Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Sep 2012 20:35

Saik ji,

Wikipedia needs a whole overhaul as far as Indian history is concerned! If you wish to know about dates as far as India is concerned, never consult Wikipedia!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Sep 2012 20:43

Nilesh Oak wrote: Which thread and forum are you referring to? Within BRF or alltogether another forum?

Thanks

Rajesh has posted the link in the burqa and hijab forum

member_23629 · Post by **member_23629** » 04 Sep 2012 21:02

SN_Rajan wrote:
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.

This "peer-reviewed" racket is run by the Goras to regulate entry of undesirable elements (natives) into the discourse who can poke holes in their flights of fancy. Since they build a house of cards (to further the dominance of White civilisation), it is essential for them that the entry of wind is restricted inside the room. This art of not allowing wind inside is called "peer reviewed scholarly journal references." (What a coincidence -- the "peer reviewers" are all whites believing in the AIT theory.)

Did it never occur to you that this is just an artificial gate-keeping mechanism to keep the non-whites out of any discussion? By submitting to the racket, you have shown yourself as someone gullible who can be manipulated by races more shrewd than you.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Sep 2012 21:10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gora
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gora_%28racial_epithet%29
Rajesh ji, yeah.. even the word gora needs update.

Unfortunately even maasan school kids use wiki as a source for researching data. So, please be aware that if you do have proper dates, with substantiated documents, you are free to edit the wiki source.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Sep 2012 21:40

V Lakshinikantham and S. Leela also propose earlier dates for much of our history

Code: Select all

Birth                      Baudhayana                              3200 BCE

Birth                      Aryabhatta                              2765 BCE

Birth                      Gautama Buddha                          1888-1807 BCE

Coronation                 Chandragupta Maurya                     1554 BCE

Coronation                 Ashoka Maurya                           1472 BCE

Reign                      Kanishka                                1294 BCE to 1234 BCE

Coronation                 Chandragupta of Imperial Gupta dynasty  327 BCE

Writings                   Varahamihira (Pancha Siddhantas)        123 BCE

Reign                      Vikramaaditya                           102 BCE to 78 CE

Birth                      Brahmagupta                             30 BCE

Era                        Salivahana                              78 CE 

Writings                   Bhaskara II (Siddhanta Siromani)        486 CE

As far as Gautama Buddha's date of birth is concerned, this must be able to be researched much better, than perhaps other dates!

jambudvipa · Post by **jambudvipa** » 04 Sep 2012 21:44

SaiK wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gora
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gora_%28racial_epithet%29
Rajesh ji, yeah.. even the word gora needs update.

Unfortunately even maasan school kids use wiki as a source for researching data. So, please be aware that if you do have proper dates, with substantiated documents, you are free to edit the wiki source.

SaiK bhai,the very nature of Wiki makes any changes very difficult to sustain particularly when you are up against organised "gangs" of whites and their brown attack dogs.Add to the mix well intentioned but deracinated Indians and every change you make will be reversed as quickly.Oh yes forgot about the Pakis as well.
Quality as well as quantity of man power is required to sustain a offensive on Wikipedia.

Rajesh ji did you have a look at Kota Venkatachalams book on dating ?

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 04 Sep 2012 21:54

Shiv wrote:Please define what you mean by "significant difference"?

Shiv Ji,

Yes i am also okay with some errors, up to 500 years or till it becomes a 'significant difference'.

I did mention that Kenoyer did qualify his dates with +-50 years and p >= 90% which is very reasonable in my view.

And, what i mean by 'significant difference' is any date range that will make RV pre-date or make RV contemporary with respect to IVC.

The IVC dates i am referring to are 3300 BCE to 2600 BCE, i.e., from early stages to by that time it became a mature civilization.

So, please post/quote if there is a such significant difference or not - as that in my view will prove or disprove migration.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 04 Sep 2012 22:05

I have read in a few references ( I am sure links these are already posted in this thread ) that the genetic make up of people living in the IVC/SSVC area is pretty much same as what it was during the IVC/SSVC period.

Now if there was Aryan Invasion/Migration to this area, shouldn't the genetic makeup of the people living in the IVC/SSVC be different now?

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 04 Sep 2012 22:13

RajeshA wrote: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 Ji,

Perfect line of reasoning. Just blame everybody/everything else. Quite convenient and very logical

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Sep 2012 22:21

SN_Rajan ji,

why would Western Indologists give space to Indian views, if it breaks down their carefully fabricated lies, or if it easier for you to digest, their version of history?

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 04 Sep 2012 22:31

RajeshA wrote:V Lakshinikantham and S. Leela also propose earlier dates for much of our history

Coronation Chandragupta Maurya 1554 BCE

Coronation Chandragupta of Imperial Gupta dynasty 327 BCE

Just out of curiosity: are they then claiming that the Macedonians actually tangled with Gupta and not Maurya ? And are things like "Mauryan coins" dated to ca. 300 BCE actually Gupta coins ?

KL

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 04 Sep 2012 22:42

RajeshA wrote:SN_Rajan ji,

why would Western Indologists give space to Indian views, if it breaks down their carefully fabricated lies, or if it easier for you to digest, their version of history?

RajeshA Ji,

Well, these line of arguments are all noise - missing the factual points and just making ad hominem en masse !

Don't we have a Amartay Sen who blasted the British Loot and established Bengal Famine story, etc leading in Harvard and Oxford.

Don't we have a Pankaj Mishra tearing apart Niall's Civilization into pieces, publishing in lots of the so-called western media.

And, the list goes on and on.

I just hope that we be aware of our own biases, and seek the truth, and not just excel in arm chair petty piskoing everything/everyone else.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Sep 2012 22:49

RajeshA, did the errors (intentional or inadvertent) on dates caused by just replacing the "years back" to just BC/BCE ?

example:

Birth Aryabhatta 2765 years back

instead of:

Birth Aryabhatta 2765 BCE

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 04 Sep 2012 23:07

SN_Rajan wrote:Don't we have a Amartay Sen who blasted the British Loot and established Bengal Famine story, etc leading in Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.

Don't we have a Pankaj Mishra tearing apart Niall's Civilization into pieces, publishing in lots of the so-called western media.

Pankaj Mishra & Amartya Sen - why do I feel I know everything about our guest already ?

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 04 Sep 2012 23:09

Arjun wrote:
SN_Rajan wrote:Don't we have a Amartay Sen who blasted the British Loot and established Bengal Famine story, etc leading in Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.

Don't we have a Pankaj Mishra tearing apart Niall's Civilization into pieces, publishing in lots of the so-called western media.
Pankaj Mishra & Amartya Sen - why do I feel I know everything about our guest already ?

Yeah -that is whole purpose this thread - piskoing me and anyone who has different view. Keep it up. That might ultimately prove OIT in your own mind while I enjoy the fun

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 04 Sep 2012 23:14

RajeshA ji - while I admire your steadfast refusal to stoop to the levels of democracy (or lack of it) exhibited in the Witzel/Farmer internet forums....might want to keep the interests of the thread in mind.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Sep 2012 23:18

Saik ji,

the Āryabhaṭīyaṃ of Āryabhaṭa is very specific about how his date of birth is to be calculated - [(6 x 60) - 23] years from Start of Kaliyuga (3102 BCE) = 2765 BCE!

Some Sir William made it look like 60 x 60 instead! What the West has ensured is that no literature in India be datable to a period before 1500 BCE including the Āryabhaṭīyaṃ!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Sep 2012 23:25

Perhaps RajeshA.. you must be encouraged to dwell into it, and expose the western play here. These are what I call axioms / premise to whatever theory this thread might end up with.

member_23629 · Post by **member_23629** » 04 Sep 2012 23:27

SN_Rajan wrote:Yeah -that is whole purpose this thread - piskoing me and anyone who has different view. Keep it up. That might ultimately prove OIT in your own mind while I enjoy the fun

Umm.. to put it delicately, house negros had different views about the whites than the field negros.

The Story of the House Negro

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 04 Sep 2012 23:33

Horse with 34 Ribs

from the following site..

http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=mustan ... ang%2Ehtml

The Mustang

The Mustang descends from Spanish stock that was introduced to the American continent by the conquistadors in the 16th century.

Today the Mustang population is much more reduced than when they were first introduced to the Americas in the 16th century. Some still survive I wild horse refuges in the western states. At the beginning of the 20th century there were an estimated one million wild horses. However, organized killing to supply pet food and human consumption had reduced that number so drastically by 1970 that the Mustang was protected by law as an endangered species. Anxious to conserve the wild horse heritage, enthusiasts established a variety of societies to preserve, improve, and promote Mustang stock.

There can be no overall description on the Mustang; in the vast area it inhabits even the least adulterated strains will vary according to the perception of those attempting selective breeding. Nonetheless, the Mustang breeder Robert Brislawn was definite about the type of horse he wanted to preserve in Wyoming. He looked for a small horse of about 14 hands, short in the back, low in the withers, with a low, sloping croup, and weighing about 800 pounds. In fact, after a study of skeletal remains, Brislawn believed that the horse, which he called a "primitive Barb", should have 17 ribs and 5 lumbar vertebrae like the Arabian horse, rather than the 18 ribs and 6 vertebrae characteristic of other breeds. Colors range from roan to grulla to dun and buckskin. Mane, tail, and lower legs are black, ears are small and rimmed with black hair, and the head is small and neat.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Sep 2012 23:37

SN_Rajan ji,

I can understand your viewpoint! But there are some "axioms" we all have over the years come to accept after prolonged and detailed observation and study and yearly reviews that just define how many think here!

If you were to conduct a search on this forum on Amartya Sen or Pankaj Mishra or Romila Thapar, you will get to see much analysis, so much so that you may have to devote perhaps a couple of days to it! You will also notice a certain mindset on BRF based on our sense of identity, interests and worldview! That mindset is built through constant supply of corroborative evidence!

Now all that is GIVEN! So while I understand your protestations, there are somethings you can't change here, so I would advise you to keep that in mind when you pursue your argumentations!

You obviously have different role models than many here!

Most of your arguments are based on 'trust', trust in the Western academics, trust in the publications they control, trust in the Indians they adopt! So if you wish to explore more about the reasons we may not have so much trust in the same, you are welcome to do so in this thread or in other threads, perhaps simply in a lurker mode.

If you wish to discuss data however without bringing in the question of 'trust' and 'peer-reviewed papers' from Western journals, then you are welcome to partake in our discussion here!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 04 Sep 2012 23:37

Horse with 34 ribs
http://animal-world.com/horses/Light-Ho ... nHorse.php

Arabian Horse

Description

The Arabian has a very unique appearance. It is generally small in stature with an average height of 57 inches or 14.3 hands. Although many fall within the height range of a pony, they are always considered horses.
The most distinctive features are the outline and the shape of the head. The unique outline is created by a skeletal formation that differs from other horses. The Arabian has 17 ribs, 5 lumbar bones, and 16 tail vertebrae where other breeds generally have 18 ribs, 6 lumbar bones, and 18 tail vertebrae. This difference accounts for the shape of the Arab's back and the high carriage of the tail.
Arabians are generally fine boned and have a small, refined head. The famous dished face is created by the indentation that begins below the eyes and down to the muzzle. They also tend to have an arch at the point where the head meets the neck, and the greater the arch, the greater the range of motion of the head. Arabians can be grey, chestnut, bay, and black (see color descriptions).
Arabian lines that were bred separately from the purebred Arabian have created distinctive breeds, namely the Polish Arabian, Egyptian Arabian, and Shagya Arabian. These breeds tend to be larger than the pure Arabian and have thicker bones.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Sep 2012 23:48

An old thread in forum History KB started by Michel Danino

Indians can't have done it

Some pisko-anal-uses of the Westerners!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2012 00:00

I think there could have been an Aryan Invasion into India after all in early 13 century BCE - the Kushans - the first Aryans (who may have migrated Out-of-India a long time ago) to invade India!

See table above!

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 05 Sep 2012 00:13

RajeshA wrote:the Kushans - the first Aryans (who may have migrated Out-of-India a long time ago) to invade India! See table above!

Did the Kushanas know the Rgveda ?And if not, on basis are you categorizing them are "arya" ?

KL

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2012 00:27

KLP Dubey wrote:
RajeshA wrote:the Kushans - the first Aryans (who may have migrated Out-of-India a long time ago) to invade India! See table above!
Did the Kushanas know the Rgveda ?And if not, on basis are you categorizing them are "arya" ?

KL

KLP Dubey ji,

I did not characterize them as "Arya" but as "Aryan". The first is how Indians define the word, whereas the second is mostly a Western definition, loosely defined as speaking an Indo-European language, following some archaic Indo-European culture and possibly deriving genetically from the first people who used to speak the Proto-Indo-European language!

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 05 Sep 2012 01:13

I am not sure how relevant this is..
Did Krishna exist?

Further, Euan Mackie, an eminent archaeologist, had found a clay tablet of Krishna's Yamalaarjuna episode at Mohenjedaro, a site of the Indus Valley civilisation proving that even in 2200 BC, there was a culture of worshipping Krishna.
The Hindu religious empire extended across the whole of the Asian sub-continent to South East Asia, from Afghanistan to Thailand (where Ramayana and Krishna are still shown through dances), Burma, Cambodia (Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom, Bayon, etc), Vietnam, Laos (little Kurukshetra and temples), Malaysia (which was Hindu until recent) up to Java (more temples), Bali (where Hinduism is still the religion) and Indonesia, where Bhima's grandson is said to have performed a thousand fire rituals at Yogyakarta. Afghanistan was of course home to both the Yadu race and Shakuni (Kandahar or Gandhar).

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 05 Sep 2012 01:24

KLP Dubey wrote:Now, as for the RV: after many years of closely scrutinizing it (sound by sound) I can conclude that it does not support or contain any history, geography, or any other human cultural effort. Any such associations are humanly-created and we do not have independent testimony to verify the context and time of these associations. I will be sharing my findings by writing more posts (as time permits) on specific matters. The result will be that dating the RV is a futile task.

Dubey ji, I have been following your posts here with interest. I look forward to your future posts detailing your findings.

I would like you to comment on a doubt of mine: Many traditional interpreters do speak of different levels of significance of the words of the Veda. There is no doubt that the topmost level is what you are suggesting - a non-intellective "peripheral hearing" of the sounds and their interrelationships, with direct experience of their significance. This is what people like Madhvacharya called adhivishnu level. However, while this may be the highest level, they also do mention that Veda can have adhyAtmika, adhidaivika and adhibhautika levels of understanding also. So what is wrong if different groups want to use those significances?

Also, while the ultimate meanings may be ahistorical or "not history-centric", a sound historical perspective is necessary to maintain sanity and balance when approaching Veda. To lose sight of the time track means to absorb the Veda on a perceptic circuit (of the indriyas + sAkShi) that may be quite risky for one's spiritual advancement. There is a balance - one must not consider Veda as bound by Time, but one cannot give a completely other-worldly meaning to it either. Rather, one must be situated exactly on the time-track, in Present Time, in order to "hear" it properly. In order to be so situated, one may go through time-based knowledge and rationalizations. Therefore, while one may keep in mind that the sounds of the Veda are eventually "to be" understood as absolute, surely one must also be capable of discussing the historical transmissions of Veda and its meandering through time and space.

स्थाने स्थिताः श्रुतिगतां तनुवान्मनोभिः
ये प्रायसो 'जितजितो 'पी असि तैस्त्रिलोक्यं || -- Shrimad Bhagavatam 10.14.3

"Those who remain self-situated in their respective positions, and who then approach hearing (shruti) with their body, speech and mind...
You who are unconquerable, become conquered for the most part by them within the three worlds."

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2012 01:36

Publication Date: 1874
Author: Āryabhaṭa
Editor: Johan Hendrik Caspar Kern
Āryabhaṭīyaṃ

Page 58

Here is Stanza 10 from Kālakriyā

This is the part that seems to be doctored, as per V Lakshinikantham! Should read

“Shastyabdanam Shadbhiryada vyateetastra yascha yuga padah.”

instead we see

“Shastyabdanam Shastiryada vyateetastra yascha yuga padah.”

Now the challenge is to gather the various manuscripts of Āryabhaṭīyaṃ that may be in the hands of Indics whose age can be vouched for and to bring out the truth, or better yet to digitize their manuscripts and put them out on the Internet!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 05 Sep 2012 01:57

narmad wrote:I am not sure how relevant this is..
Did Krishna exist?

Good effort by Dr. Manish Pandit.

Further, Euan Mackie, an eminent archaeologist, had found a clay tablet of Krishna's Yamalaarjuna episode at Mohenjedaro, a site of the Indus Valley civilisation proving that even in 2200 BC, there was a culture of worshipping Krishna.

Is this somewhere mentioned by Dr. Manish Pandit (above interview link? or his documentary on Krishna?).

On a site note.. reg.. date proposed by Raghavan/Achar and accepted by Dr. Manish Pandit.

Dr. Manish Pandit is gung ho on date of 3067 BC, originally proposed by Raghavan, and claimed by BNN Achar to have either verified or discovered indpendantly. While their efforts must be commended, ONLY astronomy observation from Mahabharata text (out of 200+) that matches for this date - 3067 BC is 'Saturn near Rohini'. THAT IS IT.

Anyone interested can easily compare works of Raghavan/Achar (3067 BC) with that of mine (5561 BC). No astronomy background required to do this analysis. Only logic, rationality and commonsense.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Sep 2012 03:13

SN_Rajan,

Even if you want to trust only western, pir-reviewed journal articles and then only filter, I have pointed out to you the Demic Diffusion Theory, pioneered by Colin Renfrew and most recently buttressed by a paper cited in this thread, namely that IE languages began in Anatolia, and spread with agriculture, not with the horse & chariot.

You apparently have no response to that. Does that mean that even in western, pir-reviewed journal articles, you only trust AIT-horse-chariot-linguistics papers?

Just inquiring.
-Arun

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Sep 2012 06:08

SN_Rajan wrote:
And, what i mean by 'significant difference' is any date range that will make RV pre-date or make RV contemporary with respect to IVC.

The IVC dates i am referring to are 3300 BCE to 2600 BCE, i.e., from early stages to by that time it became a mature civilization.

So, please post/quote if there is a such significant difference or not - as that in my view will prove or disprove migration.

SN-Rajaji, first things first.

How would YOU date the Rig Veda? How would YOU decide the time lag between the so called earliest parts and the so called later parts? Given that you don't know the Rig Veda or Sanskrit and given that I don't know the Rig Veda or Sanskrit on what basis do you decide whose "scholarship" you need to follow?

How do you decide on dates for Rig Veda between a person who says "4000 BC" and another person who that the Rig Veda is both an accurate record of history but yet has parts that are hyperbole or explains away numerical anomalies as "symbolism"? Both could be wrong.

If you cannot date the Rig Veda yourself, you are quoting someone else and hence you are bringing nothing new to the debate because everyone's theory of age of Rig Veda (available in public) have been read and trashed by someone or the other.

You cannot compare dates that you do not know. And that is what your question above attempts to do. If you assume dates it is an assumption. You have to make up your own mind, I am not going to put any words in your mouth, There is archaeological evidence that contradicts all dates for horse and wheel quoted by the AMT supporters and no archaeological evidence to support dating of the Rig Veda.

If i say the Rig Veda was in the Bronze age and came before the earliest IVC cities - or perhaps at a time when small settlements were present a date of 3500 BC is perfectly credible to me. You don't have to believe this, but I find a 3500 BC date more credible than 1500 BC. I will accept any other date that that avoids bluff, rhetoric and assumption and provides facts. I am not trying to prove anything to anyone in the absence of proof like the AIT nazis whose works you have quoted. I am merely pointing out the absence of all proof to support that theory. Only good faith and belief in some guru makes AIT with horse and chariot and language credible. That support can be extended to any other theory.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 05 Sep 2012 06:30

RajeshA wrote: This is the part that seems to be doctored, as per V Lakshinikantham! Should read
“Shastyabdanam Shadbhiryada vyateetastra yascha yuga padah.”
instead we see
“Shastyabdanam Shastiryada vyateetastra yascha yuga padah.”
Now the challenge is to gather the various manuscripts of Āryabhaṭīyaṃ that may be in the hands of Indics whose age can be vouched for and to bring out the truth, or better yet to digitize their manuscripts and put them out on the Internet!

Rajeshji,
http://iishdownloads.info/01_HERITAGEBO ... ateeya.pdf
Here is one translation of aryabhateeya... ensoi
The relevant 10th stanza from kalakriya

Aryabhateeya has been divided into four chapters , in which the kaalakirya paada is the third. As the title means, it gives the measurement of time and processing with time. In the beginning itself the author gives specific definition for the angular and linear dimensions.

10. When sixty times sixty years and three quarter yugas (of the current yuga) had elapsed, twenty three years had then passed since my birth.
It is very important to note that ancient Indian mathematicians and astronomers have specifically given their date of their birth or the date on which the writing of their book was completed. This was given either in Saka era, or in Kali era. Sometimes they give , as a factor for correcting the astronomical parameters or position of the planets , in which the year will be given clearly. Here Aryabhatta has given his age on the day he completed the writing of the book based on the Kali era. Which has been fixed on back calculation as 3102 BC, Feb. 17th midnight on Thursday.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Sep 2012 06:35

SN_Rajan wrote:
Yeah -that is whole purpose this thread - piskoing me and anyone who has different view. Keep it up. That might ultimately prove OIT in your own mind while I enjoy the fun

If you volunteer information about what gives you fun, why do you accuse others of piskoing you o student of Witzel? You are piskoing yourself.

If you are having fun while others prove OIT in their own minds, why would you want to upset your own fun? The real truth is that you are not having fun and you keep coming back to try and prove that AIT is correct. You seem unable to leave out mind games, perhaps because of your inability to find the hard evidence needed to prove AIT and need to look for extraneous factors that cause the minds of people on here to be twisted.

This is perfectly in line with Witzels intention of collecting information about the mind of the late 20th and early 21st century Indian which he mentions in a 118 page long work of verbal diarrhoea published under the misleading and hand-wavy title "Evidence for Autocthonous Aryans"

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Sep 2012 06:57

Nilesh Oak wrote:Horse with 34 Ribs

from the following site..

http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=mustan ... ang%2Ehtml

The Mustang

The Mustang descends from Spanish stock that was introduced to the American continent by the conquistadors in the 16th century.
<snip>
should have 17 ribs and 5 lumbar vertebrae like the Arabian horse, rather than the 18 ribs and 6 vertebrae characteristic of other breeds. Colors range from roan to grulla to dun and buckskin. Mane, tail, and lower legs are black, ears are small and rimmed with black hair, and the head is small and neat.

Nileshji, at some point in this thread - I recall posting a link to a horse genetics paper that mentioned a set of horse genes that were found in India and Spain. The Spain link is there in the paper but the India connection may have been mentioned in another source that mentioned this horse genetics paper, so unless I find the source I have no claim to make on this issue. Will look for it in due course- I am already well behind in my reading including a slow and deliberate re reading of your own book.

Anantha · Post by **Anantha** » 05 Sep 2012 07:00

For the last 15 years I have believed the following words of Swami Vivekananda as an article of faith. I read all AIT/AMT documents only after remembering his words, I realize the level of fraudulence committed the Harebred Univ broffessors and their chaprasis in India. With out an iota of evidence the Aryan invasion/tourist theories have been thrust upon us by these scoundrels.
Says Swamiji
" Of late, there was an attempt to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes. Some say now that they live at the north pole. Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations. As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans ever came from anywhere outside of India and in ancient India was included Afganistan. There It ends. And the theory that the Shudra caste were all non-Aryans and they were a multitude, is equally illogical and equally irrational."

All like minded people with Science background need to learn Sanskrit and interpret our ancient documents. It is not difficult to imagine, in 20-25 years we can send Witzelites and his brown coolies to dust bin.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Sep 2012 07:02

Nilesh Oak wrote:Horse with 34 ribs
http://animal-world.com/horses/Light-Ho ... nHorse.php

Arabian Horse

Description

The Arabian has a very unique appearance. It is generally small in stature with an average height of 57 inches or 14.3 hands. Although many fall within the height range of a pony, they are always considered horses.
The most distinctive features are the outline and the shape of the head. The unique outline is created by a skeletal formation that differs from other horses. The Arabian has 17 ribs, 5 lumbar bones, and 16 tail vertebrae where other breeds generally have 18 ribs, 6 lumbar bones, and 18 tail vertebrae. This difference accounts for the shape of the Arab's back and the high carriage of the tail.
Arabians are generally fine boned and have a small, refined head. The famous dished face is created by the indentation that begins below the eyes and down to the muzzle. They also tend to have an arch at the point where the head meets the neck, and the greater the arch, the greater the range of motion of the head. Arabians can be grey, chestnut, bay, and black (see color descriptions).
Arabian lines that were bred separately from the purebred Arabian have created distinctive breeds, namely the Polish Arabian, Egyptian Arabian, and Shagya Arabian. These breeds tend to be larger than the pure Arabian and have thicker bones.

Brilliant. Thank you. Just the sort of information I was looking for. I don't suppose Witzel could declare this 17 ribs figure as "numeral symbolism" of the Rig Vedic Aryans but then again what would I know? Witzel is the expert on the mind of the late 20th and early 21st century Indian even if his AIT theory is trash

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Sep 2012 07:10

RajeshA wrote:I think there could have been an Aryan Invasion into India after all in early 13 century BCE - the Kushans - the first Aryans (who may have migrated Out-of-India a long time ago) to invade India!

See table above!

Rajesh I speculated earlier in this thread that if you have a huge area with Indo-European speaking people who have occupied those areas for a very long time (I said 10,000 years) any migration from any area to another will only present as a superstrate of the same language family on a sister language.

Human migrations have taken place long before horse domesticaton and the entire planet had humans before the horse was domesticated. They likely had words for foot, father and brother long before they had words for wheel and axle. If Indo European had become established over vast areas of Europe and Asia in the remote past - later migrations or invasions may have taken horse and wheel, but not language except for new words.

Anantha · Post by **Anantha** » 05 Sep 2012 07:18

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/843.full

I have not read early part of this thread and not sure if this V.K. Kashyap article was discussed. This is on genetic distances between different groups in India vs India and Europe.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 05 Sep 2012 07:36

Shiv Ji,
I have a friend travelling to Bangalore, Kerala in a week. He has promised me that he will pick up 4 Vedas (Sanskrit to Hindi Translation by an 'Bhartiya' Author). It would be great help if you can tell me where in Bangalore can he find it.
TIA,
fanne