Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[member_23630]

Shiv Ji,

On your post on my IVC date references:

I belive the dates for IVC are correct - 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, even per Wiki. Please see Chronology - from early Harappan to Late Happan - Harappan 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization

I also referred to the Kenoyer and Meadow paper:
2007 Harappa Excavations 1998-1999: New evidence for the development and manifestation of the Harappan phenomenon. by R. H. Meadow and J. M. Kenoyer. In South Asian Archaeology 1999, edited by K. R. van Kooij and E. M. Raven, Leiden.

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... EewFrYPz8A
(Table 1 and Table 2)

As usual, i am okay with some errors, and i see that in table 2, he already given +- 50 years, and p >= 90% and that is good enough for me.

Also, not to taunt you, but, just to state my view: You may find Kenoyer and Meadow also like Witzel:

...is not a nromal man. He is a vicious and jealous person and publishes more rhetoric than fact.
...
...extreme and vulgar verbosity, vicious ad hominem, sarcastic digs and a gratuitous style of obfuscation ... comes across as a star buffoon.

But, in my view all such ad hominem's are just one's own 'cognitive bias' / 'fallacy', and irrelevant 'noise' that strictly needs to be filtered-out.

Maybe it is just the 'inherent bias' and 'ambient noise' in the forum. Need to be filtered out more so, if we need to treat it as a scientific fact finding study.

Btw, just out of curiosity, is there any scholar that you disagree because he/she favours AMT, but you still can respect him/her for his scholarship? Anyone?

[member_23630]

The IVC certainly had the horse. It had wheels and wagons/chariots as well.

Shiv Ji,

Is there any evidence for all these(horse + chariot + wheels) in IVC that you can cite please.

I remember ManishH explanations with pictures before in this thread.

Now quoting Kenoyer from:
2006 Cultures and Societies of the Indus Tradition. In Historical Roots in the Making of ‘the Aryan’, edited by R. Thapar, pp. 21-49. New Delhi, National Book Trust.


Cultures and Societies of the Indus Tradition

page - 25.

there are many horse using cultures in the
ancient world, but the presence of a horse does not mean
that the people who used the horse are “ärya”. The use of
the horse spread quite rapidly (Anthony 1997), and by 1500
BCE horses and chariots were used by elites in a vast area
spreading from Egypt to China, and yet no one would argue
that Egyptians or Chinese elites were Vedic Aryans.
Consequently, the presence of horse bones in a site does not
in itself indicate the language or religion of the community
using the horse. In order to determine if “ärya” communities
used horses it would be necessary to find evidence of horse
sacrifice as described in the Åg Veda. So far no such remains
have been discovered in South Asia.

And, from http://www.harappa.com/script/maha3.html

It has often been pointed out that the complete absence of the horse among the animals so prominently featured on the Indus seals is good evidence for the Non-Aryan character of the Indus Civilization. Parpola quotes from a fairly uptodate and authoritative report by Richard Meadow that there is as yet no convincing evidence for horse remains from archaeological sites in South Asia before the end of the second millennium BC. Many claims have been made, but few have been documented for independent verification. The wild relatives of the horse and donkey are not native to South Asia, and the domesticated animals were brought into the region from the west and north.

Parpola points out why the 'horse argument' is so central to the issue. The Proto-Aryan words for the horse and the various technical terms associated with the war chariot can all be solidly reconstructed to Proto-Indo-European. This is good linguistic evidence that the Vedic horse and chariotry are firmly rooted in the Proto-Indo-European heritage. The evidence strongly suggests that the Indus culture was non-Aryan.

And, also the 'horse play' references from:
http://www.safarmer.com/frontline/
http://www.safarmer.com/frontline/horseplay.pdf

[member_20317]

Arjun ji,

Request you to reconsider the strictness of your position, with a cooler frame of mind without getting angered at what AIT/AMT/PIE crowd has done to India.

There was a time when all the positions of current scientific inquiry had not developed and studying Vedas was the mark of highest understanding for the most learned people across the philosophical divide, whether one believed in Vedas or not. Both sides had to get into it, whether they liked it or not. Despite this the only view that prevailed was the 'Eternal Vedas' view. Vedas for their discovery do not rely on human agency. Kind of like Mata ka bulava hoga to Vaishno Devi darshan hone hein.

And still nobody is stopping nobody from using Vedas to make the other side see their fallacy. There is only one condition that since Vedas represent the earliest and highest records of something in which humans got themselves involved, so any theory that is build using Vedas will be very hard put to establish the 'Chain of evidence' and will degenerate into an issue of faith, that can then be misused by interested parties. The Chain in the ‘Chain of evidence’ is very important. Equally if not more important than the Origin itself. Such a theory will turn into just another exclusivist idea concerned about the origin/distant to the exclusion of the present. Vedas will get turned into a revelation instead of the universally available vibes. With the ‘Eternal Veda’ line, because study of Vedas have nothing to do with origin, so the whole identity business gets sidelined. Vedas are Indic way of providing the bases for future human relations whether at interpersonal or international level. Making Vedas central to OIT will make Vedas a subject of progressive dispute instead of being a subject of progressive acceptance.

Besides ‘Eternal Veda’ also serve to fill up the gap in the understanding of human efforts beyond the virtual veil that has not been penetrated by the current scientific inquiry and which perhaps will never get penetrated. Already at the time boundary of SIVC origin the evidence is sparse and going beyond that boundary, the evidence keeps getting thinner. Without a cogent axiom nobody can prevent the past from being abused. And the only real axiom supply-able for such huge gaps is that people were doing much the same in much the same manner unless proven otherwise. Proven implies the bar is higher than just a damned theory.

Arjun ji all said and done AIT or OIT are only going to remain theories. None will ever amount to fact which will be complex because of the very nature of things.

And above all else the OIT claim has such strong arguments in its favour that time now is not to open new lines of theorizing but to educate our people with what we already have. I mean what we really need to worry for is how do we take Clinal patterns, Sediments, Star positions, Climate patterns, Surkotada, Saraswati etc. to our people. You are working on a line of attack that was for all practical purposes closed by Sri Aurobindo ji after an effort much bigger than ours.

Ek baar shanti se sochiye. Use the analogy of Planks Epoch. ‘Eternal Vedas’ are not a stumbling block to OIT. OTOH ‘Eternal Vedas’ is a very pragmatic idea that basically takes away all vain theorizing and ‘claims to exclusivity’ which is what AIT/AMT/PIE essentially is.

[member_20317]

SN_Rajan ji,

When Kenoyer ji, said the following was he arguing for or arguing against the PIE/Kurgan horse graves and related hypothesis ?

there are many horse using cultures in the ancient world, but the presence of a horse does not mean that the people who used the horse are “ärya”.

Consequently, the presence of horse bones in a site does not in itself indicate the language or religion of the community using the horse.

In order to determine if “ärya” communities used horses it would be necessary to find evidence of horse sacrifice as described in the Åg Veda.

[RajeshA]

I think you fit the role of Bhima in Mahabharata. We already have "Arjuna" here. Shiv is Yudhishthira. Witzel et al are Duryodhana and party. Elst, Talageri, etc are various vassals.

Sir, if you wish to poke fun at us at our cost, well let's just say, you should enjoy your moment!

I am that mischievous guy who seemingly is pitting all of you against one another and claiming that "dharma will prevail in the end".

Kishen Lal (writing full name just in case you mistake me for Shakuni)

The war was in progress, long before you walked in, so you can hardly be the instigator. I actually had a different analogy in mind for your course of action!

I would compare your case more to that of Yudhiṣṭhira who has decided to pass on battle-field intelligence to the Kauravas, because he has discovered his love for Truth and chosen Truth over any desire to have a kingdom or to establish Dharma over it!

Let's also not forget the time when Yudhiṣṭhira lost his kingdom, his brothers, his wife to the Kauravas, when the Kauravas played to the ego of Yudhiṣṭhira. Somehow it reminds me of how cooperative many Brahmins were in teaching fine gentleman of East India Company and the British Empire about the intricacies of Hinduism, our scriptures, Sanskrit, etc. before the Anglo-Germans decided to completely take over Sanskrit and write its history for us, without much resistance! Just saying!

[Arjun]

The war was in progress, long before you walked in, so you can hardly be the instigator.

If I am not wrong, he was hinting at a role as Krishna (Kishen) !

[member_23630]

Maybe we can try simplify the basic question of 'Migration':

In my view, at the top most layer, the most important and relevant date range is 3300 BCE to 2600 BCE, i.e., from the early beginning of IVC till it started to be a mature civilization, buzzing with 5 million people with 1052 cities + many other settlements over 1,260,000 sq. km.

As i have mentioned before, my simple test is if the IE speakers are native / contemporary during this period will tell if they were migrants or not - the boundary condition.

While it is very interesting to figure out the origin/Urheimat, and the route these migrations would have taken place, the above boundary condition test itself is sufficient to determine if there was migration or not.

The additional details are only needed to add further color to migration.

All the scholarly dates for earliest IE in India - the RV, is 1500 BCE to 500 BCE, and it does clearly rule out RV in IVC in the boundary time range. Even if we take further speculative dates for RV even from 2300 BCE for RV/Horse, it does not establish nativity/contemporariness with IVC, as by 2600 BCE itself IVC was in full glory with 5 million people.

If there is any strong evidence for RV on IVC within the 3300 BCE to 2600 BCE, i would be very interested to be educated.

And, no, logical fallacies like 'Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence' please.

[RajeshA]

Arjun ji,

Lord Krishna was simply a master strategist!

[Arjun]

Arjun ji,

Lord Krishna was simply a master strategist!

True, That role is taken. Bhima is available if he's interested....(!)

[RajeshA]

All the scholarly dates for earliest IE in India - the RV, is 1500 BCE to 500 BCE, and it does clearly rule out RV in IVC in the boundary time range. Even if we take further speculative dates for RV even from 2300 BCE for RV/Horse, it does not establish nativity/contemporariness with IVC, as by 2600 BCE itself IVC was in full glory with 5 million people.

If there is any strong evidence for RV on IVC within the 3300 BCE to 2600 BCE, i would be very interested to be educated.

Citing N.S. Rajaram

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.

The 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.

The 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.

_________________________________

It would really be helpful to you if you would read this thread first!

[RajeshA]

...is not a nromal man. He is a vicious and jealous person and publishes more rhetoric than fact.
...
...extreme and vulgar verbosity, vicious ad hominem, sarcastic digs and a gratuitous style of obfuscation ... comes across as a star buffoon.

But, in my view all such ad hominem's are just one's own 'cognitive bias' / 'fallacy', and irrelevant 'noise' that strictly needs to be filtered-out.

Maybe it is just the 'inherent bias' and 'ambient noise' in the forum. Need to be filtered out more so, if we need to treat it as a scientific fact finding study.

SN_Rajan ji

shiv saar provided the psychological profile of Witzel based on Witzel's outpourings in his various publications. Psychological analysis also belongs to scientific fact finding studies as it is based on actual data!

[shiv]

Shiv Ji,

On your post on my IVC date references:

I belive the dates for IVC are correct - 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, even per Wiki. Please see Chronology - from early Harappan to Late Happan - Harappan 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization

Please, I don't trust the source because I have never seen such a claim in the past. Wiki can be edited by anyone. The 1300 BC date is too tempting to use for an anti AIT argument, but it needs confirmation. If yu have a seprate source for corroboration I will look at it. Or else I will take it as a one off, possibly erroneous

But, in my view all such ad hominem's are just one's own 'cognitive bias' / 'fallacy', and irrelevant 'noise' that strictly needs to be filtered-out.

Maybe it is just the 'inherent bias' and 'ambient noise' in the forum. Need to be filtered out more so, if we need to treat it as a scientific fact finding study.

Btw, just out of curiosity, is there any scholar that you disagree because he/she favours AMT, but you still can respect him/her for his scholarship? Anyone?

Rajanji, did you seriously believe that I would answer such a question with a "no"? A person like you who has, at least on three occasions on this thread mocked people as being biased is asking me nonchalantly if there is

any scholar that you disagree because he/she favours AMT, but you still can respect him/her for his scholarship? Anyone?

.

Do I come across as being so stupid as to feed your completely and transparently ridiculous attempt to profile me with an answer you can use against me later?

You were clearly completely insincere and hypocritical in making the mealy mouthed comment

But, in my view all such ad hominem's are just one's own 'cognitive bias' / 'fallacy', and irrelevant 'noise' that strictly needs to be filtered-out.

It is irrelevant only when Witzel uses profiling or when I profile Witzel. It is relevant enough for you to go off topic and ask me that stupid question, knowing that you can innocently deny any ulterior motive on your part. Rajanji get off this rubbish. Post facts if you can. And if you simply post links after the type of taunting and profiling you have attempted, I am not going to read them simply because you posted them Maybe you haven't read them yourself.

Your profiling attempt was both pathetic and ludicrous and suggests to me that you are looking for any type of irrelevant crutch to try and tear down any views i may post. That is how you started off on this thread and on page one hundred something you are still at it.

[member_23630]

Please, I don't trust the source because I have never seen such a claim in the past. Wiki can be edited by anyone. The 1300 BC date is too tempting to use for an anti AIT argument, but it needs confirmation. If yu have a seprate source for corroboration I will look at it. Or else I will take it as a one off, possibly erroneous

Shiv Ji,

I did give further reference – here it goes again:

2007 Harappa Excavations 1998-1999: New evidence for the development and manifestation of the Harappan phenomenon. by R. H. Meadow and J. M. Kenoyer. In South Asian Archaeology 1999, edited by K. R. van Kooij and E. M. Raven, Leiden.

IVC Dates

Please see the Table 1(page 1) and Table 2(page 3).

As usual, i am okay with some errors, and i see that in table 2, he already given +- 50 years, and p >= 90% and that is good enough for me.

P.S: as usual, i did filter-out the ‘noise’ from the post and just focused on the ‘signal’.

[shiv]

Now quoting Kenoyer from:
2006 Cultures and Societies of the Indus Tradition. In Historical Roots in the Making of ‘the Aryan’, edited by R. Thapar, pp. 21-49. New Delhi, National Book Trust.


Cultures and Societies of the Indus Tradition

page - 25.

In order to determine if “ärya” communities
used horses it would be necessary to find evidence of horse
sacrifice as described in the Åg Veda. So far no such remains
have been discovered in South Asia.

True, No horse sacrifice remains from the Vedic period too, let alone the IVC period

This can mean one of two things (or maybe both)
1. There were no horses
2. There were no Aryans

But it also means that the Rig Veda is a bluff, because there were no horses. There could not have been any horse sacrifice.

And, from http://www.harappa.com/script/maha3.html

It has often been pointed out that the complete absence of the horse among the animals so prominently featured on the Indus seals is good evidence for the Non-Aryan character of the Indus Civilization. Parpola quotes from a fairly uptodate and authoritative report by Richard Meadow that there is as yet no convincing evidence for horse remains from archaeological sites in South Asia before the end of the second millennium BC. Many claims have been made, but few have been documented for independent verification. The wild relatives of the horse and donkey are not native to South Asia, and the domesticated animals were brought into the region from the west and north.

Parpola points out why the 'horse argument' is so central to the issue. The Proto-Aryan words for the horse and the various technical terms associated with the war chariot can all be solidly reconstructed to Proto-Indo-European. This is good linguistic evidence that the Vedic horse and chariotry are firmly rooted in the Proto-Indo-European heritage. The evidence strongly suggests that the Indus culture was non-Aryan.

If you define Aryan culture as horse and chariot culture, and then identify all archaeological remains without horse and chariot as non Aryan, it effectively kills the Aryan Migration Theory because no horse and chariot remains have been found anywhere in India from 10,000 BC to 2012 AD. It is all non Aryan. It was these non Aryan people of India who called themselves "Arya" in their own language, Sanskrit. It was NOT a migration of horse and chariot riding "Aryans" from central Asia with zero linguistic evidence from Central Asia. From the information provided above no conclusion can be reached that a precursor to Sanskrit was being spoken anywhere outside of India

[Arjun]

Ravi ji,

There seems to be some misunderstanding. You are making me out to be far more dogmatic in my stance than I remember taking in my earlier posts. (if you remember I did say both schools can co-exist).

KL ji is welcome to push the eternal Vedas axiom, but if he needs to take on any side he needs to first take on the Western Indologists / philologists who initiated the whole exercise of basing arguments on historicity of the Vedas, which in turn has necessitated that Indian Anti-AMT defenders follow suit.

Secondly, while there are certainly rhetorical benefits to the Anti-AMT position through the claim that the meaning assignments for RV words may not be what they are thought to be - one needs to evaluate pros / cons by being able to look several steps ahead in the game. I am talking about what the likely Indologist response would be to this argument, how this position can be misused to their advantage and so on...

While Western philologists are likely to dismiss KL ji's argument as that of a 'crank' - so no net change in the output from the AIT side - what may well happen is that 'well meaning' Indians will as usual latch on to the argument to heap more scorn on the Anti-AMT arguments based on Vedic Proper nouns. Net effect - is that the relative position of AIT-Nazis is strengthened.

Not saying that's the only scenario of how things will play out - but its a fairly likely one given India's Vanara-sena of leftists in academia and other assorted idiots.

[shiv]

I did give further reference – here it goes again:

2007 Harappa Excavations 1998-1999: New evidence for the development and manifestation of the Harappan phenomenon. by R. H. Meadow and J. M. Kenoyer. In South Asian Archaeology 1999, edited by K. R. van Kooij and E. M. Raven, Leiden.

IVC Dates

Please see the Table 1(page 1) and Table 2(page 3).

Interesting ref. I have some uses for it, but not what I thought. Table 1 is not their work as far as I could make out. Table 2 lists the 11 radiocarbon dates they got this time and the latest is around 1680 BC - nowhere close enough to the Wiki 1300 BC. Even table 1 only says "Late Harappa" - 1800 (?) to < 1500 BC. Not convincingly close enough to 1300 BC, and Table 1 gives no source that can be cross checked.

[member_23630]

So far no such remains have been discovered in South Asia.

True, No horse sacrifice remains from the Vedic period too, let alone the IVC period
This can mean one of two things (or maybe both)
1. There were no horses
2. There were no Aryans
...
If you define Aryan culture as horse and chariot culture, and then identify all archaeological remains without horse and chariot as non Aryan, it effectively kills the Aryan Migration Theory because no horse and chariot remains have been found anywhere in India from 10,000 BC to 2012 AD.

No. It just means that there were no ‘Aryans’ in IVC.

Please see below - it also provides a possible Migration Trail from Central Asia to India - the last 2 are from India / Greater India, plus the Surkotada horse also.

Quoting Witzel again - just take the facts please, i am not making for any rhetoric here.
Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts. EJVS May 2001 pdf
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewi ... VS-7-3.pdf
Page 74

Some of the earliest uses of the domesticated horse had been reported from the
Copper Age site of Dereivka on the Dnyepr River (for riding, c. 4200-3800 BCE, now
withdrawn)188 and similarly, from the Copper Age site of Botai in N. Kazakhstan (c. 3300-
2900 BCE.)189 Some of the first attested remnants of primitive spoke-wheeled chariots and
horse burials occur at Sintashta on the Tobol-Ishim rivers, east of the Urals (2100-1800
BCE.)190 From there, a clear trail (Hiebert 1995, 192 sqq.) leads towards the subcontinent:
from a somewhat unclear picture in the BMAC (Parpola 1988: 285, 288) to Pirak (horse
figurines, c. 1700 BCE (Jarrige 1979),191 bones in Kachi from 1700 BCE, the Swat Valley at c.
1400 BCE (painted sherds, horse burials, Stacul 1987).

Also, per my previous posts, i think we should anyways move up to strategic boundary condition IVC timeline of 3300 BCE to 2600 BCE as it rules out any IE/RV nativity/contemporariness.

[shiv]

All the scholarly dates for earliest IE in India - the RV, is 1500 BCE to 500 BCE,
<snip>
And, no, logical fallacies like 'Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence' please.

The scholars could be wrong. Absence of evidence of IE before the dates they supply is not evidence of absence.

However there is firm evidence that Sanskrit existed in India only after 300 BC or so. No scholar that I admire or do not admire has been able to produce even a whiff of attestable evidence that any Indo European language existed in India before 300 BC. All assertions that Sanskrit existed as a language before 300 BC (made by AIT or OIT people) can be trashed on this single fact alone. It is merely an unproven article of faith that Sanskrit is older

Once we convince ourselves that some IE language or Sanskrit itself existed before 500 BC (despite the absence of any proof whatsoever) then its a toss up about which conjectural date you want to believe. Linguistic methods do not provide dates. The Rig veda does not have dates. You may choose to believe them because faith is a personal issue and I am a secular Indian and accept others right to faith in what they believe. But like God, no proof exists that Sanskrit was there before 300 BC

[shiv]

So far no such remains have been discovered in South Asia.

True, No horse sacrifice remains from the Vedic period too, let alone the IVC period
This can mean one of two things (or maybe both)
1. There were no horses
2. There were no Aryans
...
If you define Aryan culture as horse and chariot culture, and then identify all archaeological remains without horse and chariot as non Aryan, it effectively kills the Aryan Migration Theory because no horse and chariot remains have been found anywhere in India from 10,000 BC to 2012 AD.

No. It just means that there were no ‘Aryans’ in IVC.

And no Aryans after that either. Where is the evidence of horses and chariots and spoked wheels?

Please see below - it also provides a possible Migration Trail from Central Asia to India - the last 2 are from India / Greater India, plus the Surkotada horse also.

Quoting Witzel again - just take the facts please, i am not making for any rhetoric here.
Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts. EJVS May 2001 pdf
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewi ... VS-7-3.pdf
Page 74

Some of the earliest uses of the domesticated horse had been reported from the
Copper Age site of Dereivka on the Dnyepr River (for riding, c. 4200-3800 BCE, now
withdrawn)188 and similarly, from the Copper Age site of Botai in N. Kazakhstan (c. 3300-
2900 BCE.)189 Some of the first attested remnants of primitive spoke-wheeled chariots and
horse burials occur at Sintashta on the Tobol-Ishim rivers, east of the Urals (2100-1800
BCE.)190 From there, a clear trail (Hiebert 1995, 192 sqq.) leads towards the subcontinent:
from a somewhat unclear picture in the BMAC (Parpola 1988: 285, 288) to Pirak (horse
figurines, c. 1700 BCE (Jarrige 1979),191 bones in Kachi from 1700 BCE, the Swat Valley at c.
1400 BCE (painted sherds, horse burials, Stacul 1987).

Also, per my previous posts, i think we should anyways move up to strategic boundary condition IVC timeline of 3300 BCE to 2600 BCE as it rules out any IE/RV nativity/contemporariness.

I have read this passage.

Sorry. No good. Where is the attested proof? Where are the horse and chariot remains along the way?

No horse burials have been found South of Swat. And even the Swat burials are about 1800 to 1600 BC (IIRC) well before the "Aryan" 1200 BC. And no chariots or wheels anywhere. I am being asked to believe an elaborate bluff. You are welcome to swallow it if you like, but it is a bluff. No trail exists all the way to India.

[Arjun]

And, no, logical fallacies like 'Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence' please.

SN Rajan - happy to school you in logic and elementary deduction.

Evidence here is the same as Proof.

Absence of Proof regarding validity of Hypothesis A is not the same as Proof of invalidity of Hypothesis A.

If Proof is absent, that implies Hypothesis A can be either True or False.....It cannot be taken to imply that Hypothesis A is False.

Kapiche?

[member_23630]

However there is firm evidence that Sanskrit existed in India only after 300 BC or so. No scholar that I admire or do not admire has been able to produce even a whiff of attestable evidence that any Indo European language existed in India before 300 BC. All assertions that Sanskrit existed as a language before 300 BC (made by AIT or OIT people) can be trashed on this single fact alone. It is merely an unproven article of faith that Sanskrit is older

Once we convince ourselves that some IE language or Sanskrit itself existed before 500 BC (despite the absence of any proof whatsoever) then its a toss up about which conjectural date you want to believe. Linguistic methods do not provide dates. The Rig veda does not have dates.

Shiv Ji,

While i understand the limitations/errors/non-pure-mathematical nature, etc, i see no logical reason not to trust the RV dates in the range of 1500 BCE to 500 BCE.

Linguistics have used their scientific rules and principles for the relative dating of Mittani, Avestian and RV, and datable and locatable markers, such as Horse/Wheel/Chariot. I just don’t see any ‘fundamental’ issues, while there may very well be minor errors which i expect and tolerate in such studies and disciplines.

Also, given the IVC window of interest of 3300 BC to 2600 BCE, it looks like Migration is the scenario that can fit occam's razor.

You may choose to believe them because faith is a personal issue and I am a secular Indian and accept others right to faith in what they believe.

Just a note on my faith business to avoid getting into any negative feelings. As i mentioned some time ago, i am a practicing hindu, and i do recite few RV slokas occasionally. But, science and engineering is also my religious karma. And, i personally worship Harvard also as my temple of saraswati .

btw, in my googling i do see that there are lots practicing Hindus/Brahmins who do support AMT, including Mahadevan, a TamBram. So, it is not that simple. In any Vaad, Vivaad(and hopefully not vitandavaad) Satyamev Jayate is the ultimate objective.

[member_23630]

Interesting ref. I have some uses for it, but not what I thought. Table 1 is not their work as far as I could make out. Table 2 lists the 11 radiocarbon dates they got this time and the latest is around 1680 BC - nowhere close enough to the Wiki 1300 BC. Even table 1 only says "Late Harappa" - 1800 (?) to < 1500 BC. Not convincingly close enough to 1300 BC, and Table 1 gives no source that can be cross checked.

From whatever i googled, many scholars do agree on these broad date ranges - if you find any 'significantly' different dates ranges, please do post.

[RajeshA]

SN_Rajan ji,

1) I think you've started waving certificates and references here, rather than talking about the data!
So I would suggest, you show the data

1. Give link to the paper (Wikipedia is useless here)
2. Give page number
3. Quote the relevant data, Summarize the data in your own words
4. Quote the analysis and conclusions separately

2) Only then one can see if the author has arrived at the right conclusions, and whether he/she has made one assumption too many!

3) Also it needs to be seen why the data cannot be interpreted just as easily or better to vouch for an Out-of-India Migration.

4) Also please check whether the issue has not been discussed earlier using the search facility!

Nobody here takes the word of a AIT proponent as the holy truth, or his academic authority as unassailable! What is of interest is the data! One can only really discuss the data! If you start discussing AIT/AMT personalities, then they will only get scorn here! In order to avoid that, let's discuss the data!

[member_23630]

Self-deleted.

[RajeshA]

SN_Rajan ji,

Your thrust is mostly on the lines of "All (AIT/AMT) scholars agree on AMT, so AMT is right"! That is like 3 bishops can agree that Jesus was the Son of God, so Jesus is Son of God! .... and all humanity has to believe that!

For example you wrote

All the scholarly dates for earliest IE in India - the RV, is 1500 BCE to 500 BCE, and it does clearly rule out RV in IVC in the boundary time range.

On this thread we would like to go beyond the notion that the word of a few bishops is infallible! We are interested in seeing how they arrived at their conclusions!

[Nilesh Oak]

The 34 rib objection is a valid one. i actually studied from the original work that is called "Gray's Anatomy". In the chapters on bones there is always a mention of supernumerary or missing bones and the percentages in which these findings occur. I have tried to find out that percentage for the horse in veterinary sources but have been unable to do that yet. But I wil be back here. The chances of having a poem composed 3200 years ago singing about a 34 ribbed horse that just happened to be one of the abnormal ones with 34 ribs instead of the normal 36 ribs sounds like a fabricated story to me.

B B Lal has added update on 34 ribs horse in the appendix of one of his book on - Flora, Fauna & Archelogoy in the context of Rigveda. Bottom line, there are indeed few species (even now?) with 34 ribs.

I will add the details from it, here, in next few days. The book is not with me right now.

[Nilesh Oak]

Btw, just out of curiosity, is there any scholar that you disagree because he/she favours AMT, but you still can respect him/her for his scholarship? Anyone?

Archelogist you mentioned, for their hard work, tenacity and search for truth. Their interpreations I may not always agree, but then keep in mind, historically, wrongly of course, Archeologists have looked to linguists for clues in interpreting their finding.

Additional names

Stephen Oppenheimer
Joseph Campbell
D D Kosambi

and many more.

[member_23630]

Your thrust is mostly on the lines of "All (AIT/AMT) scholars agree on AMT, so AMT is right"! That is like 3 bishops can agree that Jesus was the Son of God, so Jesus is Son of God! .... and all humanity has to believe that!

On this thread we would like to go beyond the notion that the word of a few bishops is infallible! We are interested in seeing how they arrived at their conclusions!

RajeshA Ji,

Well, i appreciate your line of '100% perfect reasoning'. Given that, how could it be any difficult for you in also finding out on just "how they arrived at their conclusions". Let me chip-in: They are bishops/mullahs/TamBrams, therefore, they arrived at such conclusions. All Morons. So Simple.

Now, on a serious note, i did see your previous response quoting N S Rajaram whose scholarly credentials are computer enhanced by his own admissions.
http://www.safarmer.com/frontline/taleoftwohorses.pdf

Is there any other "scholarly pir reviewed" evidence that you can cite putting RV in IVC 3300 BCE to 2600 BCE?

[RajeshA]

Now, on a serious note, i did see your previous response quoting N S Rajaram whose scholarly credentials are computer enhanced by his own admissions.
http://www.safarmer.com/frontline/taleoftwohorses.pdf

Yes he probably did that! His problem was not one of doing that, but not coming out openly on it!

Is there any other "scholarly pir reviewed" evidence that you can cite putting RV in IVC 3300 BCE to 2600 BCE?

What's wrong with what N.S. Rajaram has offered before, in the write-up?

You see, above he is not really using any seal! He is providing a logical argument! On which part of it, do you wish to put a question mark on? Be specific!

[shiv]

While i understand the limitations/errors/non-pure-mathematical nature, etc, i see no logical reason not to trust the RV dates in the range of 1500 BCE to 500 BCE.

You are repeating yourself and asking me to repeat my views with every question. Your repeating your views will not change mine. I think you are wrong. You are welcome to believe the same of my views.

The real issue is the level at which you stop believing in hard evidence and when you shift over to believing in fairy tales on based on faith in the author. "We must respect our gurus".

When there is evidence to support the AMT view it is used by the same gurus (justifiably). When there is zero evidence, your briiliant argument is used time and again by those same scholarly gurus:

While i understand the limitations/errors/non-pure-mathematical nature, etc, i see no logical reason not to trust

And where it is inconvenient it is just dismissed and ignored. And the opponent profiled and criticised. If you do it personally I would just laugh at you. But when people who call themselves "scholars" do it my reaction goes beyond the initial derisive laughter to a realization of the crap that passes for scholarship in this field.

You may choose to believe them because faith is a personal issue and I am a secular Indian and accept others right to faith in what they believe.

Just a note on my faith business to avoid getting into any negative feelings. As i mentioned some time ago, i am a practicing hindu, and i do recite few RV slokas occasionally. But, science and engineering is also my religious karma. And, i personally worship Harvard also as my temple of saraswati .

btw, in my googling i do see that there are lots practicing Hindus/Brahmins who do support AMT, including Mahadevan, a TamBram. So, it is not that simple. In any Vaad, Vivaad(and hopefully not vitandavaad) Satyamev Jayate is the ultimate objective.

No No No. You misunderstand. You have faith that the scholars whom you quote are correct. I don't. But I am not going to ask you to follow what I believe in. I merely state my beliefs. So long as you don't demand that I follow what you have faith in. This has nothing to do with Hindu, tambram, Schedueled Caste etc.

I guessed that you might have a special feeling for Harvard, but that is not my problem. It is your problem if you want to defend what is indefensible while hiding behind lame excuses or reputations. That only lowers my view of Harvard by a few more notches. The cockiness and contempt for others views that you entered this thread with always suggests a person who comes out of a place which he believes puts him a notch above others. I and others have suffered from that disease too. I dedicated a whole thread in another forum to discuss how Indians achieve this kind of mindset and how they start viewing and talking about other other Indians after that. I think most BRF regulars on this thread have seen that one too.

I do not feel the least bit sorry that you and I are not going to see eye to eye. And if you are sorry that I disagree that's tough luck for you. I think the AMT is built on a series of bluffs that I have written about in detail over 100 pages. I just summarised some views after you re-entered, not because I wanted to convince you but the lurkers who read this forum will be reading all this and they must decide what they feel. Every time the same AMT theories are posted by someone new, it ofers me the opportunity to rehash and re state my views so they are read over and over again. In my own way I will help fill the internet with verbal diarrhea to counter what has already been done. I believe I have time and people on my side. The interent is a great equalizer. If Harvard had anything to do with creating the internet, that is a +1 from me in exchange for the -2 of Witzel.

[member_23630]

He is providing a logical argument! On which part of it, do you wish to put a question mark on? Be specific!

RajeshA Ji,

You are free make fun of it as usual: but i am looking only for Peer Reviewed Scholarly Journal References. That is the primary filter. And, then, i will look into logic of it. Before that, it is just too much noise for me to filter out.

[shiv]

Interesting ref. I have some uses for it, but not what I thought. Table 1 is not their work as far as I could make out. Table 2 lists the 11 radiocarbon dates they got this time and the latest is around 1680 BC - nowhere close enough to the Wiki 1300 BC. Even table 1 only says "Late Harappa" - 1800 (?) to < 1500 BC. Not convincingly close enough to 1300 BC, and Table 1 gives no source that can be cross checked.

From whatever i googled, many scholars do agree on these broad date ranges - if you find any 'significantly' different dates ranges, please do post.

Please define what you mean by "significant difference"?

Over 3000 years does 300 years make a significant difference? I think it does. I recall that you stated earlier that 500 years this way and that are not significant. I realise that you are a person who has said:

While i understand the limitations/errors/non-pure-mathematical nature, etc, i see no logical reason not to trust

For you the matter of what you trust is more important than accuracy. We are not going to see eye to eye in this regard.

[member_20317]

Shiv ji - For your reference Re. Earliest Horses BS

http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/~ml12/downloa ... rticle.pdf

Marsha Ann Levine, University of Cambridge

1.1.4. Bitwear
Another example of this commitment to an earliest date is Anthony’s argument that the domesticated horse was present in the Ukraine earlier than in Kazakhstan. His evidence for this comes from bitwear studies of two samples of lower second premolars from two Eneolithic sites, Botai in northern Kazakhstan (5 from a total of 19 teeth) and Dereivka in the Ukraine (2 from a total of 6 teeth). He implies from this that horse domestication spread from west to east (Anthony 1995). Relatively little archaeozoological research has been carried out in the former Soviet Union, including both Kazakhstan and the Ukraine, and relatively few absolute dates are available (regarding the Ukraine, see Levine and Rassamakin 1996). Botai and Dereivka do not constitute representative samples of sites within the vast regions in question. They cannot, therefore, be used to answer questions about origins and earliest dates. Moreover, serious doubts have been raised about the stratigraphic location of the “ritual” skull from Dereivka, the basis of Anthony and Brown’s theory of the origins of early horse domestication (Rassamakin 1994). These doubts seem to be confirmed by the mean calibrated radiocarbon date recently obtained for that skull, 2915 B.C., more than 1000 years later than most of the other dates for that site (Table 1) (Telegin 1986).

[Nilesh Oak]

I dedicated a whole thread in another forum to discuss how Indians achieve this kind of mindset and how they start viewing and talking about other other Indians after that. I think most BRF regulars on this thread have seen that one too.

Shiv ji,

Which thread and forum are you referring to? Within BRF or alltogether another forum?

Thanks

[RajeshA]

SN_Rajan ji,

If you are looking for "pir reviewed articles", you will see that OIT people are not really welcome in the back-scratching clubs of AIT-Nazis! As such in Journals on Indology, History, Archaeo-Astronomy, Archaeology etc. one would see fewer OIT contributors and often no Indian presence!

For example, Shrikant Talageri wrote a marvelous analysis of the Rig Veda in the "The Rig Veda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence"! Do you see many articles of his in "pir reviewed journals"?

On the other hand, one would probably see more pro-OIT papers say on genetics in journals like Nature, Science, Molecular Biology and Evolution, etc. because there is less bias there!

[RajeshA]

I dedicated a whole thread in another forum to discuss how Indians achieve this kind of mindset and how they start viewing and talking about other other Indians after that. I think most BRF regulars on this thread have seen that one too.

Shiv ji,

Which thread and forum are you referring to? Within BRF or alltogether another forum?

Thanks

This is what you are looking for!

[Arjun]

The cockiness and contempt for others views that you entered this thread with always suggests a person who comes out of a place which he believes puts him a notch above others.

Notch above others ? Shiv ji...the evidence from standards of logic exhibited would seem to suggest the opposite.

[RajeshA]

Books for the Library



Publication Date: March 31, 2005
Author: V Lakshinikantham (Biography), S. Leela
The Origin and History of Mathematics [Google] [Amazon]

Description
This is the first book on the history of mathematics that attempts to report the immense mathematical activity and contribution of Bharat (greater India) which has been ignored in existing books. This volume also provides the true origin of mathematical knowledge correcting the existing historical distortions and rectifies the chronology of important early mathematicians of India so that priority of discovery can be properly attributed and acknowledged. The authors stress the work of the fourteenth century Indian astronomer and mathematician, Madhava, who discovered the limiting process to infinity before Newton and Leibnitz. In this book the authors introduce a balanced view of the origin and history of mathematics by Incorporating the extensive mathematical knowledge relative to the origin and continuity of mathematical research so as to present the true facts of history.

Quote: Chapter 4, Page 27 (taken from Kaushal ji's blog)

Was Sir William indulging in subterfuge or was he woefully incompetent that he did not recognize the difference between shasti and shabdi

In the modern period of Bharat (India), Aryabhatta is the first famous mathematician and astronomer. In his book Aryabhatteeyam, Aryabhatta clearly provides his birth data. In the 10th stanza, he says that when 60 x 6 = 360 years elapsed in this Kali Yuga, he was 23 years old. The stanza of the sloka starts with “Shastyabdanam Shadbhiryada vyateetastra yascha yuga padah.” “Shastyabdanam Shadbhi” means 60 x 6 = 360. While printing the manuscript, the word “Shadbhi” was altered to “Shasti”, which implies 60 x 60 = 3600 years after Kali Era. As a result of this intentional arbitrary change, Aryabhatta’s birth time was fixed as 476 CE Since in every genuine manuscript, we find the word “Shadbhi” and not the altered “Shasti”, it is clear that Aryabhatta was 23 years old in 360 Kali Era or 2742 BCE. This implies that Aryabhatta was born in 337 Kali Era or 2765 BCE. and therefore could not have lived around 500 A.D., as manufactured by the Indologists to fit their invented framework. Bhaskara I is the earliest known commentator of Aryabhatta’s works. His exact time is not known except that he was in between Aryabhatta (2765 BCE.) and Varahamihira (123 BCE.).

Is this another case of Napoleon''s Dictum 'attribute not to malice that which can be explained away by sheer incompetence. You be the judge.

Āryabhaṭa was born in 2765 BCE!

This is coming from a guy who has great reputation in the field of Mathematics!

It seems Āryabhaṭa was right in the middle of the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization Age!!! But why was he called Āryabhaṭa? And why was Āryabhaṭīyaṃ written in Sanskrit?

Added Later: Also a previous book



Publication Date: July 26, 2000
The Origin of Mathematics

Description
Casting aside the usual Eurocentric theories about the origins of mathematics, the authors investigate Vedic texts which originated in ancient India. Aryabhatta, Sulvastrus, and Bhaskaracharya are among the Sanskrit-speaking theoreticians, whose astronomical works contributed to the ancient body of mathematics, preceding the Greeks. This book deals with some of the chronological difficulties in tracing the history of mathematics, as well as the reasons for the decay in the ancient Vedic civilization.

Review

[SaiK]

wiki:

Time and Place of birth

Aryabhata mentions in the Aryabhatiya that it was composed 3,630 years into the Kali Yuga, when he was 23 years old. This corresponds to 499 CE, and implies that he was born in 476.[4]

and from the same wiki on kaly yuga:

ccording to the Surya Siddhanta, Kali Yuga began at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BCE[1] in the proleptic Julian calendar, or 14 January 3102 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. This date is also considered by many Hindus to be the day that Krishna left Earth to return to his abode.

kind of right, but needs edit if you say the dates are wrong.

[Virendra]

Something quite similar to what Dubey ji said in this thread :

Swami Dayanand said in Satyartha Prakash (ch. 7) : “There is no history in the Vedas. Vedas are pure knowledge expressed in pure scientific language”.
Vedas should be interpreted on the pure scientific principles of Nirukta, Nighantu and Swami Dayanand’s Commentary on the Vedas and his introduction to it.
No historical development of meaning can be forced back on words used at a time when history had hardly begun. Therefore take the origina lwords in their original sense, in no other.