Wheeler also confirmed the view of Mackay. A lot more evidence has come to light since then. Lothal has yielded not only a terracotta figure of the horse (Fig. 3) but some faunal remains as well. On the faunal remains from Surkotada, the renowned international authority on horse-bones, Sandor Bokonyi, Hungary, states: ‘The occurrence of true horse (Equus Caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of the incisors and phalanges (toe bones).’ In addition, there are quite a few other Harappan sites, such as Kalibangan and Rupnagar, which have yielded the faunal remains of the horse.

The spoked wheel.
It is absolutely wrong to say that the Harappans did not use the spoked wheel. While it would be too much to expect the remains of wooden wheels from the excavations, because of the hot and humid climate of our country which destroys all organic material in the course of time – the Harappan Civilization is nearly 5,000 years old, the terracotta models, recovered from many Harappan sites, clearly establish that the Harappans were fully familiar with the spoked wheel.

On the specimens found at Kalibangan and Rakhigarhi (Fig.4), the spokes of the wheel are shown by painted lines radiating from the central hub to the periphery, whereas in the case of specimens from Banawali these are executed in low relief (Fig.5) – a technique which continued even into the historical times.

Now to the chronological horizon of the Vedas.
The Harappan settlement at Kalibangan in Rajasthan was abandoned, while it was still in a mature stage, because of the drying up of the adjacent Sarasvati river. This evidence has been thoroughly worked out by Italian and Indian hydrologists, and Raikes, the leader, aptly captions his paper: ‘Kalibangan: Death from Natural Causes.’ According to the radiocarbon dates, this abandonment took place around 2000-1900 BC. Eminent geologists, V. M. K. Puri and B. C. Verma, have demonstrated how the Sarasvati originated from the Himalayan glaciers and how subsequently its channel got blocked because of tectonic movements in the Himalayas, as a result of which the original channel dried up and its water got
diverted to the Yamuna.

Putting together the entire archaeological, radiocarbon­-dating, hydrological, geological and literary evidence, the following conclusion becomes inescapable, viz. that since during the Rigvedic times the Sarasvati was a mighty flowing river and according to archaeological-radiocarbon-dating-cum-hydrological evidence this river dried up around 2000 BC, the Rigveda has got to be earlier than 2000 BC. How much earlier, it would, of course, be anybody’s guess.

As is absolutely clear from RV 10.75.5-6, the entire area right from the Ganga on the east to the Indus on the west was occupied by the Rigvedic Aryans. Further, since the Rigveda must be dated to a period prior to 2000 BC, a question may straightaway be posed: Which archaeological culture covered the entire region from the Ganga on the east to the Indus on the west during the period prior to 2000 BC? Please think coolly and dispassionately. If you do that, you cannot escape the inevitable conclusion: It was none other than the Harappan Civilization itself (Fig. 6). However, in spite of such strong evidence in support of a Vedic = Harappan equation, it would be prudent, as I have all along advocated, to put this equation on hold until the Harappan script is satisfactorily deciphered. It is needless to add that all the tall claims made so far in this respect are not tenable at all.

There is also no truth in the fourth myth, viz. that the Harappa Culture became ‘extinct’. What had really happened was that the curve of the Harappa Culture, which began to shoot up around 2600 BC and reached its peak, in the centuries that followed, began its downward journey around 2000 BC. Several factors seem to have contributed to it.

Over-exploitation and consequent wearing out of the landscape must have led to a fall in agricultural production. Added to it was probably a change in the climate towards aridity. And no less significant was a marked fall in trade, both internal as well as external. As a result of all this, there was no longer the affluence that used to characterise this civilization. The cities began to disappear and there was a reversion to a rural scenario. Thus, there was no doubt a set-back in the standards of living but no extinction of the culture itself. In my recent book, The Sarasvati Flows On, I have dealt extensively with this aspect of continuity, giving comparable photographs of the Harappan objects and the present ones. In a nutshell, let it be stated here that whichever walk of life you talk about, you will find in it the reflection of the Harappa Culture: be it agriculture, cooking habits, personal make-up, ornaments, objects of toiletry, games played by children or adults, transport by road or river, folk tales, religious practices and so on. Here we give just a few examples. The excavation at Kalibangan has brought to light an agricultural field dating back to circa 2800 BC.It is characterised by a criss-cross pattern of the furrows (Fig. 7). Exactly the same pattern of ploughing the fields is followed even today in northern Rajasthan (Fig. 8 ), Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.Today mustard is grown in the widely-distanced furrows and chickpea in the narrower ones (Fig. 9) and it is most likely that these very crops were grown in a similar manner during the Harappan times; we do have evidence of both these items from the Harappan levels. Kalibangan has also yielded a linga-cum-yoni (Fig. 10) of the same type as is worshipped now (Fig .11).

This very site, along with Banawali, Rakhigarhi and Lothal, has brought to light ‘fire-altars’, indicating rituals associated with fire. In the illustration given here (Fig. 12) there were originally seven fire­-altars, some of which have been disturbed by a subsequent drain. There is a north-south wall at the back, indicating that the performer of the ritual had to face the east. In the front may be seen the lower half of a jar in which were found ash and charcoal, signifying that fire was kept ready for the ritual. Close to these fire-altars, on the left (not seen in the picture), there were a well and a bathing pavement, suggesting that a ceremonial bath constituted a part of the ritual. (It needs to be clarified that these fire-altars have nothing to do with those of the Parsis.)

It would appear to be a mere tale if it was stated that yogic asanas, which are now becoming fashionable even with the elites, were being already practised by the Harappans (Fig. 13).

A married Hindu woman usually applies sindura (vermilion) to the manga (the line of partition of the hair on the head); Fig.14). Though most surprising, yet it is a fact that Harappan ladies did the same,as evidenced by many female terracotta figurines (Figs.15 and 16). In these terracottas, the ornaments are painted yellow to indicate that these were made of gold, the hair is black, while a red colour has been applied in the manga, indicating the use of vermilion. Even the Hindu way of greeting with a namaste (Fig.17) is rooted in the Harappan Culture, as shown by certain other terracotta figures (Fig.18 ).

From the foregoing it must have become abundantly clear that all four theories, viz. that there was an ‘Aryan Invasion of India’, that the ‘Harappans were a Dravidian-speaking People’, that the ‘Rigvedic Sarasvati is the Helmand of Afghanistan’ and that there was an ‘Extinction of the Harappa Culture’, are nothing more than mere myths which, once created, have subconsciously been perpetuated. Since these have coloured our vision of India’s past, the sooner these are cast away the better would it be. How long must we continue to bury our heads, ostrich-like, into the sand of ignorance?

In retrospect. One is set wondering as to why and how this great civilization of the Indian subcontinent – called variously the
Harappan, Indus or Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and whose roots go as deep as the fifth millennium BC – still lives on, not as a fugitive but as a vital organ of our socio-cultural fabric. The Indian psyche has indeed been pondering over this great cultural phenomenon of ‘livingness’, and the quest has very aptly been echoed by a great Indian poet and thinker, Allama Iqbal, in these words:

Yunan-o-Misra-Ruma sab mit gaye jahan se
Ab tak magar hai baqi namo-nisan hamara
Kuchh bat hai ki hasti mitati nahin hamari
Sadiyon raha hai dusman daur-i-zaman hamara

The poet says that whereas the ancient civilizations of Greece, Egypt and Rome have all disappeared from this world, the basic elements of our civilization still continue. Although world events have been inimical to us for centuries, there is ‘something’ in our civilization which has withstood these onslaughts.

What is that ‘something’, some inherent strength? Doubtless it lies in the liberal character of the Indian civilization, which allows for cross-fertilisation with other cultures, without losing its own identity. One may well recall the words of the greatest man of our times, Mahatma Gandhi: Let me keep my doors and windows wide open so that fresh air may enter from all directions. Nevertheless, he was firmly seated in his room (the soul). The soul of India lives on!

Link

----
There are two words: Sura and Asura which seem to keep recurring. They are rivals and cousins according to the scriptures. They fought wars against each other where the Asuras were initially winning because they knew some special sanjivani vidhya(thanks to their preceptor Shukra). So, Suras sent the son of their preceptor, Kacha to learn the Vidhya.

We are also told that Suras and Asuras together milked the ocean and Amrutha was born at that time.

Now, it seems that the Avestans pray to Asuras(Ahura Mazda) while Hindhus pray to Suras.

So, who are these Suras and Asuras?

Lets look at the etymology:
Ra means Fire.
Su-Ra means Best Fire.

Now, what is the Best Fire? It seems to me that Sun is the best fire as considered by the ancients. So, Sura means Sun.

To clinch the connection:
Saura means Solar.
Surya means Solar Deity.
Both the words Saura and Surya are related to Sura.

This etymology also explains why Ra is associated with Sun in Egypt.

Generally, people think that Surya means Sun. But, thats not true. Surya means Solar Deity. The word for Sun seems to be Sura.

The word Sura is closely associated to Div i.e. light. The word 'Dhiv' is closely associated with the words Dhiva(Day) and Dheva(Sura).

So, who are these Suras and Asuras?

It seems to me that Suras are Surya-Vamshis and Asuras are Chandhra-Vamshis. Asuras are also called Nishacharas i.e Nocturnal.

Now, Surya(Solar) Dynasty and Chandhra(Lunar) Dynasty are quite famous in Bhaarath and it seems that Suras and Asuras is also an allusion to them.

It seems that the Solar Dynasty worshiped Sun and Indhra. Indhra and Sun are treated as alter egos in scriptures.

----
About iron:
It seems that Rig Vedha mentions 'Ayas'. It can be any metal.
There seem to be smelting kilns found in Lothal.
Since, fast moving chariots and forts are mentioned, I think its quite possible that Iron was known at that time.

Now, some people object that the word 'Ayas' is to be taken as a general name for any metal and that the metal being mentioned in the Rig Vedha must be either Copper or Bronze, but it can't be Iron.

Firstly, if its a general purpose name for any metal, then it can be iron also, no? Why exclude Iron?
Secondly, the word for 'magnet' in Sanskruth is 'Ayas-kaantha'.

The specific word for copper in Sanskruth is 'Tamra' i.e. Reddish.
The specific word for bronze in Sanskruth is 'kansya'.

[Prem Kumar]

My question to JohneeG was along the lines of "What additional evidence does Horse-presence along Saraswathi provide that is not known already?" AIT-wallahs will continue to insist that these horses were brought in by invading Aryans.

I think AIT has been pretty much demolished. Those who still believe in it will continue to do so, come what may.

The goalpost for the OIT academics is now different:

a) Build upon the works of Talageri - advancing the linguistic & textual arguments further. Produce more papers that reference his works. He has laid the broad framework. But the individual pieces have to be pieced together

b) Genetic research by Indians have largely focused on study of Indian genomes, which pretty much say "no external influx in last 12500 years at least". While this is helpful in destroying AIT, it doesn't make a case for OIT. What we need to do is study the genetic distribution amongst Central Asian, Middle Eastern, North & South European, Sino-Tibetan people and see if there is evidence for outward gene flow from India. Without this, drivel continues to be published like a recent paper on how they found Steppe genes amongst Europeans - and that's proof of how everyone came from the Steppes

[Tuvaluan]

What we need to do is study the genetic distribution amongst Central Asian, Middle Eastern, North & South European, Sino-Tibetan people and see if there is evidence for outward gene flow from India.

Prem Kumar, that scientific american paper does exactly that, in case you have not read it already.

[Prem]

Madh/ Maadh/ Madhyam= Mid+dle

[Tuvaluan]

Build upon the works of Talageri - advancing the linguistic & textual arguments further. Produce more papers that reference his works.

This is a terrible idea -- the entire bogus notion that linguistics can determine direction of migration of people is utter poppycock. The entire notion must be discredited by refusing to buy any arguments based on linguistics, period.

[Prem Kumar]

Tuvaluan (for your 1st point): I had only skimmed through the Sci-Am article. But just went through the paper on which it is based. Am not a geneticist & so try to understand whatever I can from the paper and some key-takeaways. Pasting a link to the paper below & some key quotes

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/earl ... 3.full.pdf

The paper, in its initial summary, states what to conclude & what not to:

The best argument for the “Anatolian hypothesis” that Indo-European languages arrived in Europe from Anatolia ~8,500 years ago is that major language replacements are thought to require major migrations, and that after the Early Neolithic when farmers established themselves in Europe, the population base was likely to have been so large as to be impervious to subsequent turnover. However, our study shows that a later major turnover did occur, and that steppe migrants replaced ~3/4 of the ancestry of central Europeans. An alternative theory is the “Steppe hypothesis”, which proposes that early IndoEuropean speakers were pastoralists of the grasslands north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and that their languages spread into Europe after the invention of wheeled vehicles. Our results make a compelling case for the steppe as a source of at least some of the IndoEuropean languages in Europe by documenting a massive migration ~4,500 years ago associated with the Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures, which are identified by proponents of the Steppe hypothesis as vectors for the spread of Indo-European languages into Europe. These results challenge the Anatolian hypothesis by showing that not all Indo-European languages in Europe can plausibly derive from the first farmer migrations thousands of years earlier (SI11). We caution that the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland that also gave rise to the Indo-European languages of Asia, as well as the Indo-European languages of southeastern Europe, cannot be determined from the data reported here (SI11). Studying the mixture in the Yamnaya themselves, and understanding the genetic relationships among a broader set of ancient and present-day Indo-European speakers, may lead to new insight about the shared homeland.

Then, in the Supplementary Information 11 (page 134 in the PDF), David Anthony & David Reich add their spin by speculating which "homeland hypothesis" does this paper support. Needless to say, OIT is not one of the contenders:

The two leading theories of Indo-European language dispersal are:
1. The “Steppe hypothesis”, which derives Indo-European languages from the people buried under kurgans on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in modern Ukraine and southern Russia.
2. The “Anatolian hypothesis”, which suggests that early farmers who migrated from Anatolia to Europe during the Early Neolithic brought Indo-European languages with them

To me, the best part of this paper is that it mostly kills off the Anatolian Hypothesis (or at least seriously weakens it, by making it at-best a "partial hypothesis")

However, this paper doesn't preclude the possibility that the Homeland could be India. It only establishes that Central Europeans have Steppe genes. But it does place restrictions on any Homeland theory including OIT. They need to explain the Steppe migration & any associated language dispersion. Needless to say, genetic migration can only strengthen/weaken a language dispersion theory but cannot prove it

Notice also how the sleazeballs Anthony & Reich coolly mention Elite Dominance as a possible migration path into India, given that genetic evidence has demolished both AIT & AMT. Going by the logic below

a) If Steppe genes are found in India - YaaY, AIT is proven!

b) If Steppe genes are not found in India - the Steppe herders culturally overtook India via Elite Dominance, notwithstanding the small fact that the Sarasvathi-Sindhu civilization was as large as Europe with a population likely approaching/exceeding millions and a very advanced civilization, compared to the Steppe herders (unlike Europe at that time)

One important future direction for genetic research into Indo-European origins is to obtain ancient DNA data from India, Iran, northwestern China, and intervening regions to test hypotheses about the spread of Indo-European languages to the east. While obtaining such data is likely to be more difficult than European ancient DNA work (because of poorer conditions for preservation), it could provide crucial clues. For example, if the people who brought substantial steppe ancestry to northern Europe (via the Yamnaya and Corded Ware) also spread Indo-European languages into Iran and India, we should expect to find steppe ancestry in prehistoric samples from the Iranian plateau and South Asia, unless the mode of language transgression was different there (e.g. elite dominance).

[Prem Kumar]

Tuvaluan (for your 2nd point): about Linguistics. Talageri doesn't base his OIT arguments on Linguistics alone. His primary evidence is the textual evidence: chronology of the Rig Veda, its descriptions & comparisons with Zend Avesta & Mittani texts.

However, amongst the OIT proponents, he is one of the few (alongwith Elst) that doesn't hand-wave the Linguistics argument away. He shows that the Linguisitic dispersal model supports OIT very well! Even Linguists admit that they cannot determine the homeland by linguistic arguments alone (though some try to do so in a backhanded way). However, the presence of Isoglosses places restrictions on what kind of dispersals are possible. This is exactly what Talageri beautifully explains in his theory - his argument is that its only the OIT theory that can satisfactorily explain Isoglosses, especially Tocharian. The other models fall short. Needless to say, Western Academic community pretends like this elephant doesn't exist in the room

I readily admit that Linguistics is a soft-science akin to 17th Century Chemistry - lots of empiricism & theories and not enough data to back it up with. However, some of the Linguistics arguments are strong & cannot be simply wished away. Talageri has instead embraced it. IMO, both vectors of attack are essential:

a) Linguistics needs to be shown up for the sham it is (in those areas where it over-stretches itself)
b) Linguistics needs to be incorporated into an OIT model

[Tuvaluan]

I readily admit that Linguistics is a soft-science akin to 17th Century Chemistry - lots of empiricism & theories and not enough data to back it up with. However, some of the Linguistics arguments are strong & cannot be simply wished away.

That fact that arguments that can be made either way to support one's point is exactly why this avenue needs to be closed off -- if not wished away, linguistics may be made irrelevant by the disproving bogus theories based on linguistics via innovative resesarch based on hard sciences. In fact, the very fact that Romila Thapar and the Witzels of the world were able to BS and push their bogus nonsense for decades without getting called out for it, simply by being part of a clique, argues for eviscerating all theories based on linguistics, whether for or against OIT/AIT or any other theory.

Talageri has instead embraced it. IMO, both vectors of attack are essential:

a) Linguistics needs to be shown up for the sham it is (in those areas where it over-stretches itself)
b) Linguistics needs to be incorporated into an OIT model

The problem with this approach is that after a point, it simply becomes a matter of who is quoted in more journals or who can be sidelined by intellectually dishonest academics that take advantage of the fact the social sciences lends itself to spreading bullpoop under the name of scholarship. For every talageri, all that is required is a dozen witzels from US and EU universities who spread absolute horse manure. Consider the twit Rohan Murthy, who has just pumped in 33 million $ to fund exactly the same crowd that has been creating BS on Indian history for decades, and managed to get away with it simply because they had the "harvard" or "oxbridge" label associated with them (remember Doniger, Steve Farmer and Michael Witzel). This group of dishonest academics will simply have more influence and money to shout down and basically create counternarratives to every Talageri narrative, which is not much of an improvement from the status quo.

[Nilesh Oak]

Tuvaluan (for your 2nd point): about Linguistics. Talageri doesn't base his OIT arguments on Linguistics alone. His primary evidence is the textual evidence: chronology of the Rig Veda, its descriptions & comparisons with Zend Avesta & Mittani texts.

However, amongst the OIT proponents, he is one of the few (alongwith Elst) that doesn't hand-wave the Linguistics argument away. He shows that the Linguisitic dispersal model supports OIT very well! Even Linguists admit that they cannot determine the homeland by linguistic arguments alone (though some try to do so in a backhanded way). However, the presence of Isoglosses places restrictions on what kind of dispersals are possible. This is exactly what Talageri beautifully explains in his theory - his argument is that its only the OIT theory that can satisfactorily explain Isoglosses, especially Tocharian. The other models fall short. Needless to say, Western Academic community pretends like this elephant doesn't exist in the room

I readily admit that Linguistics is a soft-science akin to 17th Century Chemistry - lots of empiricism & theories and not enough data to back it up with. However, some of the Linguistics arguments are strong & cannot be simply wished away. Talageri has instead embraced it. IMO, both vectors of attack are essential:

a) Linguistics needs to be shown up for the sham it is (in those areas where it over-stretches itself)
b) Linguistics needs to be incorporated into an OIT model

+101

[Nilesh Oak]

I readily admit that Linguistics is a soft-science akin to 17th Century Chemistry - lots of empiricism & theories and not enough data to back it up with. However, some of the Linguistics arguments are strong & cannot be simply wished away.

That fact that arguments that can be made either way to support one's point is exactly why this avenue needs to be closed off -- if not wished away, linguistics may be made irrelevant by the disproving bogus theories based on linguistics via innovative resesarch based on hard sciences. In fact, the very fact that Romila Thapar and the Witzels of the world were able to BS and push their bogus nonsense for decades without getting called out for it, simply by being part of a clique, argues for eviscerating all theories based on linguistics, whether for or against OIT/AIT or any other theory.

Talageri has instead embraced it. IMO, both vectors of attack are essential:

a) Linguistics needs to be shown up for the sham it is (in those areas where it over-stretches itself)
b) Linguistics needs to be incorporated into an OIT model

The problem with this approach is that after a point, it simply becomes a matter of who is quoted in more journals or who can be sidelined by intellectually dishonest academics that take advantage of the fact the social sciences lends itself to spreading bullpoop under the name of scholarship. For every talageri, all that is required is a dozen witzels from US and EU universities who spread absolute horse manure. Consider the twit Rohan Murthy, who has just pumped in 33 million $ to fund exactly the same crowd that has been creating BS on Indian history for decades, and managed to get away with it simply because they had the "harvard" or "oxbridge" label associated with them (remember Doniger, Steve Farmer and Michael Witzel). This group of dishonest academics will simply have more influence and money to shout down and basically create counternarratives to every Talageri narrative, which is not much of an improvement from the status quo.

Tuvaluan ji,

All your points have merit. You have stated them well and I agree.

Even then, It is critical that work of Shri. Talageri is recognized for its worth. I am first to disagree with his 'so called' absolute chronology for Rig Veda Manadalas and in fact assert that there is enormous evidence to falsify the 'absolute chronology'. On the other hand, in his relative chronology, there is so much precious stuff that is capable of opening avenues in areas of genealogies, genetics, OIT migrations, geological changes in India and much more.

Nilesh

[Tuvaluan]

Nilesh, Unlike DNA-based evidence, linguistic theories cannot stand on their own to give conclusive evidence about the direction of migration, which is why the Romila Thapars and Witzels had to fabricate a lot dubious archeological evidence to provide a backing to the timeline that they conjured up. This also means that archeological evidence that contradicts a timeline established by a theory can be used to confound any linguistic arguments used to support that theory.

In the long term, this whole approach is pretty shaky and brittle and not worth wasting time on, and worse, will have to be repeatedly defended to the point where it can then be stated that the arguments are "highly questionable" and "controversial", which is just an euphemism for "is mostly BS".

Consider how people are able to create a mountain of BS when it comes to evolution, by misrepresenting exactly how the evidence is put together to create a solid theory of evolution. All the opponents have to do is come up with some new nonsense like creationism or Intelligent design every few years and then pretend that evolution has been conclusively disproven, or at the very least that their theory is at least as solid as evolution...both have the same effect of raising questions about evolution via pseudoscience and innuendos.

DNA based theories of migration are based on the simple notion of the original tribe having a higher variation in H Pylorii strains than tribes that split off from the original group, and also connects the aborigines to people in India to the people in africa -- the caucasian tribes were shown to be a branch of this larger tribe from the evidence based on this line of research. These results are repeatable and that is its biggest strength -- no future Doniger or Witzel can creatively interepret the results to push their pet prejudices as solid theories. JM2P.

[Yagnasri]

Mango man alert please - As per the tradition Vedas were divided and organised by Veda Vyasa. If this tradition is accepted - how there is any basis for deciding the chronology of mandalas ? Is there is any basis for not accepting this tradition?

[Nilesh Oak]

Mango man alert please - As per the tradition Vedas were divided and organised by Veda Vyasa. If this tradition is accepted - how there is any basis for deciding the chronology of mandalas ? Is there is any basis for not accepting this tradition?

This is precisely the reason why references to 'Shantanu' and 'Deavapi' are found in 10th Mandala of Rigveda (10:98:7)

(Shantanu and Devapi, were great-grandfathers of Pandavas)

That may also explain why oldest to newest Mandala are not in the sequence per what we have today (i.e. 1, 2, 3.. 10 ), based on rationale employed by Shri. Talageri.

Vyasa appears to have divided and organized them as he saw fit. The reference to Vyasa diviving, organizing and editing Vedas appears in Mahabharata.

It appears Vyasa had taken upon himself, herculean task of editing and compiling so much, hence the name 'Vyasa'

--
Different but related subjects...

Astronomy references in Mahabharata text, especially around the timing of the Mahabharata War, appears in a sequence as if they were collected by someone.. written on a piece of paper in a logical sequence.. but then dropped those papers on the ground and only someone else picked them up and wrote them down without caring for their sequence.

More curious may read.. When did the Mahabharata War Happen?: The Mystery of Arundhati by yours truly.

[Nilesh Oak]

Nilesh, Unlike DNA-based evidence, linguistic theories cannot stand on their own to give conclusive evidence about the direction of migration, which is why the Romila Thapars and Witzels had to fabricate a lot dubious archeological evidence to provide a backing to the timeline that they conjured up. This also means that archeological evidence that contradicts a timeline established by a theory can be used to confound any linguistic arguments used to support that theory.

Tuvuluan ji,

I agree with almost everything you are saying. The evidence coming from fields such as genetics, geology, astronomy, archeology is nowhere to be compared with 'linguistics'.

As you said correctly, Linguists tortured 'archeological evidence'. In any case, many non-linguist are also responsible for confusing archeological evidence. They create the hell out of themselves and others in interpreting 'archeological evidence' (typical scenario I run into is that of 'absence of evidence = Evidence of Absence')

[Prem]

This Rabbi explaining Gita, Sanskars, Body etc actually !!

[Virendra]

I don't know anything about genetics, but it seems to me that genetics in itself would not be able to tell the direction of migration. At most genetics might indicate that there are some connections. However, genetics will not be able to give direction of migration.

No, genetics can tell you (via varying Haplotype diversity) the lebensraum of a gene. Meaning the earliest known occurence of the gene in question. That effectively sets the direction of if and wherever the gene flew out .. right?

It seems to me that Suras are Surya-Vamshis and Asuras are Chandhra-Vamshis. Asuras are also called Nishacharas i.e Nocturnal.
Now, Surya(Solar) Dynasty and Chandhra(Lunar) Dynasty are quite famous in Bhaarath and it seems that Suras and Asuras is also an allusion to them.

Suryavanshis are the kshatriya clans that followed solar calendar and Chandravanshis are the ones that followed lunar calendar. That is all there is to it. This is another way of segregating society just as the Gotra system did (from genetic point of view).

[shiv]

I think it is important to recall that "Philologists" and "Indologists" along with "Orientalists" are a group of people whose works were encouraged and promoted as a way of showing the east/India/Orient as a fascinating but outdated and curious "other" that stood apart in contrast to the civilization and development of Europe and the West. One does not have to search very far to find books in which personal observations of people travelling through India and opinions picked up from meeting people here and there and seeing incidents were written down in works that were passed off as scholarly tomes that others studied when they wished to learn about the Orient or India. Nothing much has changed.

[Yagnasri]

mango alert -

I was thinking about the archaeological evidence or lack of it in India. If we assume that Kashi nagari is there for say 5,000 years and if we set out to find it in present day Kashi. Will we find out anything ? No. It is because there is a present day city there. People demolish and build constructions etc in a live city. Many of our nations cities are in the same place for ages. Take for example Vijayanagara - there are destroyed structures there because - Hampi ( present name of the place) is not inhabited - mot much at least as on today. In other places cities have "moved" so what due to change of river direction etc we find proof of very old constructions etc.

In a way we are fortunate that Saraswathi civilization cities and villages could be found because there is a desert there since the civilization moved on to other places. Same case with Iraq, Iran etc. Another thing is the nature of constructions. We find very few Indian constructions are made by stone to last for long time. Most of them are made by mud bricks for ages and even today. It is not possible for any construction of such nature to be there for ages particularly if the city itself is continuing and not abandoned.

Further can the expectation of finding mud constructions after thousands of years in tropical conditions are correct just because you are finding stone constrictions in desolate deserts?

I seriously doubt goras taken all this into consideration when they set archaeological benchmarks for India.

end of mango contribution.

[Pulikeshi]

Nilesh, Unlike DNA-based evidence, linguistic theories cannot stand on their own to give conclusive evidence about the direction of migration, which is why the Romila Thapars and Witzels had to fabricate a lot dubious archeological evidence to provide a backing to the timeline that they conjured up. This also means that archeological evidence that contradicts a timeline established by a theory can be used to confound any linguistic arguments used to support that theory.

In the long term, this whole approach is pretty shaky and brittle and not worth wasting time on, and worse, will have to be repeatedly defended to the point where it can then be stated that the arguments are "highly questionable" and "controversial", which is just an euphemism for "is mostly BS".

Couple of brief points - you are correct only to an extent:

1. Science (even the Indian version) requires examination of facts and validation of hypothesis from multiple points of view. It is not so much that DNA-based evidence is superior, there are several problems even with that approach, it is that even linguistics will have to be re-cast in Prakrits (for lack of a better word) more ancient than Sanskrit or Tamil. This will have to be done to establish the centrality of the civilization of Bharat to all of Eurasia.

2. The existence of the Roma proves that migrations from India to Europe are not only possible, but may have happened repeatedly. Except for better documented Greek and later Colonial arrival in India we do not have too many instances of known European migration or even Central-Asian mass migration into India. Here the genetics do not support outside in theories. Side note: Without taking names, I will also mention that in the genetic community some of the Indian researchers who have papers funded by well known universities and grants are not considered experts and are otherwise not well published (impact factor not numbers). This brings into question the veracity of quite a bit of current research. Concepts like ASI, ANI, etc. have been thrown around without any valid hypothesis to back it up but current broken myths. That said, common sense and some accepted history shows migration out of India both to the West and to the East of India in broader Eurasia. That is a fact - even without genetics or linguistic evidence.

3. Like I have said here before - traditionalists view the Rig Veda in an ahistorical context. Those that want to dwell in historicizing the Rig Veda - come in two flavors - One the outsiders who are blind to the culture and context that received the Rig Veda and there were perhaps oral traditions older which are now lost. Certainly even with the Rig and other Vedas, it is clearly mentioned that we have lost several oral traditions and what remains are compilations per specific sage and tradition. Two the insiders who are blindly mimicking their tormentors and coming up with alternate theories should be viewed with the same sympathy one views the prejudiced outsiders.

4. Even if current Indian culture came out of Afghanistan, Tibet or Iran, neither can the current geographic centrality of India be diminished, nor can the movements of people out of India to the East and to the West be ignored. Instead of tilting at windmills, and succumbing to the myths of hoof and horse setups, it is better to create new myths and let the current idiocy and its dreamer meet its maker and newer generations learn the truth.

5. Finally - it is about WU stupid! All actions since the British left India have been to prevent the arrival of Indian Universalism. Wendy Doniger and friends can take that to the bank and she has been her entire professional life!

[Nilesh Oak]

mango alert -

I was thinking about the archaeological evidence or lack of it in India. If we assume that Kashi nagari is there for say 5,000 years and if we set out to find it in present day Kashi. Will we find out anything ? No. It is because there is a present day city there. People demolish and build constructions etc in a live city. Many of our nations cities are in the same place for ages. Take for example Vijayanagara - there are destroyed structures there because - Hampi ( present name of the place) is not inhabited - mot much at least as on today. In other places cities have "moved" so what due to change of river direction etc we find proof of very old constructions etc.

In a way we are fortunate that Saraswathi civilization cities and villages could be found because there is a desert there since the civilization moved on to other places. Same case with Iraq, Iran etc. Another thing is the nature of constructions. We find very few Indian constructions are made by stone to last for long time. Most of them are made by mud bricks for ages and even today. It is not possible for any construction of such nature to be there for ages particularly if the city itself is continuing and not abandoned.

Further can the expectation of finding mud constructions after thousands of years in tropical conditions are correct just because you are finding stone constrictions in desolate deserts?

I seriously doubt goras taken all this into consideration when they set archaeological benchmarks for India.

end of mango contribution.

Yagnashri

A parallel to what you just stated also occurs, as illustrated in brilliant works of, Shri Anil Narayanan (series of papers on Indian Astronomy---based on Surya Siddhanta). While Surya Siddhanta was updated many times, the updaters chose not to update the 'lattitudes' of Nakshatra-Yogatara, and this fact allowed Anil to calculate the original (or the oldest one could based on data of SuryaSiddhanta) epoch for the Surya Siddhanta calculations.. which he estimated to be around 7300-7800 BCE. He could also estimate timing for few corrections... around 5300 BCE and 3200 BCE , etc.

keep it coming.. your Mango contribution...

[Yagnasri]

This is mango season sir. Hot and mango will start coming.

[Tuvaluan]

It is not so much that DNA-based evidence is superior, there are several problems even with that approach,

Please elaborate on these problems -- AFAIK, DNA based evidence is "superior" based on the simple concept that H.Pylorii variations are considerably higher in populations that were the source of the migrations and considerably less variations in tribes that split from the original. The aborigines and african tribes have the most variations and the caucasians the least variations. If there is some problem -- and I would like to know what they are with this approach -- it is probably related to these ground assumptions being insufficiently strong.

The only way to prove such things is to have people accept some common logical approach -- anything else is just setting up a political fight rather than trying to find the objective truth, if such a thing is possible.

[Nilesh Oak]

It is not so much that DNA-based evidence is superior, there are several problems even with that approach,

Please elaborate on these problems -- AFAIK, DNA based evidence is "superior" based on the simple concept that H.Pylorii variations are considerably higher in populations that were the source of the migrations and considerably less variations in tribes that split from the original. The aborigines and african tribes have the most variations and the caucasians the least variations. If there is some problem -- and I would like to know what they are with this approach -- it is probably related to these ground assumptions being insufficiently strong.

The only way to prove such things is to have people accept some common logical approach -- anything else is just setting up a political fight rather than trying to find the objective truth, if such a thing is possible.

The challenge with DNA evidence is related to 'assumptions' for rate of mutations and such. Thus, while relative chronology remains on a decent footing (there could be challenges here too), absolute chronology is a NO NO.

Having said that, I am convinced (in my subjective view) that with time, genetics is going to get better.

[Tuvaluan]

The challenge with DNA evidence is related to 'assumptions' for rate of mutations and such

mutations of H. Pylorii seem to be a relatively recent phenomena due to use of antibiotics. Also, what is used is the common sets of H.Pylorii among different populations, so mutations that are unique from any other species that existed until now do not enter the picture. So, if Population A has the set of species HA and population B has a the set of species HB -- and HB is a strict subset of HA, the A is considered to be the main tribe and HA is considered a branch. Any mutation in HA or HB that is not found in the other is eliminated from the comparison.

Absolute chronology seems to be unnecessary, nor is it likely to determinable given that even carbon dating is known to be unreliable beyond approx 40000 years -- just being able to classify one set of people as being the population from which another set of people branched off, resolve the main parts of the picture as to the direction of migration. The rest of the picture can be resolved after making it clear that the aryans did not invade India in horses, but split off from the people in India based on DNA evidence -- the romila thapars, witzels and other dishonest charlatans were able confuse the picture by confusing the direction.

[Murugan]

A good read on IVC / Arya / Harappa and Proverbial Horse by Mark Kenoyar

http://a.harappa.com/sites/g/files/g654 ... usTrad.pdf

[johneeG]

JohneeG: Great summarization of facts, just one nitpick. Elephant origin does not have to be South based. Even today Elephants are found in Eastern Himalayas and the lower Gangetic valley. if in the past dense forest cover extended across North India, it is likely that elephants would have been local for most of Jambudwipa

About elephants:

FROM THE GAJA SHASTRA
( Elephant Scripture -Handbook )

a
The care and husbandry of elephants is documented in great detail in the Gaja Sastra, a definitive instruction on the science of the elephant. Gaja Sastra was authored by Palakapyamuni, who is said to be the offspring of Samagayanamuni and a female elephant.

Gaja Shastra deals with the behaviour and characteristics of elephants, and gives the methodology of how to categorise elephants on the basis of certain bodily marks. Kumaraswamy has written exhaustively on Gaja Sastra. In his purports, he has given 16 methods to test various marks on the bodies of elephants.

The science of elephants is also dealt with in the Brhat Samhita. The following text is taken from Chapter LXVII, "Signs of Elephants":

"Those elephants are called Bhadras whose tusks have the colour of honey, limbs are proportionately developed and distinct, which are not too stout, nor too lean, are fit for work (quite active), have equal limbs, backbone resembling a bow, and hips similar to those of boards (i.e., round).

The characteristics of the class designated as Manda are: a loose breast, loose folds on the waist (or loose waist and folds), a hanging belly, thick skin and neck, huge belly and root of the tail, and a leonine look.

Those that belong to the Myga class have short lip, tail-hair and penis, slender feet, neck, teeth, trunk and ears, the large eyes (or pupils). Those that belong to the Sankirna class have the characteristics of the above three classes intermingled.

The height of an elephant of the Myga class if 5 cubits; length, 7 cubits; and girth, 8 cubits. These numbers increased by one are those of the Manda class (i.e., 6, 8, and 9 cubits respectively); by two, of the Bhadra class (i.e., 7, 9, and 10 cubits). The Sankira has no fixed dimensions.

The colour of the Bhadra elephant is green; so is its ichor [water produced during rut]. That of the Manda class is yellow and its ichor too is yellow. That of the body and ichor of the Myga type is black, while that of the two of the Sankirna type is of a mixed nature.

Blessed are the elephants that have red lower lip, palate and mouth; eyes like those of sparrows; glossy tusks that are raised at the lips; long and broad face; arched and long backbone, lying deep and not protruding; the frontal globes resembling the back of a tortoise, and covered with thin and scanty hair (each pore having a single hair); broad ears, jaws (chins), navel, forehead and penis; 18 or 20 nails that are convex like the tortoise; round trunk covered with three vertical lines; fine hairs and fragrant ichor and breath.

Elephants with long fingers and red tip of the trunk, with its trumpeting similar to the thunder of clouds, and with a long, broad and round neck, bring good fortune to a king. [The fingers of elephants are the fleshy projections on the tip of the trunk.]

Elephants that are never intoxicated, that have too many too few nails and limbs, that are crooked or dwarfed, whose tusks resemble a ram's horns, whose testicles are prominent, which are devoid of the special lotus-shaped tip of the trunk (i.e., Puskara), whose palate is dusky, blue, variegated or black; which have tiny tusks or no tusks at all, or are impotent, are to be removed by the king to another country, as they produce very disastrous results. The same treatment should be given to a cow (elephant) which has the characteristics of a bull and to one that is pregnant.

The tip of the trunk is called Puskara as it is shaped like a lotus. Matkuna is an elephant without tusks. An impotent elephant is called Sandha. A new type of elephants called Vikata, not mentioned in Brhat Samhita, is described by Utpala, who writes: Why should the king send such unwanted elephants elsewhere? According to the Dharmasastra, elephants ought not to be killed except in battle. The term given is not merely 'another country', but and enemy's country, because the king would wish that his misfortune might overtake his enemy."

In Brhat Samhit, Chapter XCIV is described the attitude of elephants"

"The elephant's tusk should be cut off at a height that is equal to twice its circumference at its root; but in the case of elephants roaming about marshy places a little more than the above should be left off, and in the case of those of mountains, a little less.

If the cutting of the tusk be white, even glossy and of good smell, it would bestow prosperity. The effects of the dropping down, and the fading of colour of the tusk are similar to those of its breaking.

The Gods, demons and human beings reside in the root, middle part and tip respectively of the elephant's tusk. The effects of omens in these parts will be in order great, moderate and slight, and will be felt in a short time (i.e. within a week), after some time (i.e. within a month), and after a long time (i.e. after a month) respectively.

The effects of the right tusk breaking in these three parts (viz. root, middle and tip) are severally the fleeting of the king, the population and the army; of the left tusk, destruction of the prince, royal preceptor and the mahout, as well as of the army of mountaineers the king's consort and leading personages (commanders) respectively.

If both the tusks are found to break, complete ruin of the royal family is to be predicted; but if the splitting occurs in a benefic ascendant (Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Virgo, Libra, Sagittarius or Pisces), lunar day, asterism and the like, there will be an increase of prosperity and happiness; otherwise, there will be an increase of misery.

If the elephant be found to break or split the middle of its left tusk by striking against milky trees, or trees laden with sweet fruits or flowers, or against the banks of rivers, the destruction of the enemy si assured; otherwise (against thorny trees etc.) or at the breaking fo the right tusk (or of the left one at the root or tip), there would be prosperity to the enemy.

(Elephants, and even bulls, indulge in a sport called Vapra-krida in Sanskrit literature. This consists in the animal striking an embankment with its tusk.

If the elephant has a stumbling gait, if its ears stop beating suddenly, if it appears very dejected, if it breathes soft and long, placing its trunk on the earth, if its eyes are full of tears or closed, if it is always sleepy, if it behaves in a refractory manner, if it east something unwholesome, or if it passes blood and dung too frequently, it forebodes danger.

If the elephant breaks wantonly ant-hills, trunks of lopped trees, bushes, shrubs (or small trees) or trees, if it looks jolly, if it goes in the direction of the march, with quick steps, holding aloft its face, it at the time of its being accoutred it ejects spray or trumpets repeatedly, or if it gets intoxicated at the time, or if it takes its trunk around the right tusk, it confers victory.

If an elephant is dragged into the water by a crocodile, the king will be destroyed; if on the other hand, the elephant should drag the crocodile from the water to the bank, the king would be victorious (and prosperous)."

Link

Now, the word 'Bhadhra' used for certain type of Elephants is very interesting. There are two prominent places in south which have these words. There is a river in Karnataka named Bhadhra. Later this river merges with the river Tunga and is called Tunga-Bhadhra. There is a wild Sanctuary in karnataka called bhadhra where there are many elephants.Wiki Link to Bhadhra Wild Sanctuary in karnataka

Then, there is a Bhadhra-Adhri(i.e. Bhadhra mountain) on the banks of Godavari river in Telangana.

Ramayana mentions that the elephants are prominently found near Vindhyas.

If we add all these things, then Bhadhra elephants seem to be found mainly south of Vindhyas in the region of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana and AP.

In Thelugu, the word 'Bhadhra Gajam' is used frequently. Mruga Gajam or Mandhra Gajam are not used much. Further, I haven't seen the word 'Bhadhra Gaja' being used much in Hindhi generally. So, I would think that the elephant of type Bhadhra is found mainly in Thelugu areas(Kannada and Thelugu are very similar and seem to be cousins if not twin brothers).

The Airavata elephant seems to be an elephant which is found near the river Iravathi. Now, Iravathi is identified as river Ravi by many. I don't know if its correct identification or not. Generally, Airavatha elephants are depicted as white, so its possible that these elephants were thought to be found in Himalayan regions. Whether they are real or mythical is not known to me.

My question to JohneeG was along the lines of "What additional evidence does Horse-presence along Saraswathi provide that is not known already?" AIT-wallahs will continue to insist that these horses were brought in by invading Aryans.

I think AIT has been pretty much demolished. Those who still believe in it will continue to do so, come what may.

The goalpost for the OIT academics is now different:

a) Build upon the works of Talageri - advancing the linguistic & textual arguments further. Produce more papers that reference his works. He has laid the broad framework. But the individual pieces have to be pieced together

b) Genetic research by Indians have largely focused on study of Indian genomes, which pretty much say "no external influx in last 12500 years at least". While this is helpful in destroying AIT, it doesn't make a case for OIT. What we need to do is study the genetic distribution amongst Central Asian, Middle Eastern, North & South European, Sino-Tibetan people and see if there is evidence for outward gene flow from India. Without this, drivel continues to be published like a recent paper on how they found Steppe genes amongst Europeans - and that's proof of how everyone came from the Steppes

Saar,
AIT is based on the logic that the wild horses were not native to Bhaarath. So, they must have been brought from outside. Now, when archeological or literary evidence shows presence of horses in Bhaarath, AITists says that these horses were from outside. They claim that this shows migration or invasion. The only way to prove that the horses were native to Bhaarath is to show the exact words of the ancients that the horses are native.

This is an almost impossible task.

The only way to comprehensively demolish the AIT is to show the exact quote from Rig Vedha that horses are found in Bhaarath. This was not done previously. So, AIT is able to survive despite many flaws. Now, luckily, I have been able to find that Rig Vedhic quote that horses are found near Saraswathi river and that even today Marwari and Kachiawari horse breeds are found where Saraswathi used to flow.

So, my discovery demolishes the AIT once and for all. The AITists have no legs to stand upon with this discovery(if its accepted as correct). Of course, I am assuming that I am the first one to notice this and that no one has made this discovery before(which amazes me because it is actually a simple and literal reading as it is without any sophistication or twisting).

I think unnecessary confusion is created in this whole affair. Saraswathi river used to flow from Rajasthan and Gujarath. It was between Yamuna and Sindhu rivers. Once the Saraswathi river dried up, the area became desert. I don't know what is so difficult in this to make to so complicated.

The major rivers were Ganga in the east and Saraswathi in the west of Bhaarath. Saraswathi was called the wife of Brahma and Ganga is called as the wife of Shiva. Saraswathi is the eastern boundary and Sindhu is the western boundary of sacred Kuru region where a great war(s) was fought. This is mention in Mahabharatha and similar thing is mentioned in Puranas and also Vedhas(Dhasha-rajanya war). Bhrigu clan of school was from the Kutch region of Gujarath according to Skandha Purana. Bhrigus also are called as living on the banks of Saraswathi river. Clearly, Saraswathi flowing through the Kutch of Gujarath.

We are told by Mahabharatha that Parashu-Raama killed many kings in Kuru-kshethra. Mahabharatha also mentions that there was a great war between Kauravas and Paandavas in Kuru field and that the field is on the banks of Saraswathi river. Infact, it tells us that Bala-Raama was visiting all the pilgrim places on the banks of Saraswathi river and came to Kuru field. Vedhas tell us that Sudas fought a great war on the banks of Parushini river. Parushini is mentioned as one of the Saptha-Sindhu rivers in Vedhas. It is generally identified as Ravi river. So, clearly, a great war between Saraswathi and Sindhu is a theme which is found in Mahabharath, Vedhas and Puraanas.

Vedhas also tell us that the Bhrigu clan was one of the participants of the Dhasha-Rajanya war.

Even the great famine that seems to have been responsible for the vanishing of the Saraswathi has been captured in Puraanas. The famine is described as being so severe that people turned towards eating dog meat or even dead human meat. The famine was so severe that following the rituals became impossible to follow.

There is another angle to this:
Once the saraswathi river and its tributaries dried up, the area became a desert. It removed all the forests in the region. And the cities, towns and villages became depopulated. So, people of this region migrated to other regions. East, west, north and south. Some of them may have gone outside Bhaarath to western regions.

But, the larger impact is that this open up the Bhaarath for the invasions from the central asia because now the major impediments(like forests and rivers) were less. This is the larger geo-political effect of drying up of Saraswathi river. So, invasions before the drying up of Saraswathi are simply not possible because of the dense forest cover and the rivers. Infact, the horse based armies would find it difficult to cross so many rivers and jungles to invade or even migrate. It is only after the Saraswathi dried up and the area became a desert that the central asian hordes are able to invade Bhaarath.

Moreover, horses were found abundantly near Saraswathi river and jungles on its banks. Once the river and the jungles dried up, the horses became rarer. So, Bhaarath had to depend on horses from Afghanisthan and Bahlikha more and more. This also gave much advantage to the invading forces from central-asia in the middle-ages. Before Saraswathi dried up, the central asians would have had no advantage because Bhaarath also had its own source of horses and there were mighty rivers and jungles to stop easy invasion.

The Sarasvati River is one of the chief Rigvedic rivers mentioned in ancient Hindu texts. The Nadistuti hymn in the Rigveda (10.75) mentions the Sarasvati between the Yamuna in the east and the Sutlej in the west, and later Vedic texts like Tandya and Jaiminiya Brahmanas as well as the Mahabharata mention that the Sarasvati dried up in a desert.

Most scholars agree that at least some of the references to the Sarasvati in the Rigveda refer to the Ghaggar-Hakra River, while the Helmand River is often quoted as the locus of the early Rigvedic river. Whether such a transfer of the name has taken place, either from the Helmand to the Ghaggar-Hakra, or conversely from the Ghaggar-Hakra to the Helmand, is a matter of dispute.

There is also a small present-day Sarasvati River (Sarsuti) that joins the Ghaggar.

Link

So, it seems to me that the Saraswathi river dried up around 2000 BCE and thar desert was formed from that time. That seems to be the period when Upanishadhs were being created and Buddha seems to have lived around the same period.

This drying up of Saraswathi river seems to have had profound effects on the people of the region. The stories of Saraswathi drying up and the Gaggar-Hakra river becoming more productive than the originally mighty Saraswathi are actually preserved in the old testament in the Abraham's story.

Abraham's story is very interesting because it tells us about migrations from east to west. It also tell us that the Sara(Saraswathi river) was wife of Abraham(Brahma) and she did not produce any off-springs, so Abraham had to depend on Hagar(Gaggar-Hakra River). In afghanisthan, a river has been re-named as Haraxwathi as tribute to the Saraswathi river which dried up. So, the memories of Saraswathi drying up seems to have been preserved in different stories in different ways. There are also Saraswatha-Brahmins in Bhaarath.

So, from OIT's point of view, drying up of Saraswathi led to a fresh round of migrations from Bhaarath to west.

I would say that if there is any migration or invasion into Bhaarath from outside, then that migration or invasion would have to be after the Saraswathi dried up.

[johneeG]

^^^
Continuing further on this path:
One can even clearly say which branch of Bhaarath migrated to west after Saraswathi dried up. The clues are found all over the place. First, the words: Rann of Kutch and Iran are related. They are both derived from the word 'Irinam'. 'Irinam' is a vedhic word for 'desert'. So, it seems people migrated from Rann of Kutch to Iran.

This means:
a) By this time, Rann was already arid.
b) By this time, Iran was also arid.
c) But, it seems that the situation in Rann was worse than Iran. So, there was migration of Rann to Iran.

The next connection is the religion Zorashtrianism. The word Zorashtrian seems to be a corruption of the word 'Saurashtra'. So, they came from Saurashtra(or Gujarath). Bhrigu school seems to have been established in the Kutch area and some of them seem to have migrated to Iran.

From thereon, the story is taken over by the Old Testament. Old Testament tells us that Abraham's ancestors migrated from Iran(Babylonia) to west(Palasthana). And then, they went further to west into Egypt.

So, actually, the migration to Egypt from Bhaarath is quite clear and even contained in Old Testament itself.

Now, middle-eastern civilizations of that time have clear imprint of Bhaarath. They are Assyria and Mittani. Assyrias honored Asuras and Mittanis honored Suras. Both were related to each other and neighbours. Eventually, Mittanis seem to have been digested into Assyria. Today, the place where Mittanis used to live is called 'Syria'. So, clearly, the word seems to have come from the word 'Sura'. So, Assyria comes from 'Asura' and Syria comes from 'Sura'. The word Mittani itself seems to have the meaning 'Twins' and is based on twin rivers in the region.

If we put all these things together, then the story becomes quite clear. Around 2000 BCE when the Saraswathi river dried up, people migrated from Rajasthan and Kutch areas to neighbouring areas. One group from Kutch settled in Iran. They went further west due to a flood. They settled in Syria and its neigbouring areas.(Palasthana).

Against Apion(1.179) written by Flavius Josephus(37 CE - 100 CE) quotes Clearchos of Soli(student of Aristotle) who quotes Aristotle(320 BCE) that:

Cherilus also, a still ancienter writer, and a poet, (16) makes mention of our nation, and informs us that it came to the assistance of king Xerxes, in his expedition against Greece. For in his enumeration of all those nations, he last of all inserts ours among the rest, when he says," At the last there passed over a people, wonderful to be beheld; for they spake the Phoenician tongue with their mouths; they dwelt in the Solymean mountains, near a broad lake: their heads were sooty; they had round rasures on them; their heads and faces were like nasty horse-heads also, that had been hardened in the smoke." I think, therefore, that it is evident to every body that Cherilus means us, because the Solymean mountains are in our country, wherein we inhabit, as is also the lake called Asphaltitis; for this is a broader and larger lake than any other that is in Syria: and thus does Cherilus make mention of us. But now that not only the lowest sort of the Grecians, but those that are had in the greatest admiration for their philosophic improvements among them, did not only know the Jews, but when they lighted upon any of them, admired them also, it is easy for any one to know. For Clearchus, who was the scholar of Aristotle, and inferior to no one of the Peripatetics whomsoever, in his first book concerning sleep, says that "Aristotle his master related what follows of a Jew," and sets down Aristotle's own discourse with him. The account is this, as written down by him: "Now, for a great part of what this Jew said, it would be too long to recite it; but what includes in it both wonder and philosophy it may not be amiss to discourse of. Now, that I may be plain with thee, Hyperochides, I shall herein seem to thee to relate wonders, and what will resemble dreams themselves. Hereupon Hyperochides answered modestly, and said, For that very reason it is that all of us are very desirous of hearing what thou art going to say. Then replied Aristotle, For this cause it will be the best way to imitate that rule of the Rhetoricians, which requires us first to give an account of the man, and of what nation he was, that so we may not contradict our master's directions. Then said Hyperochides, Go on, if it so pleases thee. This man then, [answered Aristotle,] was by birth a Jew, and came from Celesyria; these Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calami, and by the Syrians Judaei, and took their name from the country they inhabit, which is called Judea; but for the name of their city, it is a very awkward one, for they call it Jerusalem. Now this man, when he was hospitably treated by a great many, came down from the upper country to the places near the sea, and became a Grecian, not only in his language, but in his soul also; insomuch that when we ourselves happened to be in Asia about the same places whither he came, he conversed with us, and with other philosophical persons, and made a trial of our skill in philosophy; and as he had lived with many learned men, he communicated to us more information than he received from us." This is Aristotle's account of the matter, as given us by Clearchus; which Aristotle discoursed also particularly of the great and wonderful fortitude of this Jew in his diet, and continent way of living, as those that please may learn more about him from Clearchus's book itself; for I avoid setting down any more than is sufficient for my purpose. Now Clearchus said this by way of digression, for his main design was of another nature. But for Hecateus of Abdera, who was both a philosopher, and one very useful ill an active life, he was contemporary with king Alexander in his youth, and afterward was with Ptolemy, the son of Lagus; he did not write about the Jewish affairs by the by only, but composed an entire book concerning the Jews themselves; out of which book I am willing to run over a few things, of which I have been treating by way of epitome. And, in the first place, I will demonstrate the time when this Hecateus lived; for he mentions the fight that was between Ptolemy and Demetrius about Gaza, which was fought in the eleventh year after the death of Alexander, and in the hundred and seventeenth olympiad, as Castor says in his history. For when he had set down this olympiad, he says further, that "in this olympiad Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, beat in battle Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, who was named Poliorcetes, at Gaza." Now, it is agreed by all, that Alexander died in the hundred and fourteenth olympiad; it is therefore evident that our nation flourished in his time, and in the time of Alexander.

Link

Many have speculated that the word 'Yahudhi' is a corruption of the word 'Yadhava'. Yadhavas lived in Dhwaraka before it submerged. After the submerging of Dhwaraka, the Yadhavas scattered around in the Gujarath(Saurashtra & Salva) & central Bhaarath regions. Its possible that those who migrated out of Bhaarath may have claimed to be Yadhavas.

Worship of Cows and Bulls in Egypt is known. Among Jews, it seems that it was Moses who proscribed the worship of Cows. Until then, cows were worshiped by Jews also. So, similarities of cow worship among the Egypt, Jews and Bhaarath should also be noted.

The exact date of drying up of Saraswathi seems to be hazy. The dates could vary from 2500 BCE to 2000 BCE.

It seems that Archeological Evidence of Harappan culture has two categories:
a) Pre-2500 BCE (Eg: Mehrgarh) : In these sites, there are evidences of a flourishing agricultural civilization.
b) Post-2500 BCE : In these sites, there are evidences of an arid civilization.

So, it seems that Saraswathi started drying up around 2500 BCE and finally dried up around 2000 BCE.

Archaeological significance

Mehrgarh is now seen as a precursor to the Indus Valley Civilization. "Discoveries at Mehrgarh changed the entire concept of the Indus civilization," according to Ahmad Hasan Dani, professor emeritus of archaeology at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, "There we have the whole sequence, right from the beginning of settled village life." According to Catherine Jarrige of the Centre for Archaeological Research Indus Baluchistan at the Musée Guimet in Paris:[citation needed]

"…the Kachi plain and in the Bolan basin (are) situated at the Bolan peak pass, one of the main routes connecting southern Afghanistan, eastern Iran, the Balochistan hills and the Indus River valley. This area of rolling hills is thus located on the western edge of the Indus valley, where, around 2500 BCE, a large urban civilization emerged at the same time as those of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Egypt. For the first time in the Indian Subcontinent, a continuous sequence of dwelling-sites has been established from 7000 BCE to 500 BCE, (as a result of the) explorations in Pirak from 1968 to 1974; in Mehrgarh from 1975 to 1985; and of Nausharo from 1985 to 1996."

Wiki Link

And it seems that there was also increase aridity at the same time in the entire region. So, that means this was some kind of great famine in the entire region from middle-east to Bhaarath.

For the next several thousand years, many areas that are now arid, like Rajasthan, Sind, Baluchistan - were fertile and supported agriculture. This of course was due to the discharge of waters in the form of numerous streams from melting ice caps. This is apparent from the French satellite study. In the course of time, the ice caps accumulated during the long ice age came to be depleted and aridity began to spread across the sub continent. This of course culminated in the great drought of 2,200 BCE that wrought havoc with the civilizations of the ancient world.

On the basis of extensive explorations carried out in Northern Mesopotamia, a joint French-American team led by H. Weiss of Yale University has determined that most of the old world civilization were severely affected by a prolonged drought that began about 2200 B.C. and persisted for about 300 years. The most drastically hit region seems to have been the Akkadian civilization neighbouring India. The drought may have been triggered by massive volcanic eruptions. According to the findings of this historic study concluded only recently:

"At approximately 2,200 B.C., occupations of Tell Leilan and Tell Brak (in Northern Mesopotamia) were suddenly abandoned...a marked increase in aridity and wind circulation, subsequent to a volcanic eruption, induced considerable degradation in land use conditions.... this abrupt climatic change caused abandonement of Tell Leilan, regional desertion, and collapse of the Akkadian empire based in southern Mesopotamia. Synchronous collapse in adjacent regions suggests the impact of abrupt climatic change was excessive."

An end uncannily like that of the Harappans. The authors of this momentous study note that the collapse of the Akkdians more or less coincided with similar climate change, land degradation and collapse noted in the Aegean, Palestine, Egypt, and India.

Link

Actually, it seems that the most drastic changes happened not in Akkadia, but in Bhaarath because of the drought. It seems to me that the drought started somewhere around 2500 BCE and continued till 2000 BCE. This led to drying up of one great river in Bhaarath.

Now, the question is: what is the reason for such a great drought/famine for such a long time in such a vast area from middle-east to Bhaarath?

The most severe affects of this drought seem to have been in the region of Saraswathi river which led to drying up of Saraswathi and creation of Thar desert.

----
The Harappan Bull images have an interesting feature: magnificent large horns.


Painted Terracotta Sculpture of a Bull in Harappan civilization.

This seems to be the special feature of bulls around Kutch area.

Bull of Kutch area with magnificent large horns.

Generally, the horns are smaller for other breeds.


Smaller horns of Ongole Bull.(Ongole Bull is known for its strength and vigour and is much sought after).

So, clearly, Harappan civilization is a story of Saraswathi river. It was at its peak before 2500 BCE. Mehrgarh represents that.


Buddhists also have memories of Saraswathi river:

There is not, and there can never have been in historical times, any actual meeting of five rivers at or near Pataliputra, i.e. Patna. We can, however, easily understand what Fa-hian meant if we turn to the Buddhist books and observe the special connection of certain rivers mentioned together.
In the Vinayapitaka, for instance, we find in the Cullavagga, 9. 1, 3, and 4 (S.B.E., 20. 301f., 304), the Ganga, the Yamuna, the Aciravati, the Sarabhu, and the Mahi, mentioned as "the great rivers"; and in the Milindapanha, 4. 1, 35, we meet again with these rivers and five others, in the following passage (text, 114; S.B.E., 35. 171):-- "There are five hundred rivers which flow down 'from the Himavanta mountain; but of these ten only are reckoned in enumerations of rivers--the Ganga, the Yamuna, the Aciravati, the Sarabhu, the Mahi, the Sindhu, the Sarasvati the Vetravati, the Vitamsa, and the Chandrabhaga --the others not being included in the catalogue because of their intermittent flow of water." This latter passage gives us two groups of rivers, five in each group, which rise in the Himalayas, and we know so many main rivers which have been omitted, and yet cannot have been omitted because their flow is intermittent, that we feel compelled to seek for some more satisfactory reason for an apparently invidious selection. That reason is to be found in the Buddhist system of the universe, which has been expounded by Hardy in the opening chapter of his Manual of Buddhism. The following quotations from pages 15 to 17 will suffice to illustrate the
point:-

Link

Buddhism seems to be born just after this great famine and drying up of Saraswathi river. Upanishadhic age seems to start before Buddha was born. Buddha seems to have been born towards the end of Upanishadhic age.

[johneeG]

The Harappan Civilization and Myth of Aryan "Invasion"

From, The Hindustan Times

By Dr. N.S. Rajaram

Until quite recently, the famous Harappan civilization of the Indus valley has been an enigma. Many questions still remain about the identity of the people who created this great ancient civilization. Stretching over a million and a half square kilometers, from the borders of Iran to east UP and with some sites as far south as the Godavari valley, it was larger than ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia combined.

Sarasvati Satellite ImageIndus Saraswati River Systems
The satellite image on the left is drawn in the map on the right, showing the Indus River
in blue, the dry Sarasvati River basin in green and archaeological sites as black dots.

What is perhaps most puzzling about it is the fact that all major sites spread over this immense belt went into sudden decline and disappeared more or less simultaneously. The renowned archeologist, S.R. Rao, probably the foremost authority on Harappan archeology recently wrote:

Dr. S. R. Rao"In circa 1900 B.C., most of the mature Harappan sites were wiped out forcing the inhabitants to seek new lands for settlement. They seem to have left in a great hurry and in small groups, seeking shelter initially on the eastern flank of the Ghaggar and gradually moving towards the Yamuna. The refugees from Mohen-jo-daro and southern sites in Sind fled to Saurashtra and later occupied the interior of the peninsula."

From this it is apparent that the Harappans, though inhabiting a vast area, fell victim to a sudden calamity which forced them to seek shelter in other parts of ancient India. The usual explanation found in history books is that the inhabitants of the Harappan cities were driven out by the invading Aryans. However it is now recognized by scholars that the Aryan invasion theory of India is a myth that owes more to European politics than anything in Indian records or archaeology. (The politics of History, The Hindustan Times, Nov. 28 1993).

Kalibangan Fire AltarsThe evidence against any such invasion is now far too strong to be taken seriously. To begin with, sites spread over such a vast stretch, measuring well over a thousand miles across would not have been all abandoned simultaneously due to the incursion of nomadic bands at one extremity. Further, there is profuse archaeological evidence including the presence of sacrificial altars that go to show that the Harappans were part of the Vedic aryan fold. As a result, it can safely by said that the Vedic age also ended with the Harappan civilization.

From all this it is clear that the loss of these sites must have been associated with some natural catastrophe. A few scholars have pointed to evidence of frequent floods to account for the abandonement. But, floods are invariably local in nature and do not cause the collapse of a civilization over a vast belt. People adapt. Floods bring death but they also sustain life. Some of the most flood prone areas of the world - like the Nile valley, Bengal and the Yangtse valley, in China - area also among the most densely populated. It is the loss of water or dessication that causes massive disruptions on the scale witnessed at the end of the Harappan civilization. Thanks to the latest data from two major archaeological and satellite based studies, we now know that this is exactly what happened. It was ecological change that ended the great civilization not only in India but over a vast belt that included Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Aegean.

On the basis of extensive explorations carried out in Northern Mesopotamia, a joint French-American team led by H. Weiss of Yale University has determined that most of the old world civilization were severely affected by a prolonged drought that began about 2200 B.C. and persisted for about 300 years. The most drastically hit region seems to have been the Akkadian civilization neighbouring India. The drought may have been triggered by massive volcanic eruptions. According to the findings of this historic study concluded only recently:

"At approximately 2,200 B.C., occupations of Tell Leilan and Tell Brak (in Northern Mesopotamia) were suddenly abandoned...a marked increase in aridity and wind circulation, subsequent to a volcanic eruption, induced considerable degradation in land use conditions.... this abrupt climatic change caused abandonement of Tell Leilan, regional desertion, and collapse of the Akkadian empire based in southern Mesopotamia. Synchronous collapse in adjacent regions suggests the impact of abrupt climatic change was excessive."

An end uncannily like that of the Harappans. The authors of this momentous study note that the collapse of the Akkdians more or less coincided with similar climate change, land degradation and collapse noted in the Aegean, Palestine, Egypt, and India. The date of 1900 BCE given by S.R. Rao for the collapse of the Harappans should be seen as approximate. More accurate methods are now available that show this date to have been sometime before 2000 BCE, and they are well within the calibration error of radiocation and other scientific dating techniques.

The basic point is: as a result of several independent explorations conducted over a vast belt from southern Europe to India, it is now clear that civilizations over a large part of the ancient world were brought to a calamitous end by an abrupt climate change on a global scale. To attribute a global calamity of such colossal magnitude to nomadic 'Aryan' tribes is simplistic in the extreme.

These discoveries should help put an end to all speculation regarding the Aryan invasion as the cause of breakup of the Harappan civilization. On the other hand we now know that the Vedic civilization far from coming into existence after the Harappan, in fact ended with it; the mature Harappan civilization was the last glow of the Vedic age. This recognition has brought about a fundamental change in perpective in the history and chronology of not only ancient India, but also nearly all ancient civilizations. It helps answer several fundamental questions about the source of the Harappans - they should now be called the Vedic Harappans - and the age of the Rig Veda. Thanks to recent discoveries about the mathematics and geography of Vedic India, we are now in a position to answer both questions.

Mohenjo Daro Great BathThis shift in perspective, that the Harappan civilization came at the end of the Vedic age also helps explain a major puzzle; the technological basis for this great civilization. Even a superficial study of Harappan sites suggests that its builders were extremely capable town planners and engineers. And this requires a sophisticated knowledge of mathematics, especially geometry. Elaborate structures like the Great Bath of Mohen-jo-daro, the Lothal harbor or the citadel at Harappa are inconcievable without a detailed knowledge of geometry.
Lothal Dockyard HarborMohenjo Daro Citadel

Lothal sanitation drainage systemThe world had to wait 2000 years more, till the rise of the Roman civilization for sanitation and town planning to reach a comparable level. The question is: where did the Harappans get the necessary mathematical and engineering knowledge? History books tell us that Indians borrowed their geometry from the Greeks. This is absurd. The Harappans must have had the neccessary technical knowledge at least 2,000 years before the Greeks. Without it the civilization would never have seen the light of day. It is as simple as that.

But once we recognise that Harappan archaeology belongs to the closing centuries of the Vedic age, the mystery vanishes. The late Vedic literature includes mathematical texts known as the Sulba-sutras which contain detailed instruction for the building of sacrificial altars. After a monumental study spanning more than 20 years, the distinguished American mathematician and historian of science, Abraham Seidenberg showed that the Sulba-sutras are the source of both Egyptian and old Babylonian mathematics. The Egyptian texts based on the Sulba-sutras go back to before 2,000 BCE. This provides independent comfirmation that Indian mathematical knowledge existed long before that date, ie, during the height of the Harappan era. For further mathematical evidence and quotations please see: Scientific Verification of Vedic Knowledge.

Kalibangan Fire AltarsThe sulba-sutras are part of the vedic religious literature known as the Kalpasutras. They were created originally to serve as technical manuals for the design and construction of Vedic altars. As previously noted, Harappan sites contain many such altars, a fact that supplies a link between Vedic literature and Harappan archaeology. It serves also to show that the vedic literature could not have been brought in by any invaders - they were needed for building the altars that are very much part of the Harappan archaeology! The sulba-sutra are the oldest mathematical texts known. A careful comparison of the sulba-sutras with the mathematics of Egypt and old Babylonia led Abraham Seidenberg to conclude:

"... the elements of ancient geometry found in Egypt and old Babylonia stem from a ritual system of the kind found in the Sulba-sutras."

What is interesting is that the origins of ancient mathematics are to be found in religion and ritual. So the great engineering feats of the Harappans can be seen as secular off-shoots of the religious mathemtics found in vedic literature. This can in a way be compared to the history of books and publishing, The first books printed were Bibles, like the Gutenberg bible; but the technique of printing soon transcended its original niche and led to an explosion of knowledge that made possible the European renaissance. Similarly, the 'ritual mathematics' in the Sulba-sutras led eventually to the purely secular achievements of the Harappans like city planning and the design of harbours.

So the vedic civilisaion ended well before 2,000 BCE, with the ending of the Harappans following the Great Drought. The next question is, when did it actually begin. Here we cannot be certain, although some experts on Vedic astronomy claim to be able to find statements in the Rig Veda that point to dates like 6,500 BCE and beyond. I feel it safer at this time to be conservative and stick to reliable archaeological evidence. Although some sites dating to almost 7,000 BCE have been found, I believe that a lot more supporting data must be found before such dates can be accepted. But thanks to new data made available by the French SPOT satellite and the Indo-French field study, we can definitely conclude that the Rig-Veda describes the geography of North India as it was long before 3,000 BCE. The clinching evidence is provided by the fate of the Saraswati river.

It is well known that in the Rig Veda, the greatest and the holiest of rivers was not the Ganga, but the now dry Saraswati. The Ganga is mentioned only once while the Saraswati is mentioned some 50 tomes. There is a whole hymn devoted to her. Extensive research by the late Dr. Wakankar has shown that the Saraswati changed her course several times, going completely dry around 1900 BCE. This date may now have to be moved back by a few centuries in light of what we now know about the disappearence of the neighbouring Akkadians. In any event we know now that which Dr. Wakankar did not, that the Saraswati described in the Rig Veda belongs to a date long before 3,000 BCE. The Rig Veda calls the Saraswati the greatest of rivers (Naditame) that flowed from "the mountain to the sea". The latest satellite data combined with field archaeological studies have shown that the Rig Vedic Saraswati had stopped being a perrenial river long before 3,000 BCE.

As Paul-Henri Francfort of CNRS, Paris recently observed,

"...we now know, thanks to the field work of the Indo-French expedition that when the protohistoric people settled in this area, no large river had flowed there for a long time."

Sarasvati Satellite ImageThe protohistoric people he refers to are the early Harappans of 3,000 BCE. But satellite 'photos show that a great prehistoric river that was over 7 kilometers wide did indeed flow through the area at one time. This was the Saraswati described in the Rig Veda. Numerous archaeological sites have also been located along the course of this great prehistoric river thereby confirming Vedic accounts. The great Saraswati that flowed "from the mountain to the sea" is now seen to belong to a date long anterior to 3,000 BCE. This means that the Rig Veda describes the geography of North India long before 3,000 BCE. This is further supported by the fact that the Drishadvati river, also described in the Rig Veda, had itself gone dry long before 3,000 BCE. All this shows that the Rig Veda must have been in existence no later than 3,500 BCE. There is other evidence from metallurgy and astronomy that lend further support for this date.

What does this all mean? In our book, Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilisation, David Frawley and I have shown that the Rig Veda belongs to an earlier layer of civilization before the rise of the civilization of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley (Harappa). This calls for a fundamental change in our idea of Mesopotamia as the cradle of civilization. In the same book, on the basis of ecology and ancient literature, it is also suggested that the Rig Vedic aryans were the beneficiary of an age of abundance in north India, brought about by the melting of the ice caps at the end of the last Ice Age. The last Ice age ended in about 8,000 BCE. For the next several thousand years, many areas that are now arid, like Rajasthan, Sind, Baluchistan - were fertile and supported agriculture. This of course was due to the discharge of waters in the form of numerous streams from melting ice caps. This is apparent from the French satellite study. In the course of time, the ice caps accumulated during the long ice age came to be depleted and aridity began to spread across the sub continent. This of course culminated in the great drought of 2,200 BCE that wrought havoc with the civilizations of the ancient world.

In summary, all this new evidence, when examined in the light of science, gives a totally different picture of the ancient world. The rise and fall of the Vedic civilization of which the Harappan was a part can be seen to have resulted from the vagaries of nature, inseparably bound to the boom and bust ecological cycle that followed the last ice age. The vedic age and more specifically the Rig Veda were the beneficiaries of nature's bounties - a unique age in water abundance in the wake of the last ice age. Its end was also brought about by nature in the form of a killing drought. The Harappan civilization was its twilight. And this is the verdict of science - what nature giveth, nature also taketh away.

This Article Reprinted With Permission of Author

Link

[Yagnasri]

Mango alert.

My problem with the above is the words like "vedic age" etc. We clearly have a tradition of continuous history from Ramayana period. We have kings list of Magada from Mahabharatha period. In fact many Rajput of Surya Vamsha has the list of Surya Vamsha Kings list from Prabhu Rama Chandra himself. We have a starting of Kaliyuya calculated.

None of them even mention the "sudden climatic cataclysmic event" of any kind during 2500-2000 BC period. Balarama going to Prabhasa Theerdha etc, lack of mentioning of a major desert in Rajasthan in both Mahabharata and Ramayana ( not to my recollection - any gurus can correct me) shows that there was no desert at that point of time. Further Janapada names and descriptions also do not show any major desert.

The possible transformation of large areas into desert and drying of Saraswathi river took place after Mahabharatha period and the great tsunami that devoured Dwaraka Nagari. Possible earth quack and shifting of rivers from east to west etc all took place after Mahabharatha period may be immediately after the entering of Kaliyuga.

After Dwaraka submersion bandits and others roomed free in the areas looting every thing. Even Arjuna forgot his Divya Astra and could not stop them carrying away all most all of Sri Krishnas wifes etc. Parikshit stopped this slide for sometime. But could not stop it all together. His death in the hands of Nagas and stopping of Genocide of Nagas by his son Janamejaya etc all showing that rulers were subject to attacks from others like Nagas - who are in vedic fold only but not in traditional power. Incidentally Andhras are also considered a Nagas and oldest world recorded in Teludu is Naagambu.

There was a serious change. but it took place immediately after Mahabharatha period.

End Mango alert.

[johneeG]

Mango alert.

My problem with the above is the words like "vedic age" etc. We clearly have a tradition of continuous history from Ramayana period. We have kings list of Magada from Mahabharatha period. In fact many Rajput of Surya Vamsha has the list of Surya Vamsha Kings list from Prabhu Rama Chandra himself. We have a starting of Kaliyuya calculated.

Saar,
the problem is that there is inconsistencies in these lineages which makes people question the reliability of these lineages.

1) Yayathi and Nahusha are mentioned as belonging to Ikshvaku dynasty of Surya Vamsha(Solar Dynasty) in Valmiki Ramayana, Bala Kaanda.

अंबरीषस्य पुत्रो अभूत् नहुषः च महीपतिः |
नहुषस्य ययातिः तु नाभागः तु ययाति जः || १-७०-४२

42. mahiipatiH nahuSaH = king, Nahusha; ambariiSasya putraH abhuut = Ambariisha's, son, was there; nahuSasya yayaatiH = Nahusha's [son is,] Yayaati; naabhaagaH yayaati jaH = Naabhaaga, from Yayaati, born.

"Ambariisha's son was Nahusha, the emperor and Yayaati is the son of Nahusha, but Naabhaaga is born to Yayaati... [1-70-42]

These names Nahusha and Yayaati also occur in other Puraana-s, indicating them in earlier eras to Ramayana period.

Link

On the other hand, Yayathi and Nahusha are mentioned as belonging to Chandhra Vamsha(Lunar Dynasty) in Mahabharatha.

The Mahabharata, Book 1: Adi Parva: Sambhava Parva: Section LXXV

And Manu begat ten other children named Vena, Dhrishnu,
Narishyan, Nabhaga, Ikshvaku, Karusha, Saryati, the eighth, a daughter named Ila, Prishadhru the ninth,
and Nabhagarishta, the tenth. They all betook themselves to the practices of Kshatriyas. Besides these,
Manu had fifty other sons on Earth. But we heard that they all perished, quarrelling with one another.
file:///C|/a/mahabharata/m01/m01076.htm (1 of 3)7/1/2006 9:20:24 AM
The Mahabharata, Book 1: Adi Parva: Sambhava Parva: Section LXXV
The learned Pururavas was born of Ila. It hath been heard by us that Ila was both his mother and father.
And the great Pururavas had sway over thirteen islands of the sea. And, though a human being, he was
always surrounded by companions that were superhuman. And Pururavas intoxicated with power
quarrelled with the Brahmanas and little caring for their anger robbed them of their wealth. Beholding
all this Sanatkumara came from the region of Brahman and gave him good counsel, which was,
however, rejected by Pururavas. Then the wrath of the great Rishis was excited, and the avaricious
monarch, who intoxicated with power, had lost his reason, was immediately destroyed by their curse.
"It was Pururavas who first brought from the region of the Gandharvas the three kinds of fire (for
sacrificial purpose). And he brought thence, the Apsara Urvasi also. And the son of Ila begat upon
Urvasi six sons who were called Ayus, Dhimat, Amavasu and Dhridhayus, and Vanayus, and Satayus.
And it is said that Ayus begat four sons named Nahusha, Vriddhasarman, Rajingaya, and Anenas, on the
daughter of Swarbhanu. And, O monarch, Nahusha, of all the sons of Ayus, being gifted with great
intelligence and prowess ruled his extensive kingdom virtuously. And king Nahusha supported evenly
the Pitris, the celestials, the Rishis, the Brahmanas, the Gandharvas, the Nagas, the Rakshasas, the
Kshatriyas, and the Vaisyas. And he suppressed all robber-gangs with a mighty hand. But he made the
Rishis pay tribute and carry him on their backs like bests of burden. And, conquering the very gods by
the beauty of his person, his asceticism, prowess, and energy, he ruled as if he were Indra himself. And
Nahusha begat six sons, all of sweet speech, named Yati, Yayati, Sanyati, Ayati, and Dhruva. Yati
betaking himself to asceticism became a Muni like unto Brahman himself. Yayati became a monarch of
great prowess and virtue. He ruled the whole Earth, performed numerous sacrifices, worshipped the
Pitris with great reverence, and always respected the gods. And he brought the whole world under his
sway and was never vanquished by any foe. And the sons of Yayati were all great bowmen and
resplendent with every virtue. And, O king, they were begotten upon (his two wives) Devayani and
Sarmishtha. And of Devayani were born Yadu and Turvasu, and of Sarmishtha were born Drahyu, Anu,
and Puru. And, O king, having virtuously ruled his subjects for a long time, Yayati was attacked with a
hideous decrepitude destroying his personal beauty. And attacked by decrepitude, the monarch then
spoke, O Bharata, unto his sons Yadu and Puru and Turvasu and Drahyu and Anu these words, 'Ye dear
sons, I wish to be a young man and to gratify my appetites in the company of young women. Do you
help me therein.' To him his eldest son born of Devayani then said, 'What needest thou, O king? Dost
thou want to have your youth?' Yayati then told him, 'Accept thou my decrepitude, O son! With thy
youth I would enjoy myself. During the time of a great sacrifice I have been cursed by the Muni Usanas
(Sukra). O son, I would enjoy myself with your youth. Take any of you this my decrepitude and with my
body rule ye my kingdom. I would enjoy myself with a renovated body. Therefore, ye my sons, take ye
my decrepitude.' But none of his sons accepted his decrepitude. Then his youngest son Puru said unto
him, 'O king, enjoy thyself thou once again with a renovated body and returned youth! I shall take thy
decrepitude and at thy command rule thy kingdom.' Thus addressed, the royal sage, by virtue of his
ascetic power then transferred his own decrepitude unto that high-souled son of his and with the youth of
Puru became a youth; while with the monarch's age Puru ruled his kingdom.

"Then, after a thousand years had passed away, Yayati, that tiger among kings, remained as strong and
powerful as a tiger. And he enjoyed for a long time the companionship of his two wives. And in the
gardens of Chitraratha (the king of Gandharvas), the king also enjoyed the company of the Apsara
Viswachi. But even after all this, the great king found his appetites unsatiated. The king, then recollected
the following truths contained in the Puranas, 'Truly, one's appetites are never satiated by enjoyment.

2) Bharatha is mentioned as the son of Shakuntala and Dushyantha in Mahabharatha and other puranas. In vedhas, the address is 'Bhaaratha'(i.e. descendent of Bharatha). So, Vedas have to be dated after Bharatha.

3) Kaalidhaasa has written Raghu-vamsha. It has been considered one of the classics of Sanskruth from the time it was composed. It does not tally with the linage mentioned by Valmiki Ramayana. Are we to assume that Kaalidhaasa who was writing about Rama's ancestors actually made the mistake of not checking up with Valmiki Ramayana before writing his work? And if we actually made such a big mistake, would it be considered a classic?

So, it seems to me that a more probable explanation is:
Kaalidhaasa was not aware of Valmiki Ramayana's lineage because that lineage was written after Kaalidhaasa wrote his classic.

This lineage is found in Baala Kaanda. Baala Kaanda and Uttara Kaanda of Valmiki Ramayana are related to each other. If Uttara Kaanda is suspect then it makes Baala Kaanda also suspect.

Baala Kaanda and Uttara Kaanda share many similarities with each other while they are very dissimilar from other kaandas.

Baala Kaanda and Uttara Kaanda are irrelevant to the larger story of Raamayana and appear as prologue and epilogue.
They both have contain huge amount of stories about Rushis like Vishwamithra, Vasishta, ...etc.
They both have a theme of a Yagnya.

So, it seems to me that Baala Kaanda and Uttara Kaanda are later additions.

4) Saptha-Rushis(Seven Sages, infact many sages) are frequently mentioned in all scriptures. They are Vasishta, Vishwamithra, Vyasa, Dhaumya, Dhalbhya, Garga, Gauthama, Angirasa, Sukhra, Bruhaspathi, Jamadagni, Parashurama, Shunaka, Dhevala, Asitha, Mudgala, Bharadvaja, Maithreya, ...etc.

They are mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana, Mahabharatha, Puranas and even Vedhas. What is most confusing is that they are mentioned as contemporaries in all these scriptures. That means, they are mentioned as contemporaries of Rama, Mahabharatha war and even Vedhic events(Dhasha-rajanya war).

How can these set of people be contemporaries of all these events which are supposedly separated by vast time?

Further, even Buddhism mentions many of these figures as contemporaries of Buddha.

Now, different people try to explain this conundrum in different ways.

Traditional Hindhu scholars give super-natural twist to this and say that these sages are immortals who just live in all ages playing key role in the events. This just sounds like trying to find some explanation for the unexplainable.

The west-oriented scholars try to use this give as later dates as possible to all the scriptures. It seems that the main aim of the western orientalist sciences is to give later dates to Bhaarath's scriptures.

But, both the above view-points seem to be agenda-driven and prejudiced. So, the truth is obscured.

What could be the reason for mention of these figures in all these various scriptures.

Further, many of these figures are also mentioned in Upanishadhs.

Not just the sages, but even the Kings like
Janaka Vidheha
Ashvapathi Kaikeya
Pravaha Jaivali - Paanchala
Ajathashatru - Kaashi

are mentioned in Ramayana and Upanishadhs. Will the traditional Hindhu scholars claim that even these Kings are immortals living in all ages?

More interestingly, even Buddhism mentions Ajathashatru as the contemporary of Buddha.

How to make sense of all these things?

I think the only theory which explains this conundrum is:
All these figures lived in a certain era. They were influential and powerful enough to have their stories get incorporated into the epics.

Buddha seems to have lived in Ajathashatru's time. So, these figures seem to have lived some years before Buddha.

Since Upanishadhs tell us about this period, Upanishadhs seem to be composed in this period. So, certain other parts of Vedhas like Brahmanas/samhithas ...etc seem to have been created a little before the Upanishadhs.

So, around 2700 BCE, ritualism became important. Around 2500 BCE, Saraswathi started drying up and rituals slowly gave way to Philosophical age of Upanishads. These figures seem to have lived in this age. Buddha seems to have lived around 2000 BCE after the Saraswathi dried up.

Now, there is a clear theme in all scriptures that there was a great war. The war itself is some times called as Dhasha-rajanya war. Some times, it becomes the war between Kauravas and Paandavs. Some times its called as culling of warriors by Parashu-Raama....etc. But, the theme is that a great war happened between Saraswathi river and Sindhu river.

The after-effects of the war are also shown in Upanishadhs and even Puraanas. We are told by them that the marriages became open i.e. men and women could go with each other even after the marriages. This is seen in the stores of Uddalaka Aruni and Dhirgatamas.

Another theme in all these stores is that the wife's have affairs. Bruhaspathi's wife Thara had affair. Gauthama's wife Ahalaya had affair. Jamadagni ordered his son to kill his wife Renuka for having an affair. This ties in with the general social situation of that time.

So, a great war happened and this made social rules break down. Caste-system(if it really existed before the war) broke down. Marriages became open. Even incest became common.

This is also hinted by Bhagavadh Geetha:
Arjuna mentions in the very first chapter of Geetha that the war will lead to break down of social norms and women roaming freely in Chapter 1, verse 39 and verse 40.

So, if we add all these things, we get the picture:
a great war happened. It led to break down of social rules. But, the rules were revived by certain people called sages(Rushis). They were influential and respected. They were influential enough to get their life stories incorporated into scriptures. These are the figures who were responsible for rituals and later Philosophy(Upanishadhs).

Does that mean that all the Vedhas were created by people in this age?
It doesn't seem to be the case. It seems that there are some really ancient Vedhas. But, newer ones seem to be added in this age. For example, there is a conversation between Yama and Yami in 10th Mandala of Rig Vedha.

Here, Yami is suggesting incest to Yama but Yama declines it saying its not proper. Puraanas and Buddhism contain the theme of Saraswathi being the daughter and wife of Brahma. Buddhism also contains of theme of incest in jathakas.

So, it seems that these were from age after the war when the social rules had broken down. Later, Apasthambha, Manu, ...etc seem to have created rules for society. These are called Dharma-Shaasthras. These Dharma-shaasthras are very similar to Chanakya's Artha-shaasthra. So, they seem to have been created in that time or sometime before.

So, broadly, the chronology would be:
- A great war between Saraswathi and Sindhu rivers fought mainly by Kuru and Paanachal kingdoms leading to death of many warriors.
- Social norms broken down. No caste system. Open marriages. Incest becomes common.
- Rituals and re-creation of social rules(including a very rigid form of caste system) by Rushis and supported by Kings. Certain parts of Vedhas were from this period. In this period, Vedhas were considered 3.
- Saraswathi river starts drying up due to a great famine.
- Rituals become unsatisfying and people move on to philosophy.
- Buddhism in Ajathashathru's rule.
- Epics, Dharma-shaasthra, Buddhism, ...etc get standardized in Mauryan period. I think before the Mauryan period, these were mainly transmitted orally. In mauryan period, they were put down to writing. It does not mean that writing was invented in Mauryan period. It simply means that Mauryan period favoured writing over oral transmition.

None of them even mention the "sudden climatic cataclysmic event" of any kind during 2500-2000 BC period. Balarama going to Prabhasa Theerdha etc, lack of mentioning of a major desert in Rajasthan in both Mahabharata and Ramayana ( not to my recollection - any gurus can correct me) shows that there was no desert at that point of time. Further Janapada names and descriptions also do not show any major desert.

The possible transformation of large areas into desert and drying of Saraswathi river took place after Mahabharatha period and the great tsunami that devoured Dwaraka Nagari. Possible earth quack and shifting of rivers from east to west etc all took place after Mahabharatha period may be immediately after the entering of Kaliyuga.

After Dwaraka submersion bandits and others roomed free in the areas looting every thing. Even Arjuna forgot his Divya Astra and could not stop them carrying away all most all of Sri Krishnas wifes etc. Parikshit stopped this slide for sometime. But could not stop it all together. His death in the hands of Nagas and stopping of Genocide of Nagas by his son Janamejaya etc all showing that rulers were subject to attacks from others like Nagas - who are in vedic fold only but not in traditional power. Incidentally Andhras are also considered a Nagas and oldest world recorded in Teludu is Naagambu.

There was a serious change. but it took place immediately after Mahabharatha period.

End Mango alert.

About Yugas:
Artha-shaasthra of Kautilya mentions that Yuga is a period of 5 years. This is most curious. How can a period of Yuga be just 5 years by Kautilya while other scriptures mention very very numbers?

If Kautilya right, then the other numbers would be huge exaggerations.

More interestingly, Kautilya does not mention any Kali or Dwapara or Tretha or anything like that. So, these divisions seem to have come after Kautilya wrote Arthashasthra.

I am almost of the view that Mahabharatha war and Dhasha-rajanya war(of Vedhas) are referring to the same thing.

So far, I am assuming that the war happened in 3100 BCE.

[Prasad]

Very interesting - 5000 year old skeletons found in Rakhigarghi
http://www.hindustantimes.com/haryana/a ... 37371.aspx

That is 3000 BC and they had an established settlement. No word on how old this particular one was but rakhigarhi is one of the bigger ones iirc. Kurukshetra is a 100km from here as the crow flies btw and a long long way away from the gujarat coast.

[csaurabh]

The extent to which AIT nonsense was believed is quite mind boggling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ingh_Thind

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court unanimously decided that Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indian Sikh man, was ineligible for naturalization. In 1923, Thind filed for United States citizenship under the Naturalization Act of 1906 which allowed white persons and persons of African descent to naturalize. He did not challenge the constitutionality of the racial restrictions. Instead, he attempted to have Indians classified as "white."

Thind argued that as a high-caste Indian he was "Aryan" and therefore "Caucasian". The Court found that "the Aryan theory, as a racial basis, seems to be discredited by most, if not all, modern writers on the subject of ethnology," and noted that "the Caucasic division of the human family is 'in point of fact the most debatable field in the whole range of anthropological studies.'"

..

The eligibility of this applicant for citizenship is based on the sole fact that he is of high caste Hindu stock, born in Punjab [Amrit Sar], one of the extreme northwestern districts of India, and classified by certain scientific authorities as of the Caucasian or Aryan race...In the Punjab and Rajputana [Rajasthan], while the invaders seem to have met with more success in the effort to preserve their racial purity, intermarriages did occur producing an intermingling of the two and destroying to a greater or less degree the purity of the “Aryan” blood. The rules of caste, while calculated to prevent this intermixture, seem not to have been entirely successful... the given group [Asian Indian] cannot be properly assigned to any of the enumerated grand racial divisions. The type may have been so changed by intermixture of blood as to justify an intermediate classification. Something very like this has actually taken place in India. Thus, in Hindustan [India] and Berar [town in India] there was such an intermixture of the “Aryan” invader with the dark-skinned Dravidian.

[KLP Dubey]

One has to realize that in this case, the onus to prove AIT is on AITists because they are the ones claiming the Rig Vedhics came from outside. Those who believe Rig Vedhics must be from Bhaarath, are just stating the obvious. Because:
a) Rig Vedha talks about Bhaarath.

Rgveda does not talk about Bharat or any other country. However, only the Indians have derived names (and a whole bunch of other things) directly from the Rgveda. Any such names found in other countries are in a corrupted from. Therefore - and due to many other reasons given by experts in different areas of investigation - the OIT must be correct and the fruits of human interpretation of the Veda have spread only from India.