Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[RajeshA]

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

And terms ANI and ASI are introduced by Reich in his “nature” article, 2009. It appears that you are attributing your opinion to Kivisild! Kivisild did not use the terms ANI/ASI.

No I am not attributing the vocabulary of ANI/ASI to Kivisild, but reading his conclusions in light of the ANI/ASI position.

Afghanistan South (65.75/65.75), Afghanistan North (50.00/50.00), Kyrgyzstan (50.00/50.00), Iran (14.00/14.00), India, Central Uttar Pradesh Brahmins (39.7/39.7), Belorussia North East, Vitebsk (60.00/47.00), Poland, South West, Wroclaw (55.90/32.30), Slovakia South (60.90/39.10), Russians, Russia South, Belgorod, (62.2/50.30)

So what should we conclude? R1a1 indeed is not Indian! Also its low content in Iran suggests that Aryans of Iran are different from Aryans of Europe/Central Asia.

Again you reach wrong conclusions. Two things are different - diversity of subclades and frequency! India has both the highest diversity of R1a1 subclades as well as high frequency!

Joseph Skulj, Jagdish C. Sharda, Snejina Sonina, Ratnakar Narale wrote a paper:

"Indo-Aryan and Slavic Genetic and Linguistic Affinities predate the origin of cereal farming"


In India the number of R1a1 carrying population is 400 million, almost 5 times that of the Slavs who carry this marker.

What does that tell you about the place of origin?

The only reason Stepanov and Sengupta try to adjust their data to pre-conceived theories about Aryan Invasions/Migrations into India is because they don't want to go against something which all the historians in the West like to parrot, so they appease them.

But if you read their papers, you will see that in the most part they argue against any migrations to India!

Another argument against Aryan migration into India from Central Asia is the almost absence of K* Hyplogroup in India, which any Central Asians would have been carrying. Also the absence of I and N3 in India discounts any migration from further afield from Europe.

one should build a theory/ model based on research findings. Building a theory and trying to fit research findings to the theory may lead to frustrations and blaming the researchers.

That is exactly the advice I would give the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory proponents in India. You are grasping at straws on information coming from Genetics. Any little sentence which alludes to a possible migration to India or some explanation with which migration can be proved, is eagerly taken.

There have been now several publications which have shown through their data that the migrations of "Aryans" happened Out-of-India and not into India. Kivisild, Reich, Sharma, etc.

You still haven't given any sound explanation of how a few pastoralists coming from India's Northwest from different regions, with different genetic markers, at different times would have changed the Indian language from something say Tamil to the languages we see today in North India.

Perhaps you may like to also comment on how it is possible for a few R1a1 marker careers migrating into India to increase to 30% of the Indian population today - 400 million.

Aryans are migrants who spoke Indo-European languages.

You see you yourself are unclear about this. You were yourself saying the migrants came at different times, from different regions, from different genetic backgrounds! And then again with a swipe of the hand, you pronounce them as one group again, which worked collectively to undermine the Indian culture of that time!

True, that Aryans spoke Indo-European languages, but do you really understand the momentousness of this statement? Do you feel what this means? I don't think so!

You may believe in magic but I would like to have a different explanation how a motley band of pastoralists come and change the culture and language of a civilization living and thriving for 50,000 years in the Indian Subcontinent, capable of building huge cities! Mind you the Indian Subcontinent was numerically the largest civilization around in those days as well. So how does it happen?

[Nilesh Oak]

one should build a theory/ model based on research findings. Building a theory and trying to fit research findings to the theory may lead to frustrations and blaming the researchers.

Really?

The method of theory building begins with a problem

Problem1 - Tentative Theory - Error Elimination (experiments, observations against computed consequences of tentative theory) - problem 2

AIT gang simply begins with established truth (in their mind, of course) that AIT is real and always looking for scraps to write diatribe to convince themselves, again, how they are right to hang on to 'established truth'.

They should state the problem clearly.. a problem that led them to propose AIT. Now, that is a tall order for any AIT Nazi. They know the answer, "Not in this lifetime with a brain I have over my neck". Better recognize 'reincarnation". Better luck next time around.

[member_20317]

Nilesh ji, for easy understanding

You are suggesting no particular way between Theory-Evidence, right.

You are suggesting a process whereby one side of the equation is sought to be better balanced in the light of changes in the other side. Kind of like life actually behaves.

[Nilesh Oak]

ravi_g ji,

Yes, no particular way. as you said.. kind of like life actually behaves. I wish I could draw PI-TT-EE-P2 in a circle.

Here are few real life (trivial and funny) examples..

(1) We always have assumed theories/conjectures in our mind.

- think of an experience - you lift a bucket of water (thinking- theory/guess - it is full), you apply certain calculated force, and bucket is too light.. you are surprised. you are surprised because your expectation (based on theory that bucket was full) did not agree with observation/experience/evidence. So now, you may wonder why that happend.. who emptied the bucket (find alternate explanations..which may lead to another theory)....or why you thought the bucket should have been full (in this latter case question the theory)

- or when you walk down the stair, and stumble becacuse you expected another step to be there, but it was not there, ie. Theory not agreeing with experience.

So if we draw P1-TT-EE-P2, in a circle, then we may begin anywhere, however one should be always aware what stage they are in and why are they there.

e.g. Theory is proposed to solve an existing problem, or to solve a problem (because observation clashed with existing theory... empty bucket, missed step). Observations are sought, experiments are performed to see if theory proposed (TT) is capable of solving problem (P1).

Of course P2 is problem of higher dimension, greater complexity, created by succcess of a Theory (TT corroborated by EE) and cycle continues.. towards growth of knowledge. Therefore success of a theory is to be judged by new problems it creates - their complexity.

Now notice AIT in this light.

To AIT believers, there are no problems to solve at the end of it. Because all is clearly explained by AIT. Now there is the rub. But don't hope that AIT believers will ever get it.

[Nilesh Oak]

ravi_g Ji,

To take our favorite (at least your and mine) Problem of Arundhati-Vasishtha and timign of Mahabharata War

If the statement in MBH Text had said something like " and on the first day, Arundhati was seen walking behind Vasistha" it would have turned out to be 'trivially true statement/observation', just as you expect steps to be there on staircase. Fine, but no new learning.. no new growth of knowledge, because statement is useless for figuring out timing of MBH war.

But the statement did not say the above, but the opposite which clashed with current(our times) observation.

we have a problem..

Problem -Why (or better... What) made Vyasa say that ARundhati was walking AHEAD of Vasistha

Tentative theories : (1) Absurd statement.. could be true.. but no growth of knowledge

(2) Vyasa was creating humor.. could be true.. but no growth of knowledge

(3) The statement was astrological and not Astronomical - could be true.. but no growth of knowledge

(4) The statement described visual observation of the time of War - really, but how and when? ..

That takes us to Error Elimination.. 15 years later.

That is how.

Bingo! celebration. NOw bigger problems

P2 - 5561 BC! Did earth exists then, per Kepler and Newton, it did not. Did civilization exist then, per western widsom, nothing there befroe 3700BC
what about domesticated horses, languages, chariots, advanced sounding weapons, palaces, many problems more challenigng than previous ones.

This should tell one that this is good stuff!

[Nilesh Oak]

Building a theory and trying to fit research findings to the theory may lead to frustrations and blaming the researchers.

ravi_g, Ji,

Notice the Freudian or gobblygoo slip above. I can not state story of 'AIT' any better than summarzied by 'dmrsekhar'.

[shiv]

dmrsekhar is a buffoon. I posted one comment on that blog.

[member_22872]

who claims that Mehndi was introduced into India by the Mughals!!!

Rajesh ji, When I was a kid, my mother took me to Hyderabad museum (I don't remember the name of the museum now, it is not Salar jung museum). The museum boasts to have a mummy brought by Jahangir. The Mummy is that of a very young princess said to have died during her pregnancy, they unwrapped the toe finger of the mummy to show the Mehndi. Interestingly one can actually see it...that's how I remember it. Not corroborating any theory, just adding something from my memory.

[Nilesh Oak]

Linguistics is hardly a tool to falsify some proposition, however it is capable of corroborating a theory validated by other stronger evidence.

Agree with you...I would take a 'hard' science over linguistics any day. For refuting AIT- archeoastronomy, epigraphy, genetics can play critical roles.

But if I want to establish an Out of India relationship between India & Greece what 'hard' discipline would come in handy? Possibly genetics..Other than that it may have to be the softer fields of linguistics, comparative mythology etc.

Arjun ji,

And also Archeo-astronomy. If you send me your email..... not sure what is the best way to exchange emails here..... I will send you a paper.

Now research in Archeo-astronomy, by itself, does not 'prove' OIT -India to Greece, however it KILLS/falsifies 'propogated nonsense' that Indian astronomy learnt from Greek Astronomy.

Exchanges of knowledge in recent times between the two ....by recent I mean ~500 BC and after, yes, I agree.

but when it comes to accuracy, precision, innovativeness, ingenuity... Indian astronmy is far superior to Greek and get ready for this.. as one goes back in antiquity, Indian astronomy becomes even more accurate/precise/innovative/ingenious ...the status Greek astronomy never came close.

(Don't get me wrong. I have great respect for Greek science. Thales, Anaximender, Xenophanes are no less daring/ingenious than our Yajnavalkya, Aryabhatta, Madhava and such. I feel equally puny and trivial in front of these greats of humanity)

This also alludes to another topic of 'cycle of civilization' (an Indian concept of cyclic yuga) to 'linear path of civilization ..i.e. from savages (past) -to most advanced (today).

[RajeshA]

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

The diversity of R1a1 in Indian populations only indicate the intense mix up due to gene flow. Place of origin can be determined only by the time of generation of the sub clads.

That is however not how the experts see the issue of subclade diversity. The place of most subclades of a particular hyplogroup, in this case R1a1, would also be the origin.

Interesting is that you propose subclades of R1a1 having flowed into India, which may not even be found elsewhere!!! That is again a big jump in logic!

Why do you think the migrant pastoralists are few in numbers? IVC is estimated to have five million people at its peak (say around 2600 BC) which is said to be 10% of the world population. By that time the migrants must be in good numbers and not few.

Now what is this new logical jump?

Considering that more of the recently excavated sites have been found around the banks of the dry Saraswati River, let's call this Indus Valley Civilization by its proper name - Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization (SSC).

Why do you now for no reason at all, say that in this SSC, there must have been many migrants? Even if there were many migrants, why would they be from Central Asia? Even if they were from Central Asia, why would one allow them to dictate the culture of the land?

In invasionist scenarios, one can say the new elite coerced the local populace to adopt a foreign language. That would be the case of Turkish invasion of Anatolia, Mughals in India, Brits in India, etc. However in migration scenarios, it is the migrants who have to adjust themselves in the host community, especially if they are entering not in huge waves but trickling in.

The migrations must have continued from the start of agriculture between 7000 BC and 8000 BC (or even before) with few people and continued till the collapse of IVC around 2000 BC ( and even later as we know). IVC is a cosmopolitan culture. I also do not think that the migrants who lived for thousands of years in large numbers have not mixed up with the natives so although Reich’s recent findings say that major mix up took place around 2000 BC.

All this 'must have'! What a great way to do scientific inquiry! All this must have based on what? There were natural barriers from the Northwest - deserts and mountains blocking the path to India. With such barriers only the most committed can make their way to India! Ever heard of Alexander making his way into India and how many men he lost on the way? And still you continue to opine that "large numbers" came in through the trickle through method.

The issue is not one of not mixing. If any had come in, they would have mixed. The issue is one of sheer numbers! Central Asia would never have had the numbers of people living there to exact such a huge population shift in India! Central Asia's population sizes have always been less, compared to the Indian Subcontinent. It is not as if Central Asia is some ant-hill and infinite number of ants keep on pouring out.

Give some thought to the inhospitable land there with few far between green valleys. One doesn't produce huge populations in such a place which could change the genetic makeup of the Indian Subcontinent in a dramatic manner.

The Ancestral North Indians (ANI) who were the natives of Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization (SSC) and had been in India for over 40,000 years and had developed their Sanskrit in India, after 2000 BCE, after the collapse of Saraswati River, they started mixing with the Ancestral South Indians in a major way! Their migration into the Ganga Valley and south of the Vindhyas caused this shift.

Kindly also note that the term migrant is only with respect to the origin and not nativity. The migrants who lived in IVC region for thousands of years are natives of IVC region. I do not even think that the migrants drove away the original inhabitants of IVC rather they mixed up. If at all there is migration from IVC region to South India it must be few in numbers.

Okay here starts your little political correctness lecture, which has no bearing on any scientific discussion and is solely directed at later "migrations" into India!

Basically it is this political correctness that divulges your motives in this debate as well where logical acrobatics are undertaken to justify the more recent migrations.

The point is that is completely unnecessary. Nobody is questioning the legitimacy of any migrants to come to India and to settle down in India. So there is also no need for this feverish struggle to do any justification, even if it results in killing the truth!

When we say Indo European languages, what constitutes Indian part? I think Dravidian words/lexicon.

Ha-Ha! I'm sorry but this is too much! Okay, sorry! Let me explain!

Indo-European languages are called Indo-European not because the Indo part is Dravidian words! But because Indo-European languages have a common vocabulary which can be mapped on to each other through phonetic change axioms. That is how Europeans define what is Indo-European or Aryan languages.

You seem to be implying Aryans came from Central Asia into the SSC and brought their European- part while the natives contributed their Indo- part and thus it gave rise to Indo-European languages. That understanding is really below par!

However you speak the truth perhaps even without realizing it! Most of the Indians earlier used to speak several Prakrits, including Dravidian Prakrits, like Tamil. When Sanskrit was developed, it was developed through input from many languages including what you call Dravidian languages. That is why Sanskrit means the refined language. It is not really a natural language as such. Classical Sanskrit was refined further by Panini!

When Indians migrated out towards Europe they carried many Prakrits and perhaps Sanskrit too, and these languages were changed phonetically by the people they mixed with on the way! Indians were extremely exogamous. The Vedas encourage people to marry outside their gotras, their parivars, their tribes. The Indians freely mixed with the various people on the way and infused our languages and myths into theirs.

Among the Slovenes one would still a language quite close to Sanskrit and they are living in the middle of Europe! Unlike the Eastern Slavs, they do not carry the N3 marker introduced among the Eastern Slavs, which means they migrated out of India much before the Finno-Ugrics migrated into Europe.

Returning to your theory, no, according to the Europeans Dravidian languages do not belong to the Indo-European languages and neither do any Dravidian words! The Indo comes from the Indo-Aryans, a group which allegedly entered India and brought Sanskrit to India from which all the North Indian languages sprang and from which even Southern languages were heavily influenced.

[RajeshA]

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

You tell me what is the difference between ANI and Aryan?

Dear Sekhar Sb,

Ancestral North Indians (ANI) was a group which split from several others including Europeans (CEU) before it entered India or in India. This happened over 40,000 years ago. The ANI made North India their home. The Ancestral South Indians (ASI) were already in India, however much more to the South.

The groups lived side by side, and around 2000 BCE after the Saraswati dried up, they started admixing in a major way as the ANI who were in Saraswati-Sindhu Valley (SSC) began leaving their cities there and migrating. This is not to say, that earlier they were not intermixing culturally and commercially.

Beyond the CEU, there were many other migrations into Europe in the last 11,000 - 6,000 years from India passing through Central Asia. These were the migrations which took Sanskrit and Rigvedic mythology to the Europeans. These were the "Aryans" as Europeans would call them.

The word "Aryans" as however the Europeans use it, means however that the these migrations into Europe did not originate from India, but from Central Asia. Also these "Aryans" came into India around 3,500 years ago and brought Sanskrit into India and basically overran the previous local culture transplanting it to a large extent with Vedic culture which they brought with them.

This is the European way to snatch Sanskrit from Indians, to snatch our Gods and to first call them our common heritage and through their domination in academic circles then sideline our contribution! This is a huge highway robbery and Indians seem to have completely ignored this because in our country, we just take the history as dished out to us by the Europeans without questioning them. This they have been doing since the last 2 centuries, and are basically using the misplaced need for political correctness by the secular camp to ensure that it stays this way! And this they are managing even without any scientific evidence to support them.

DMR Sekhar Sb,

I ask you to help clear these false notions that have been implanted in Indians. If you or your readers wish to learn more, you're most welcome to visit the following address, and it contains loads of resources!

Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[RajeshA]

Nilesh Oak ji,

thanks for the paper on Sulbha Sutra Dating.

[Arjun]

And also Archeo-astronomy. If you send me your email..... not sure what is the best way to exchange emails here..... I will send you a paper.

Nilesh ji, have replied in Off-Topic thread in GDF.

[RajeshA]

who claims that Mehndi was introduced into India by the Mughals!!!

Rajesh ji, When I was a kid, my mother took me to Hyderabad museum (I don't remember the name of the museum now, it is not Salar jung museum). The museum boasts to have a mummy brought by Jahangir. The Mummy is that of a very young princess said to have died during her pregnancy, they unwrapped the toe finger of the mummy to show the Mehndi. Interestingly one can actually see it...that's how I remember it. Not corroborating any theory, just adding something from my memory.

venug ji,

thanks for the info on Mehndi!

Among the Arabs, it was a practice for young women to put henna on their nails as well, as Muhammad advised that it would help differentiating between the hands and feet of a woman from that of a man!

However Henna is a custom popular among the Arabs from pre-Islamic times! Though many customs among Arabs were taken over in Islam, many were done so by Islamic decree, so one cannot be sure what was new and what was old. On the question of use of Henna, by Arab women especially, there doesn't seem to have been that much intrusion by Islam and it seems to be part of culture, which was left to survive and remain popular.

So I was wondering whether Indians had any influence on this from pre-Islamic days!

[Nilesh Oak]

Nilesh Oak ji,

thanks for the paper on Sulbha Sutra Dating.

Rajesh ji,

You mean Surya-Siddhanta. . For a second, I thought I must have sent one on Sulabha Sutra (I have few of them).

Sending another one. While Greeks - Hipparchus -came up with (or borrowed) epicycle and Ptolemy used it without change and while west stuck with it for next 1400 years.....

What ancient Indian astronomers did with this epicycle, when you know it, in your words it will indeed "make one sweat with repercussions".

It is in your email box.

For all you are doing here and elsewhere...

Much appreciation, much respect and regards

[Arjun]

Google throws up a post on mehndi by Subhash Kak...

The word [mehndi] is from the Sanskrit [mehaghni], which is also a synonym for turmeric (more commonly [haridra] in Sanskrit). The use of [mehndi]-- and turmeric-- is described in the Vedic books for a painting on hands and feet of the outer and the inner suns. Vedic customs are meant to awaken the spirit and so the gold of [mehndi] is the medium to tell a deeper story, symbolically. A traditional [mehndi] design shows the sun on the palm, which in this context represents the mind. Other designs are more abstract, like yogic yantras. The [mehndiraat] songs speak of the mystical power of [mehndi].

In many ways, [mehndiraat] is the quintessential marriage ceremony for women because, traditionally, they didn't accompany the [baraat] to the bride's house. When the marriage took place the following day, not all the women relatives were expected to be present. But this didn't matter as they had had their celebration with dancing and singing. The ceremonial use of [mehndi]-- its pageantry and religious connection to the Vedas-- is redolent of Hinduism's hoary past and one of the symbols of Indian cultural unity.

[Nilesh Oak]

And also Archeo-astronomy. If you send me your email..... not sure what is the best way to exchange emails here..... I will send you a paper.

Nilesh ji, have replied in Off-Topic thread in GDF.

Arjun ji, sent two papers. You can go ahead and delete the OT thread post.

[JE Menon]

JE Menon saar,

Europeans are also culturally (language, mythology) and to some extent also genetically Dravidians! There never were any Aryans in the European sense!

That's exactly my point ...

I suspect we would be hard pressed even to find the word "Arya" or "Aryan" in widespread use in Central Asia or Europe before European contact with India (and maybe even a century after that)... Maybe someone with the linguistic expertise can check that out. In comparison, every tenth shop probably is called Arya this or Arya that in Mallustan and the word was in extensive use in India for millennia...

[ramana]

who claims that Mehndi was introduced into India by the Mughals!!!

Rajesh ji, When I was a kid, my mother took me to Hyderabad museum (I don't remember the name of the museum now, it is not Salar jung museum). The museum boasts to have a mummy brought by Jahangir. The Mummy is that of a very young princess said to have died during her pregnancy, they unwrapped the toe finger of the mummy to show the Mehndi. Interestingly one can actually see it...that's how I remember it. Not corroborating any theory, just adding something from my memory.

Was it near the Legislative Assembly building in Hyderabad? If so its the AP State Archaeological Museum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_State_A ... ogy_Museum

The mummy in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mummy ... useum2.jpg

[member_22872]

ramana garu,

Thanks!, yes that was the one, unrelated but at that time, they also showed some diamonds a building worked stumbled on along with the mummy. Thanks again.

[RajeshA]

Arjun ji,

thanks for the info.

From Wikipedia: Henna: Traditions of henna as body art

The different words for henna in ancient languages imply that it had more than one point of discovery and origin, as well as different pathways of daily and ceremonial use.

Henna has been used to adorn young women's bodies as part of social and holiday celebrations since the late Bronze Age in the eastern Mediterranean. The earliest text mentioning henna in the context of marriage and fertility celebrations comes from the Ugaritic legend of Baal and Anath, which has references to women marking themselves with henna in preparation to meet their husbands, and Anath adorning herself with henna to celebrate a victory over the enemies of Baal.

Wall paintings excavated at Akrotiri (dating prior to the eruption of Thera in 1680 BCE) show women with markings consistent with henna on their nails, palms and soles, in a tableau consistent with the henna bridal description from Ugarit. Many statuettes of young women dating between 1500 and 500 BCE along the Mediterranean coastline have raised hands with markings consistent with henna. This early connection between young, fertile women and henna seems to be the origin of the Night of the Henna, which is now celebrated worldwide.

The Night of the Henna was celebrated by most groups in the areas where henna grew naturally: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians and Zoroastrians, among others, all celebrated marriages by adorning the bride, and often the groom, with henna. Across the henna-growing region, Purim, Eid, Diwali, Karva Chauth, Passover, Nowruz, Mawlid, and most saints' days were celebrated with some henna. Favorite horses, donkeys, and salukis had their hooves, paws, and tails hennaed. Battle victories, births, circumcision, birthdays, Zār, as well as weddings, usually included some henna as part of the celebration. When there was joy, there was henna, as long as henna was available.

Henna was regarded as having "Barakah," blessings, and was applied for luck as well as joy and beauty.[21] Brides typically had the most henna, and the most complex patterns, to support their greatest joy, and wishes for luck. Some bridal traditions were very complex, such as those in Yemen, where the Jewish bridal henna process took four or five days to complete, with multiple applications and resist work.

The fashion of "Bridal Mehndi" in Pakistan, Northern Libya and in North Indian diasporas is currently growing in complexity and elaboration, with new innovations in glitter, gilding, and fine-line work. Recent technological innovations in grinding, sifting, temperature control, and packaging henna, as well as government encouragement for henna cultivation, have improved dye content and artistic potential for henna.

Though traditional henna artists were Nai caste in India, and barbering castes in other countries (lower social classes), talented contemporary henna artists can command high fees for their work. Women in countries where women are discouraged from working outside the home can find socially acceptable, lucrative work doing henna. Morocco, Mauritania, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, as well as India and many other countries have thriving women's henna businesses. These businesses are often open all night for Eids, Diwali and Karva Chauth, and many women may work as a team for a large wedding where hundreds of guests will be hennaed as well as the bride and groom.

---------------

Now to me, it really seems a bit of a coincidence that Henna would be used over such a large area in the same way as bridal decoration with similar ceremony without a common inspiration!

For example, let's not forget that Ugarit writing was itself inspired by Old Pre-Ashokan Brāhmī as hypothesized by Shri Wim Borsboom, so that could have been a path of transmission.

Published on Feb 14, 2012
By Wim Borsboom
Alphabet or Abracadabra?

If Mehndi is spoken of in the Vedas as 'mehaghni' as is suggested by Shri Subhash Kak, then the tradition in India can be really old and it has been preserved by the women folk all these years across the region!

Another point to note is that the Vedas exhort people to be exogamous across gotra, pravara, village and clan. Read "Caste originated from Guilds and Tribes" by Premendra Priyadarshi.

And Al Beruni notes in his "Kitab-ul Hind"

“According to their marriage law it is better to marry a stranger than a relative. The more distant the relationship of a woman with regard to her husband, the better.”

So it is possible that in ancient times (pre-Islamic) when India and the other regions had close trade, political and cultural relations, there used to be some incidences when Indian noble women were wed off to princes in outlying areas. We know for example that a princess from Ayodhya was married to the founder of the Korean kingdom Karak.

That could have been a way of transmission of Indian culture to the Arabian peninsula as well. Many Arabs were polytheists before the advent of Islam.

As such women thus married took their customs with them including the Bridal Ceremony with Mehndi!

Or there can be some other theory on how this spread!

[RajeshA]

Now this may be somewhat OT, but considering that we have explored some science issues in old Indian texts, I am linking these here!

On March 15, 2012 the Gandhi Memorial Center, Washington D.C. presented: "Brain and Consciousness: Neuroscience Aligns with Vedic Wisdom"


Speaker: Dr. Karen Shanor


Speaker: Dr. Subhash Kak


Speaker: Dr. Karl Pribram

Though I would request people to discuss this elsewhere! Do we have any thread on Vedic Sciences?

[RoyG]

Oldest Bones from Modern Humans in Asia Discovered
Charles Choi, LiveScience ContributorDate: 20 August 2012 Time: 03:01 PM ET

Newfound pieces of human skull from "the Cave of the Monkeys" in Laos are the earliest skeletal evidence yet that humans once had an ancient, rapid migration to Asia.

Anatomically modern humans first arose about 200,000 years ago in Africa. When and how our lineage then dispersed out of Africa has long proven controversial.

Archaeological evidence and genetic data suggest that modern humans rapidly migrated out of Africa and into Southeast Asia by at least 60,000 years ago. However, complicating this notion is the notable absence of fossil evidence for modern human occupation in mainland Southeast Asia, likely because those bones do not survive well in the warm, tropical region.

Now a partial skull from Tam Pa Ling, "the Cave of the Monkeys" in northern Laos helps fill in this mysterious gap in the fossil record.

"Most surprising is the fact that we found anything at all," researcher Laura Lynn Shackelford, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Illinois, told LiveScience. "Most people didn't think we'd find anything in these caves, or even in the region where we're working in mainland Southeast Asia. But we're stubborn, gone where no one's really looked before, or at least in almost a century."

Rough terrain, persistent scientists

The fossils were discovered in 2009 in the limestone cave, which is located at the top of the Pa Hang Mountain 3,840 feet (1,170 meters) above sea level.

"The cave is surrounded by lots of papaya and banana trees, so a troop of monkeys likes to come and forage there, therefore its name," Shackelford said.

There were many challenges working in this area.

"It's incredibly difficult to access the site — it's only 150 miles (240 kilometers) from the capital, but it takes us two days to drive there because of the rough terrain," Shackelford said. "We have to hike up the side of a cliff, do a bit of rock-climbing to get to the mouth of the cave, and then going in, we have to go 60 meters (200 ft) down a slope of wet clay. We also have to carry a generator and lights with us to see in the cave. We have to push pigs out of the way to get through the jungle — there are just pigs wandering around there." [Amazing Caves: Photos of Earth's Innards]

"Every bit of clay has to be removed and taken back up by hand, trowel and bucket, so work is incredibly slow," she added. "We only go in the dry season in the winter, so we don't really have to deal with insects and snakes — well, we did have snakes fall into the pit while excavating. And in the cave, we've had more than our fair share of spiders and bats."

Oldest bones of modern humans

No artifacts were found at the site, nor were signs of human occupation.

"We think this fossil was outside with other fauna and flora, and during the rainy season, rain washed it into the cave," Shackelford said. "In subsequent seasons, more sediment washed into the cave and covered it."

The shape of the bone and teeth is distinctly anatomically modern human, not like those of an extinct lineage such as the Neanderthals. A variety of dating techniques of the sediments surrounding the fossils suggests they are at least 46,000 to 51,000 years old, and direct dating of the bone suggests a maximum age of about 63,000 years. This makes these fossils the earliest skeletal evidence for anatomically modern humans east of the Middle East.

These findings "change the thinking regarding modern human migration routes into Asia, that there were more routes of dispersal than previously thought," Shackelford said.

"The typical thinking was that once modern humans hugged the coastline to go from India to Southeast Asia, they went southward into Indonesia and Australasia (the region comprising Australia, New Zealand and neighboring Pacific islands)," she explained. "We think they absolutely did that, but we're also suggesting other populations probably went north or northeast toward China, and some went through the mountains into mainland Southeast Asia, taking advantage of river systems. Beforehand, no one thought they would have gone into the mountains of Laos, Vietnam and Thailand."

The researchers are now attempting to extract DNA from these fossils to see how related they may or may not be to later humans that once lived or currently live in the area. In the future, "the work we have is pretty boundless — there are literally thousands of limestone caves we can work on in this area to look for early modern humans," Shackelford said. "We can work here for the rest of our careers or lives and not see all the caves."

The scientists detailed their findings online Aug. 20 in the journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.livescience.com/22529-oldest ... -asia.html

[member_23700]

The shape of the bone and teeth is distinctly anatomically modern human, not like those of an extinct lineage such as the Neanderthals. A variety of dating techniques of the sediments surrounding the fossils suggests they are at least 46,000 to 51,000 years old, and direct dating of the bone suggests a maximum age of about 63,000 years. This makes these fossils the earliest skeletal evidence for anatomically modern humans east of the Middle East.

This is one more data point. Valuable but not the first one by any means. Few other skeletons in this region (Thailand through Phillpines) have been found in the same age range.

These findings "change the thinking regarding modern human migration routes into Asia, that there were more routes of dispersal than previously thought," Shackelford said.

"The typical thinking was that once modern humans hugged the coastline to go from India to Southeast Asia, they went southward into Indonesia and Australasia (the region comprising Australia, New Zealand and neighboring Pacific islands)," she explained. "We think they absolutely did that, but we're also suggesting other populations probably went north or northeast toward China, and some went through the mountains into mainland Southeast Asia, taking advantage of river systems. Beforehand, no one thought they would have gone into the mountains of Laos, Vietnam and Thailand."
The scientists detailed their findings online Aug. 20 in the journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

I thought Nilesh ji postulated land route for these ancient migrations (and not just beach-route) only 1 or 2 days ago on this thread.

[Arjun]

Expanding Indus fibre crops

India seems to have been the primary textiles exporter since IVC times.

Taken together with evidence for flax seeds, and cotton in the Indus Valley [see my 2008 review pdf], as well as wild silk production (from the Assam silk moth), reported by Good & al. from Harappa in Archaeometry 2009, the Harappan civilization was quite the centre of textile crop diversity in the Bronze Age (compared to apparently only flax cultivation in contemporary Egypt or Mesopotamia). This adds weight to the notion that Indus exports, including those of the textually known Meluhha merchants of the Persian Gulf, included a range of cloth types.

[ManishH]

A month of 27 (and 29/30) days is commonsense. Where do (which and where) Vedic/epic texts mention a month of 35 days. I am not saying they don't, but would want to know where the reference appears and in what context. Any takers?

Your ability to search original Sanskrit texts (that you claim to provide dates for) is abysmal. Anyway, since you are unable to do your homework, I'll give the ref ...

śatapatha brāhmaṇa 9.3.3, 18 ...

tadubhayāni saṃvatsarasyāhorātrāṇyāpnotyatha yāni pañcatriṃśatsa trayodaśo
māsaḥ

Variation of 8 days (in estimation of month) leading to error (probability too?) of 576 years is hog wash. Such thing may occur in a calendar such as 'Gregorian' where length (or nomenclature) of the month is removed from astronomy reality (I am specifically referring to positions of the Sun and the Moon).

Sure it won't make sense to you - since you can't grasp the need to specify "error probability" in all your fantasy interpretations. I'll again do your homework for you ...

Rate of precession = one degree on the ecliptic per 72 years. So a difference of 8 days would mean 8 * 72 = 576 years. The variation in the rate of precession only makes the error probability different, it never vanishes.

Therefore, without the knowledge of the exact number of days used in the intercalary 13th month, it is futile trying to arrive at an exact date.

More critical, which specific reference is been affected by this potential error?

It's all in the old posts - dating of Brāhmaṇa texts.

[shiv]

ManishH are you aware of any translation of the Shatapatha Brahmana other than the out of copyright one by Eggeling?

In fact I am asking you for help here but the help will be used to tear down one more pillar of the Aryan Migration theory so you need not help if you don't want to.

Frankly I have not been able to find a Hindi or Kannada translation. In fact I have not even been able to find the Shatapatha Brahmana in Devnagari, although the Roman alphabet versions are no good. I have resorted to trying to dig thorugh the Yajur Veda -but no luck yet. However I don't give up easy when I sense blood. I will do a translation myself if need be but before I head out to the local Motilal Banarsidas or Bharatiya Vidya bhavan I am trying to use the lazy internet route.

I believe Eggeling has fuked up the translation in many places, but I can confirm that only by finding the relevant text. I think it will be a laugh and another blow to the conclave of linguists and archaeologists who cook things up. In their defence I can say that the cooking is done based on faulty translation by well meaning and hardworking ignoramuses who have no cultural insight.

[ManishH]

I suggest ManishH ji explain the fundamental processes / rules that are the basis of his comparative linguistics arguments. Eg, does he depend on glottochronology, mass comparison, lexicostatistics or the comparative method? Does he, like the neo-grammarians, believe that the sound laws have no exceptions ?

The comparative linguistics arguments only tell us that Sanskrit/Greek/Latin etc, none of these can be original languages. These are all derived from a common parent. No purely linguistic technique can be used to derive the homeland. One needs archaeological proof of linguistic markers. In the case of the AIT debate, the horse and chariot language terminology is one such marker.

Yes, as you rightly point out, glottochronology was a fad long discredited in 60s itself. They were trying to guess rates of change of sounds - but it got discredited due to:

1. empirical data that showed humans are capable of very wide rates of language change.
2. the specification of what is "core vocabulary" for a language is highly subjective.

In modern literature, glottochronology isn't ever used to specify an out-of-india homeland for IE languages at all.

Regularity of sound change (neogrammarian hypothesis) is a general guideline. In the words of Hock in 'Principles of Historical Linguistics',

Sound change is overwhelmingly regular, if not always regular.

When looking at the whole neogrammarian hypothesis, it is always better to look at specific sound changes from the human vocal tract, and avoid generalities.

The regularity of sound change itself is affected by the type of sound change - conditioned v/s unconditioned. An example of a 'conditioned' sound change is where a stop consonant changes under the influence of neighbouring vowel. This is quite regular. Eg. palatalization of PIE *kʷekʷlos > Skt. cakra.

Whereas an 'unconditioned' sound change may be irregular. eg. how PIE "thorn clusters" came to result in Sanskrit -kṣ- consonant cluster. But PIE "thorn clusters" weren't the only parents of -kṣ-

[RajeshA]

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

Let me review what we discussed before closing the topic.

Why this hurry to close the topic! Is this just another way to scuttle the discussion. You have been propagating here so much Asatya (Untruth) with or without your knowledge that it would take some time to dispel the cobwebs that have gathered up there!

Basically you are agreeing that Aryans (ANI) are migrants and spoke Indi European languages. The dispute is about the time of entry of Aryans. You say that Aryans are in India since 40000 years. Where as the scientific reference I could find suggests that (Kivisild’s 2003 article) they might have been here since the start of Agriculture in Indus valley.

There is a very high level of confusion in your statement. I am not agreeing to anything what you wrote there. If you wish to know about the timings of migration of Ancestral South Indians (ASI) and Ancestral North Indians (ANI), then the right place to do so from the writings of Stephen Oppenheimer!

Journey of Mankind

Basically Oppenheimer is saying that after moving Out-of-Africa, humans came to the Indian Subcontinent and from here moved on to other places. The migration of humans to the Indian Subcontinent happened around 65,000 years ago, and the differentiation into various tribes happened in the Indian Subcontinent.

What Reich et al. (2009) have suggested is that instead of one-time colonization of the Indian Subcontinent, there were two movements into India. First the ASI and then the ANI. These are all movements which happened over 50,000 years ago.

How does one come to such dates?

Well for that one has to read Kivisild et al (2003). The paper talks about India sharing mtDNA clade M with Southeast and East Asians, but different M subclades. Also India shares mtDNA clade U with Europeans but different U subclades. East Asians and Europeans do not share any maternal clades. Also the paper suggests that these are not found in Africa. That means that the differentiation happened later after humans migrated out of Africa. Kivisild talks about a differentiation around 50,000 years for both U and M.

The theory is that Ancestral North Indians (ANI) separated from CEU around ~40,000-50,000 years and came into India taking the Northern route (Sinai, Fertile Crescent, North Iran), and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) separated from East Asians in India around ~50,000, the ASI having entered India moving from Africa through the Southern route (Bab el-Mandeb, Straits of Hormuz, Makran).

So for a long time we had ANI and ASI living side by side in India (~40,000 years), with increasing cultural contact among the two!

"Aryan" migrations are NOT connected with this at all. Aryan migrations happened much later when language and mythology had developed much further.

Aryan migrations happened with some tribes from ANI (not yet admixed with ASI) moving into Central Asia from India carrying language and mythology which had developed in the fertile area of the Indian Subcontinent. Europeans here say that Indo-Aryans moved into India from Central Asia, but that is simply not true. Such language and mythology could never have developed in the inhospitable Central Asia. To understand that one would have to read the Rigveda and how the Rigvedic environment involves regular monsoon and knowledge of the ocean!

The migrations are not to be understood as population migrations wholesale but of gradual migrations of ANI tribes (one can call these Aryans) moving up and admixing with the pastoralist societies that existed in Central Asia, impregnating them with Indian language any mythology and then collectively moving further in the direction of Europe with many such assimilations of populations on the way!

That is why Y-chromosome marker R1a1 which had its origin in India is much lower as we move into Western Europe. In Germany (~15%), in England (~4%), in Ireland (~1%). In Turkey it is just 6.6%!!!

That is because as the first wave of Indian Aryans moved Westwards their gene pool got successively diluted with every assimilation of new people as well as when the already Aryan diluted tribe arrived in Europe and admixed with the CEU already there. As one can see among the Slavs, R1a1 is particularly strong, but that is because those Indian Aryans who moved Northwards in subsequent waves did not assimilate as many locals on the way, since they had already been assimilated by the previous Indian Aryan migrations.

Back to India! After the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization "collapsed" due to drying up of Saraswati and other geological factors, then the admixing of ANI and ASI increased exponentially because the ANI moved into the areas where ASI were living, further into Central and South India, possibly as refugees first.

Metspalu et al. (2004) say that any Indo-Aryan migration into India according to the European model, cannot have happened in the last 12,500 years, otherwise it would have been detectable. None was detected.

Basically you are agreeing that Aryans (ANI) are migrants and spoke Indi European languages.

Now I can answer that question. Everybody outside Africa is a migrant because humans evolved in Africa, as per current understanding. So that statement really says nothing.

Since the last 40,000-50,000 years ANI are indigenous to India. Since 65,000-50,000 years ASI are also indigenous to India.

Aryans on the other hand are those who carried Sanskrit and other Indian languages Out-of-India towards Europe after the permafrost melted after Last Glacial Maximum, and one could travel Northward, anywhere between say 11,000 and 6,000 years!

In order to justify Aryan entry time of 40000 years you blame scientists

You need to read other papers as well like Kivisild, Metspalu, Sahoo, Reich, Sharma, Oppenheimer, etc. in order to better understand Stepanov and Sengupta.

I don't need to justify any Aryan time of 40,000 years, because 40,000 years ago there were no Aryans. There were only Ancestral North Indians (ANI).

Also you tried to attribute your opinion to Kivisild when you wrote,” Beyond ANI and ASI, there aren't any others which entered India in the last 12,500 years as Kivisild et al find out. “

I am sorry. I meant not Kivisild but Metspalu! Thanks for pointing it out, but it doesn't really change the message!

---

I would urge you to try to understand the papers and the data, beyond just quoting some passages which suit the Aryan Invasion Theory!

There is actually no Aryan Migration Theory because AMT does not explain how in such a short time of 3,500 years, R1a1 carrying Aryans managed to increase their numbers to over 300 million in India. Nor does it explain how a few Indo-Aryan migrations managed to supplant the local culture and language and managed to become the elite.

That is why again one returns to Aryan Invasion Theory. It was all done by coercion! And that too explains nothing!

In fact AMT is very very humiliating for Dravidians, because it says they gave up their whole standing in the Indian Subcontinent without even a murmur of protest. Compare that with today! Are Tamils willing to give up Tamil for Hindi? Of course not! So how can one claim (according to your model) that Dravidians just gave up their high culture of IVC for some language and gods of some pastoralist Indo-Aryan tribes coming in from the Northwest!

It really is silly!

Instead of claiming the truth of Ancestral South Indians that they and the Ancestral North Indians, both here in the Indian Subcontinent since 50,000 odd years lived together and built up a formidable civilization, each contributing and enriching it, you want to give those who show allegiance to the ASI, a victimization complex? That is a pathetic position and it a result of European brainwashing!

The ASI too have made unparalleled civilizational contributions, some of it was on display as the Tsunami (2004) caused the waters to recede and one could see the archaeological treasures which lie under water!

With your Aryan Invasion Theory model you are in fact diminishing Indians both North Indians and South Indians, and funnily so even though it is based all on lies spread by Europeans since 19th century!

In case you or your readers wish to understand more on the topic, you are welcome to visit

Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[Nilesh Oak]

For a self-styled "archaeo-astronomer", your ability to search original Sanskrit texts is abysmal. Anyway, since you are unable to do your homework, I'll give the ref

"One does not win the debate until the other side gets personal" - Naseem Taleb

śatapatha brāhmaṇa 9.3.3, 18 ...

tadubhayāni saṃvatsarasyāhorātrāṇyāpnotyatha yāni pañcatriṃśatsa trayodaśo
māsaḥ

If this is the illustration, translation and more critical, context of the reference I requested, then this might as well be explanation for Quantum mechanics. I specifically ased for the 'context' because instead of interpreting this reference, wrongly, as referring to ancient Indian astronomers/caldendrics ability/inability to make big errors in calculating durations for months, the implication of this reference....in Rajesh ji language "would make one sweat with repurcussions"

Sure it won't make sense to you - since you can't grasp the need to specify "error probability" in all your fantasy interpretations. I'll again do your homework for you ...

Rate of precession = one degree on the ecliptic per 72 years. So a difference of 8 days would mean 8 * 72 = 576 years. The variation in the rate of precession only makes the error probability different, it never vanishes.

Therefore, without the knowledge of the exact number of days used in the intercalary 13th month, it is futile trying to arrive at an exact date.

I asked for an illustration and how this error (and probability?...if one refuses to learn) affects dating of any specific instance/refernce from ancient Indian literature. Hand waving is not a response to a question.

And to specific 8 x 72 = 576 nonsense, I would stop. I don't want to get personal and validate Naseem's quote, AGAIN.

It's all in the old posts - dating of Brāhmaṇa texts.

Ah, This is helpful. Thanks. My response is in my book,.

[Nilesh Oak]

Sure it won't make sense to you - since you can't grasp the need to specify "error probability" in all your fantasy interpretations. I'll again do your homework for you ...

Rate of precession = one degree on the ecliptic per 72 years. So a difference of 8 days would mean 8 * 72 = 576 years. The variation in the rate of precession only makes the error probability different, it never vanishes.

Therefore, without the knowledge of the exact number of days used in the intercalary 13th month, it is futile trying to arrive at an exact date.

This reminded me of american humor (or humor about americans).

What does an american do when he goes to Europe and ask/says soemthing and the locals do not understand what he is saying?

He repeats his question/statement, loudly.

[RajeshA]

Nilesh Oak ji,

just in case you were to notice any Witmer-style attacks lately like "weekend reading", "fantasy", "self-styled", etc. don't allow these to agitate you! Such attacks are SOPs (standard operating procedures) of that camp!

Respond if you wish, but do it politely and to the topic, urging the other to moderate such language, which anyway when used in a pattern, becomes rather predictive and revealing about the other's weak positions!

As we know from the animal world, many animals pump blood into their extremities and make a martial dance accompanied with screams, all to disguise an otherwise weak position versus the opponent!

Considering that you have made quite significant discoveries in Archaeo-Astronomy, expect more of such Witmer attacks!

[Nilesh Oak]

Regularity of sound change (neogrammarian hypothesis) is a general guideline. In the words of Hock in 'Principles of Historical Linguistics',

Sound change is overwhelmingly regular, if not always regular.

Hock is one of the decent kind of Indologists/linguists. In any case, does his statement, quoted by ManishH Ji, reminds anyone of Freud and Adler aka joy of imprecise statements aka I will make statements in such a fashion that you can never prove me wrong.

[Nilesh Oak]

RajeshA ji,

Thank you for your advice and comments. I was done - day 1- with responding to such 'chatter with no purpose' when I did not hear anything firm and rational, but all handwaving. I have still cared to comments only to the extent I thought other forum members may find beneficial.

Babhruvan (Mahabharata character) as described more in later puranic lore, is shown to have been interested in the War, and he did not care which side won. He was not for problem solving, he was for some good carnival time, and at other's expense.

[ManishH]

Ah, This is helpful. Thanks. My response is in my book,.

Nilesh-ji:

Basically, you cannot counter the very simple, quantitative "error probability" argument in an open forum. You don't even know the textual reference to a 35-day intercalary month (you ask me for it), but you claim that your book, which is already published, answers it. The lengths you want to go to advertize your book

I have nothing personal - you are a seeker like many on the thread - so I only wish you the best with your book sales. But I don't see any value reading a book written by someone who is too lazy to search the very texts they claim to date for a simple reference to a 35 day intercalary month.

[ManishH]

ManishH are you aware of any translation of the Shatapatha Brahmana other than the out of copyright one by Eggeling?

In fact I am asking you for help here but the help will be used to tear down one more pillar of the Aryan Migration theory so you need not help if you don't want to.

Shiv: Many times, Brāhmaṇa prose texts are easy to grasp with basic Sanskrit knowledge and guidance. For me, I'm not knowledgable, but lucky to have easy guidance. In blr, Basavanagudi and Vidyapeeta areas abound in traditional vedic study centres. I'm sure you can find someone whom you trust to provide a translation.

And even if you don't, I'm sure you'll find something to "demolish" theories, just the way you found "10,000 shlokas" (wow!) in ṛgveda.

The Rig Veda has 10,000 shlokas - each with perhaps 10 words. Out of 100,000 (probably more) words, horse is mentioned about 200 times. A huge big deal has been made out of that. Ass holes.

The touche is the invective.

[Arjun]

The comparative linguistics arguments only tell us that Sanskrit/Greek/Latin etc, none of these can be original languages. These are all derived from a common parent. No purely linguistic technique can be used to derive the homeland. One needs archaeological proof of linguistic markers. In the case of the AIT debate, the horse and chariot language terminology is one such marker.

Even if I accept at face value your statement that comparative linguistics rules out Vedic Sanskrit from being the PIE parent - it does not rule out a pre-Vedic Sanskrit spoken in India as being the original.

So, net net - linguistics cannot confirm / deny anything wrt PIE homeland and cannot add value to the AMT debate one way or the other - I am glad we are finally agreed on that point !

We are now reduced to horse and chariot as the only supposedly 'key' arguments for AMT. Previous pages of this thread have touched upon several arguments that explain these two RigVedic markers (including trade of Arabian horses). You claimed rather grandiosely some pages back that unlike others you 'would have to evaluate all evidence'. And yet I see you and fellow sepoys believe that a conclusive statement about AMT as the 100% historical truth can be made - while dismissing as impossible the alternative scenarios presented. Meanwhile, the very conclusive reports from CCMB in archeogenetics don't seem to figure in your list of 'all evidence' to evaluate on this issue.

[RajeshA]

Arjun ji,

the model proposed by historical linguists falls apart as soon as they say Indo-European languages had a common parent! That is hardly how language develops!

An Example! Let's just say I give you 5 words from my language, which you pronounce slightly differently than me, and you give me five words which I pronounce slightly differently than you, and then we go around and teach these 10 words to others, whose language would have been the common parent - yours or mine?

Let's say in a closely-knit geographical area, instead of two parties, 5-6 parties exchange many of the words of their languages among each other, and then they all go out and teach others these words, who would be the common parent?

[shiv]

And even if you don't, I'm sure you'll find something to "demolish" theories, just the way you found "10,000 shlokas" (wow!) in ṛgveda.

The Rig Veda has 10,000 shlokas - each with perhaps 10 words. Out of 100,000 (probably more) words, horse is mentioned about 200 times. A huge big deal has been made out of that. Ass holes.

The touche is the invective.

Manishji - the invective is too decent for people who pass themselves off as high scholars in "top Universities". But their fakery is real and needs to be demolished word for word. Accuracy in terminology and fact is definitely not one of the strongpoints of linguists and their archaeologist friends and I have absolutely no intention of trying to be very accurate myself because pretence of scholarship from a non scholar like me would be silly - especially when my initial anger and irritation is being replaced by laughter. It is amusing that one does not even have to pretend to be an expert to pick holes in this archaeo-linguistic comedy.

The horse business is bullshitting of the highest order - especially the business of "Is it caballus?" and how Sanskrit was cooked up on the fly by horse riding pastoralists based on memories of Central Asia 500 years prior to their arrival in "Panjab". I need to thank you for providing some of those references in the first place. The specific things I am looking at now is how a particular passage or set of passages in the Shatapatha Brahmana describes how to build graves in Central Asia just like the burial of kings with many horses described in the Rig Veda (which you know about). There is another passage allegedly in the Shatapatha Brahmana that speaks of Sati ( a Hindu ritual where a bride is buried with her husband) and proof has been found in Central Asia where a male and female skeleton have been found buried together. All this is very exciting to me. Not to mention funny. I guess supporters of this trash have a right to laugh at mistakes I might make, but that won't convert linguistic fakery and archaeological bluff to truth. Just more data points in the stated intention to demolish.

Thanks for the Blr addresses - but I have a number of other human contacts and my own method is to get hold of a text first before I ask for translations. I need to get the text first.

[RajeshA]

And yet I see you and fellow sepoys believe that a conclusive statement about AMT as the 100% historical truth can be made

Arjun ji,

if I may request, let's not call fellow BRFites and discussion partners as 'Sepoys' or anything! We are all here to learn and explore onlee!