Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[Neela]

Question: Were horses cremated ?

[shiv]

A review of Kochhar's book is here
http://iisermohali.academia.edu/ProfRaj ... istory_and

Using the constraints from naturalhistory, namely Aryan’s affinity tohorses and Soma plant (alkaloidalEphedra), Kochhar lends credence to the idea of a West Asian ancestry to Indo-Aryans. Another crucial point hemakes is that the earlier parts of the Rigveda were composed outside thegeographical boundaries of the Indian subcontinent, most probably when these people lived around River Helmand in Afghanistan, on their way to India.Kochhar points out that the initial hymns of Rigveda are replete with allu-sions to geographical entities of Afgha-nistan, rather than geography of north-west India.

About the Saraswati:

Probably it remained as arainwater-fed perennial stream, whichsupported population centres (Harap-pan) on its lower reaches. By about 1700 BC, the lower part of the Ghaggar channel started drying up and conse-quently the later period Harappans mi-grated upstream to the Siwalik region. After about 300 years, the Rigvedic people arrived from the north-west and they named the upper course of the Ghaggar as Vinasana Saraswati after Naditama Saraswati (Helmand) with which they were familiar.(WOW!)

The Aryans came to Helmand river in 1400 BC and called the Helmand as "Naditama Saraswati" and then went 1000 km East, crossing five major rivers to end up calling the Ghaggar as "Vinasana Saraswati". Wheer do people like this get such ideas.

But I must say one good word about Kochhar. I suspect he must have figured out that everyone makes wild claims and the wilder the better.

More about Kocchar

Rajesh Kochhar is a theoretical astro-physicist,

Indian Institute of Astrophysics Bangalore, Kerala

Witzel quotes him. Now I need to find the ref where Witzel is critical of someone because he is neither a linguist nor an archaeologist or some such thing. What a bunch of losers.

[shiv]

Question: Were horses cremated ?

Why do you ask? I hope for your sake that you are not asking for the reason I suspect you are asking.

[shiv]

Interestingly, this 'well known astronomer' does less than handwaving (only finger waving)when it comes to astronomy evidence.

He must be a scholar. His paper is hosted in University of Idaho, Germany

[Nilesh Oak]

Rajesh Kochhar

His 'The Vedic People' is filled with lots of useful evidence. And I admire his ability to pack so much stuff in such a small book.

Interestingly, on practically every single point, he builds evidence which would delight (for most part, anyway) any OIT believer..until at the last minute, when reader eagerly reads in anticipation of natural culmination of conclusion.....Kochhar takes a right angle or U turn, suddenely shocks logical/rationale reader par excellence and reaches a conclusion ----exactly opposite of---what one would have reached from the evidence presented so far.

And while reader is at loss to understand the leap of irrational gymnastic pole-vault, made by Kocchar.....

Witzel and R S Sharma perform a cheerleading routine, with Romila Thapar in the middle.

[Satya_anveshi]

Zoroastrianism was set up in opposition to the Vedic devas

Shiv ji, I think there is a difference between daevas vs devas. Devas and Asuras were against Daevas. Zorastrianism was setup in opposition to the later group.
The Vedic Religion in Ancient Iran and Zarathushtra by Subhash Kak. You might find this paper interesting and/or perhaps quoted before on this thread.

It has been assumed for some time that the daevas of the Mazda faith are
the same as the Vedic devas and therefore Zarathushtra inverted the deva-
asura dichotomy of the Vedic period. In reality, the situation is more complex
and the Vedic and the Zarathushtrian systems are much less different than
is generally supposed.

[Neela]

Question: Were horses cremated ?

Why do you ask? I hope for your sake that you are not asking for the reason I suspect you are asking.

Something I just suspected. In any case, it has been discussed 4 months ago.

[SaiK]

6 x 60 or 60 x 60 [unless it is a typo], is pretty large difference. I am kanpoosed onlee.. where did the 54 go?

[shiv]

Something I just suspected. In any case, it has been discussed 4 months ago.

Neela cremation too leaves behind some burnt bones, but not a lot. But bones themselves, even when not cremated, do not necessarily survive the ravages of time. But ritual burials tend to leave behind a lot more evidence. If you have a society that cremates rather than buries, you are less likely to find graves.

Let me quote what Witzel wants to find. Sweet dreams are made of these...

Ideally, an ''Aryan'' archaeological site would include the remnants of horses and
chariots, horse furnishings, a Vedic ritual site with three fire places nearby (preferably west of
a river), a rather primitive settlement pattern with bamboo huts, implements made of stone
and copper (bronze), some gold and silver ornaments, but with local pottery, evidence of
food that includes barley, milk products, meat of cattle, sheep and goat, and of some wild
animals. However, this particular archaeological set (or part of it) has not yet been discovered,
unless we think of the Swat Valley finds, c. 1400 BCE. Swat is an area known in the RV 8.19.37
as Indo-Aryan territory, Suvåstu ''good ground,'' however, with sponsors of sacrifice that bear
strange names: Vayiyu, Prayiyu.68

In sum, we have to look out for a 'Leitfosssil', clear indicators of Indo-Aryan culture
such as the chariot and Vedic ritual sites. The obvious continuity of pottery styles, taken alone,
tells little. Some archaeologists such as Shaffer simply restrict themselves to report the findings
of archaeology and intentionally neglect all the linguistic and spiritual data of the texts; in fact,
some denounce them as 'linguistic tyranny' (Shaffer 1984). While this procedure may be
perfectly in order for someone who simply wants to do archaeology, this approach is not
sufficient to approach the early history of the subcontinent. All aspects of material and
spiritual culture, of linguistics as well as genetics, have to be taken into account.

And only when none of these match what you want you can start bullshitting and profiling others - oops that last sentence was not there in the original - it just sort of popped out

[ramana]

About the Harappan script, after the initial findings in Harappa and Mohenjadaro, did they find any more writings/symbols in all those extra sites idenitfied as IVC? IOW has the script beeen augmented with more findings?

[RajeshA]

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

Jambudvipa ji,

thanks for pointing it out. I have found it and would be reading it with gusto!



Publication Date: 1956
Author: Pandit Kota Venkatachelam
Age of Buddha, Milinda, Amtiyoka and Yugapurana

Another blog dealing with the works of Pandit Kota Venkatachelam.

[Vayutuvan]

For interested parties who want to debunk some lost souls at Slashdot (but you need "karma" points to get your posts to have high moderation points)

Birthplace of Indoeuropean Languages Found

From the comments I perceive that the rot runs deep and wide.

[Lalmohan]

^^^ i saw the bbc version of that article last week. it says that siberia is NOT the birthplace (ruled out), and that turkey COULD be it, but it did not say that it DEFINITIVELY is. 'supports the hypothesis of turkey' was i think the language used

[vic]

If horse was so important to Aryans then why do we have Holy Cow instead of Holy Horse.

[Lalmohan]

^^^ ancient mongolians used to ride cows, whilst ancient indians rode horses. both were holy. due to linguistic transference matrix anomalies and some corrections to the time-space continuum loop holes, the indians continued to ride horses but thought of them as cows, whilst the mongolians continued to ride cows but re-configured them later to look like horses. since both were holy, they continued to be holy cows and horses, but over time the loop hole closed and then the fabric of the universe was torn and the holy horse was forgotten and the mongolian cows were swapped for horses and all the buried bones were erased using lasers from near earth orbit

[SaiK]

holy cowrse!

--

How did they date the 6k-9k year old based on words?

[shiv]

For interested parties who want to debunk some lost souls at Slashdot (but you need "karma" points to get your posts to have high moderation points)

Birthplace of Indoeuropean Languages Found

From the comments I perceive that the rot runs deep and wide.

Here is one comment

Agreed, as a linguist working with early Indo-European languages, I'm appalled to see this recent Anatolian study being credulously passed around by laymen who are completely unaware of the longstanding debates in the field. It's like Slashdot posting an article on string theory saying that the mystery of the universe is now solved, without even mentioning that this is an alternative theory that most physicists do not hold to.

I'd encourage everyone interested in the issue to read David W. Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel and Language [amazon.com] (Princeton University Press). It represents the mainstream on the origin of the Indo-European language family and is written in a fairly friendly tone, accessible to anyone with some basic undergraduate knowledge of history and archaeology.

The man who says that Cenral Asia graves (containing horses and chariots) are exactly described by the royal burial routine (wha??) of Rig Veda 1.162, and that Rig veda was composed in Syria on the way to India and compiled in India is "the mainstream"

Here you will learn from Shri Anthony the moral concepts of the Rig veda which he has found in Syria. This is "mainstream"

David Anthony

Old Indic, the language of the Rig Veda, was recorded in inscriptions
not long after 1500 BCE but in a puzzling place. Most Vedic specialists
agree that the 1,028 hymns of the Rig Veda were compiled into what be-
came the sacred form in the Punjab, in northwestern India and Pakistan,
probably between about 1500 and 1300 BCE. But the deities, moral con-
cepts, and Old Indic language of the Rig Veda first appeared in written
documents not in India but in northern Syria. 14

The Mitanni dynasty ruled over what is today northern Syria between
1500 and 1350 BCE. The Mitanni kings regularly spoke a non-Indo-
European language, Hurrian, then the dominant local language in much
of northern Syria and eastern Turkey. Like Hattie, Hurrian was a native
language of the Anatolian uplands, related to the Caucasian languages.
But all the Mitanni kings, first to last, took Old Indic throne names, even
if they had Hurrian names before being crowned. Tus'ratta I was Old 1n-
dic Tvesa-ratha 'having an attacking chariot', Artatama I was Rta-dhaama71
'having the abode of r'ta', Artas's'umara was Rta-smara 'remembering r'ta',
and S'attuara I was Satvar 'warrior'.l5 The name of the Mitanni capital
city, Wassukanni, was Old Indic vasu-khani, literally "wealth-mine." The
Mitanni were famous as charioteers, and, in the oldest surviving horse-
training manual in the world, a Mitanni horse trainer named Kikkuli (a
Hurrian name) used many Old Indic terms for technical details, including
horse colors and numbers of laps. The Mitanni military aristocracy
was composed of chariot warriors called maryanna, probably from an Indic
term marya meaning "young man," employed in the Rig Veda to refer to
the heavenly war-band assembled around Indra. Several royal Mitanni
names contained the Old Indie term r'ta, which meant "cosmic order and
truth," the central moral concept of the Rig Veda. The Mitanni King
Kurtiwaza explicitly named four Old Indic gods (Indra, Varuna, Mithra,
and the Nasatyas), among many native Hurrian deities, to witness his
treaty with the Hittite monarch around 1380 BCE. And these were not
just any Old Indic gods . Three of them-Indra, Varuna, and the Nosatyas
or Divine Twins-were the three most important deities in the Rig Veda.
So the Mitanni texts prove not only that the Old Indic language existed
by 1500 BCE but also that the central religious pantheon and moral be-
liefs enshrined in the Rig Veda existed equally early.

This man has PROVED it folks. The above passage is PROOF. You morons are still getting your khaki chaddis and saffron langotis in a knot trying to explain why you used the words "institutionalized racism". And here is a man who has "proved" a lot of things in a couple of paragraphs and we have more than one Sanskrit scholar praising and quoting David anthony as the last word on the subject. It is both ludicrous and sad that the scholarship is so debased and yet so respected. It seems to me that knowing the Rig veda or Sanskrit does not make a diference if you need to suck up to liars. And not knowing the Rig Veda is fine. You can always bluff about it.

To think that the lickspittle frothing at the mouth saffron tinted morons of BRF want to learn the Rig veda and its "cosmic sounds". Laughable! David Anthony has summed up the Rig Veda in two paragraphs. Sanskrit scholars support his views.

I am particularly fascinated by the fact that having a person neamed r'ta proves that the concept of cosmic order and truth are the central moral concepts of the Rig Veda and because the name existed in Syria, the Rig Veda was conceptualised in Syria.

No point laughing or getting angry with this. This is how the world thinks. The is how stupid sheeple actually are! Even "scholars". But if someone asked you what the Rig veda meant to you what would you say? David Anthony says it all better and more briefly than you. Even if he is bluffing. It's not his fault. Bluff is the name of the game here and has gone on for centuries, and bluffing and guessing is mainstream. Eveyone dos it. Everyone has always done it. It was absolutely amazing that ManishH came on here to mock my lack of Sanskrit, and ignorance of the Rig Veda even as he, with the other side of his mouth, recommended David Anthony's book. Someone had mentioned how Talageri was accused of "Not knowing a word of Sanskrit". But see the irony folks - you have a "mainstream scholar" telling you all about the Rig veda in two paragraphs. David Anthony will live on after you are dead. The Rig Veda doesn't care. Should you care?

If you do, it is up to you to say what the Rig veda is. It is up to us people to point out that someone having the name "rta" does not necessarily mean that the concept was invented in Syria any more than my having the name shiv means that I have 3 eyes or that Mr Anthony fought off a giant called Goliath with a slingshot and killed him because his name is "David" Anthony. But he has writen an entire book and that book contains misleading stuff. Even bluffs. But bluffs, like perfect murders will not be detected until someone points it out.

Like I said, it is not enough to merely try and prove that Sanskirt existed in 3000 or 6000 BC. The whole web of lies and bluffs has gone mainstream taking that down won't be easy. You will be mocked for merely trying to say something different from mainstream. You will be asked for explanations and proofs for criticising something like a statement about "institutionalized racism"

But institutionalized bluffing is worshipped. Ironic innit?

[Vayutuvan]

Shiv ji
To put into context, that comment is from a "linguist" (BA, MA in classics) from Finland. One can go to his website from the a link on the post. Good target for "pisko"ing, I guess.

[Arjun]

Actually 'linguists' are sulking big time after that article - since it was written not by a linguist but by a geneticist. Seems to me the linguists are getting buggered from all sides !!

Not that the geneticist has come up with anything much superior in output than the earlier crap - that will have to await a cleaning of the cobwebs driven by good ol' Indo-Hellenic Reason. But its fun to watch nevertheless...

[member_22872]

Strange are the ways of linguists, Talegeri is not a linguist, hence what he wrote is inadmissible as a scholarly work, but David Anthony though is not a linguist according to his own account, and might not know any Sanskrit, his work is gold standard and is one of the authorities who can tie horse burials with Rg Veda, Mittani Gods to be real pre-Vedic Gods, hence Aryans to be based anywhere but India etc. Another example of Euro-centrism. They tell you who is a scholar and who is not.

[member_20317]

Shiv ji
To put into context, that comment is from a "linguist" (BA, MA in classics) from Finland. One can go to his website from the a link on the post. Good target for "pisko"ing, I guess.

matrimc ji, I actually thought of doing just that. After seeing your suggestion off course. But then I saw this

http://www.christopherculver.com/

My focus was on the genetic relationship of Classical Greek and Latin through Proto-Indo-European

My extra-curricular obsession is Old Church Slavonic

I believe in Christianity (as set forth in the Nicene Creed). In March of 2005 I entered the catechumenate of the Orthodox Church. In Helsinki I am a member of the parish of Uspensky Cathedral (Finnish Orthodox Church), while in Cluj I attend services at Ss. Constantine and Helena (Romanian Orthodox Church).

I am a great admirer of the work of the philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne.

Now we know what happened to the Pagans of Europe. We are just the latest to be targeted. Bad choice of a target.

And what the _c+k is a 'philosopher of religion'

[Vayutuvan]

Ravig ji

Yes, that is what I was alluding to when I said it would be worthwhile to look at his profile. I wonder whether he would be willing to defend his views of Sri Anthony being correct here on this thread.

In any case, the linguists cannot argue away the fact that PIE is a made up language and thus is not falsifiable and thus is not science (of course, this presupposes that one subscribes to Karl Popper. There are several detractors of Popper's philosophy of science).

The only way the constructed PIE is indeed PIE is to prove through some physical evidence such as a written document that is close to PIE which can be conclusively dated before Rigveda and is found in one of the candidate places for urheimat. In absence of such physical evidence there is absolutely no reason to believe in their reconstruction of the putative PIE nor any reason to believe there is in fact is such a beast.

I would like both Manish ji and SN Rajan ji to address the bold'ed part above.

[member_23629]

Strange are the ways of linguists .... Another example of Euro-centrism. They tell you who is a scholar and who is not.

That is exactly the game. Some gullible Indians fall for the trap and start asking for "peer-reviewed scholarly references" from other Indians -- I am sure Goras will be snickering behind their backs in the spirit of "there goes another native yo-yo who has taken it hook, line and sinker." These Indians want to play by the rules, but cannot comprehend who has set the rules and for whose benefit. They are running by the rules but cannot realise they are in a maze -- you have to rise up and get a bird's eye view to see the maze you are in, otherwise you merely see legitimate paths on which you have to travel.

And yes, most of this AIT business is being run by professors who are closet jesus freaks. They are driven by religious bigotry against the pagans -- this is the real reason for their hostility to ancient Indians' achievements. They are trying to prove that people worshipping false gods couldn't have produced anything worthwhile.

[SaiK]

In any case, the linguists cannot argue away the fact that PIE is a made up language and thus is not falsifiable and thus is not science (of course, this presupposes that one subscribes to Karl Popper. There are several detractors of Popper's philosophy of science).

.

I think you have the nail, but you were passing the hammer to someone else.. instead you could have nailed this.

When one creates a made up language, it is easy to fit at any level in the hierarchy. It fits everywhere, and can become a swayambhu at that as well.

[Nilesh Oak]

In any case, the linguists cannot argue away the fact that PIE is a made up language and thus is not falsifiable and thus is not science (of course, this presupposes that one subscribes to Karl Popper. There are several detractors of Popper's philosophy of science).

.

I think you have the nail, but you were passing the hammer to someone else.. instead you could have nailed this.

When one creates a made up language, it is easy to fit at any level in the hierarchy. It fits everywhere, and can become a swayambhu at that as well.

+ One does not have to subscribe to Karl Popper. Simple faith in rationality, commonsense and logic and more critical - ardent desire to search for truth, irrespective of the final consequences, will suffice. One may use understanding of Dharma in dealing with the truth.. whatever it maybe.

[RajeshA]

Nilesh Oak ji,

Just wondered whether this has come to your attention:




Publication Date: 1959
Author: Pandit Kota Venkatachelam
Age of The Mahabharata War

[Nilesh Oak]

Nilesh Oak ji,

Just wondered whether this has come to your attention:

Publication Date: 1959
Author: Pandit Kota Venkatachelam
Age of The Mahabharata War

Yes. I have. I have the book. Someone else on the forum asked me about work of Kota Venkatachalam and his date for MBH War and I did respond on this thread.

Will send you couple of papers on timing of Buddha. will copy those who are already on my email list.

[member_22872]

Nilesh ji, I am interested to know the dating of Buddha's birth. Not sure if Buddha belongs to Gotama gotra or that of Angiras. Also could you also please send me the papers on Buddha? Buddha is a nastika yet being revered as one of the avatara of MahaVishnu, so is there another Buddha other than Gotama who is considered the reincarnation of Vishnu?

[shiv]

I would like both Manish ji and SN Rajan ji to address the bold'ed part above.

The traditional method used by the likes of Witzel is to mock, deride and dismiss anyone who does not conform to one's own viewpoint. There is something inherently Indian and polite in "asking" people who have used every opportunity to mock and link works full of bluff to "address" or the reasons why they have selected mockery or references to egregious and biased works of latant "fakery" backed by aggressive criticism of opposing viewpoints. The behavior is self explanatory. There is no intention to believe anyone other than a few pre selected "scholars" who push a particular viewpoint even if they have to lie to do that. Asking for the wisdom or insight from such people is your mistake, not theirs. Their attitude has been clear from the outset. It is only your lack of conviction in what you want to say that causes such diffidence.

I find it ludicrous the man who proposes David Anthony as a noted expert in the subject has the gumption to write

satyenottabhitā bhūmiḥ ... ṛtenādityāstiṣṭhanti (The earth is upheld by truth, and Gods stand by ṛta)

What a laugh. I am sure the statement refers to a long dead Mitanni king by name rta. The Gods stand by some long dead king? So what?

Sanskrit has now become the ball bearings or oil slick that scholars use to trip and thwart Indian pursuers. Sanskrit and the Rig Veda are like condoms, oysters or ****, mere tools in a process that ends in getting your defences and pants down.

[RajeshA]

Online Books

A book which spins some interesting yarn! Mostly OIT



Publication Date: 1852
Author: Edward Pococke
India in Greece or Truth in Mythology [@scribd] [Google]

Containing the Sources of the Hellenic Race, the Colonization of Egypt and Palestine, the Wars of the Grand Lama, and the Bud'histic Propaganda in Greece

[ramana]

Note the date 1852 ie before Maxmueller re-intepreted the everything topsy turvey.

[shiv]

I am posting Witzls' arguments about Mitanni on this page bcause Witzel and Anthony take up each others views and together push a particular theory. In this nearly incomprehensible passage by Witzel, he demolishes Misra's objections as insufficient knowledge of near Eastern languages - the same Misra whom Witzel speculates has been to only one international conference as if ranking and stature in linguistics is based on the number of conferences one attends. Misra's objections to "satta-vartana" (seven rounds) have been dismissed by Witzel as a word that has been influenced by Hurite "sinti" (seven). And Misra does not now enough and has to bow down before Witzel and believe this.

But throughout this example of verbal diarrhoea from Witzel one thing is clear. He has already decided the route from which "Indo Aryan" came and how it reached India. The rivalry between Deva and Ahura (Asura) in the later parts of the Vedas (Atharva veda as per Avestan source I quoted earlier) is ignored and Avestan is placed before Vedic Sanskrit. Witzel like Anthony uses the occurrence of horse in Mitanni in 1500 BC as the clincher that Mitanni was earlier than Rig Vedic Sanskrit since the horse had not yet reached India. But Witzel fills his writings with such dense gobbledygook which he can then pass off as your lack of knowledge of languages that one has to dig deep and hard to find out how skilfully he passes little bluffs in a lot of words.

The other interesting thing about Witzel is his skilful way of demolishing a 5000 BC argument so that all the arguments he makes for 1200 BC seem right merely because 5000 BC is wrong. The only analogy I can think of is if I were to claim that the moon is green and then find someone who says the moon is purple and comprehensively demolish that argument and claim that I am right. My idea that the moon is green now has no rivals.

This is actually rhetoric and not science, but I don't think the community of linguists knows this yet. My skill in demolishing everyone else's idea does not mean my own idea is right. My own idea has to stand up to scrutiny. Hilariously, even SN_Rajan who claimed kinship with science and engineering shows more kinship with Harvard as he has used the idea that inability to prove out of India means that Witzel's AIT is correct. No room is left for a vast number of other possibilities and the fact that the current AIT is falsifiable on the grounds of available evidence. It is held up with bluff and rhetoric alone by people who are lauded as scholars for doing that. This tells me something about the "Waqar Water fuel" or "Pillai herbal diesel" levels of proof even educated Indians are willing to accept. When Pillai does it everyone becomes all science oriented. But when the same Pillai/Waqar logic is used by Witzel and Anthony we get people going all silent and respectful and maintaining worshipful solemnity. Anyone who questions this nonsense is subject to all sorts of accusations or accusatory innuendo.

ManishH accused me on this thread off blindly being against people from the west. SN_Rajan wanted to know if I oppose everyone who has an AIT/AMT. Both these objections seek to take the attention away from lack of facts and fake logic being used by people who happen to be from the west and who happen to support an untenable theory. The lack of facts and Pillai logic is ignored by both ManishH and SN_Rajan and instead I am accused of being anti West and possibly blindly anti-AIT. This is the exact genre of rhetoric that passes for scholarship in this benighted field. The mockery, sarcasm and contempt for all other views is simply icing on the cake of institutionalized bluffing.

Here is Witzel's nearly incomprehensible passage from his 118 page verbal amedhya
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.htm

The Mitanni loan words (Mayrhofer 1979, EWA III 569 sqq.) from Pre-Vedic OIA share the typical IIr innovations, such as the new Asura gods varuNa (EWA II 515 a-ru-na, u'-ru-wa-na, not found in Iran) and mitra (Avest. mithra, Mitanni mi-it-ra), and indra (Mit. in-da-ra/in-tar, Avest. iNdra)[N.155] who is marginalized in Iran, and the nAsatya (na-s'a-ti-ya-an-na = azvin, Avest. na^onghaithiia).[N.156] These innovations also include the new the concept of Rta (Iran. arta, in very late Avest. pronunciation = aS~a), contained in names such as artasmara (ar-ta-as'-s'u-ma-ra), artadhAman (ar-ta-ta-a-ma),[N.157] and perhaps also the newly introduced ritual drink, sauma, IIr *sauma (Ved. soma, Avest. haoma, EWA II 749). The Mitanni sources show extensive use of the domesticated horse (as'uua, cf. names for horse colors[N.158]), the chariot (rattas') and chariot racing (a-i-ka-, ti-e-ra-, pa-an-za-, s'a-at-ta-, na-a-[w]a-wa-ar-ta-an-na= [aika-, tri-, panca-, satta- (see n.160), nava-vartana]; tus'ratta/tuis'eratta = RV tveSaratha).
To see in these names a post-RV form of OIA, a Prakrit (Misra 1992, Elst 1999:183),[N.159] is therefore misguided and based on insufficient knowledge of near Eastern languages. Misra's 'prAkRtic influences' in Mitanni IA are due to the peculiarities of the cuneiform writing system and to the Mitanni form of the Hurrite language. It has been asserted for long that satta in satta-vartana 'seven turns' has been influenced by Hurrite s'inti 'seven' (J. Friedrich 1940, cf. Cowgill 1986: 23, Diakonoff 1971: 81; this is under discussion again,[N.160] but clearly a Hurrite development); however, the words starting with b- such as bi- did not receive their b- from a MIA pronunciation of vi,[N.161] as Misra maintains, but are due to the fact that Mitanni does not allow initial v- (Diakonoff 1971: 30, 45). In sum, the Mitanni IA words are not Prakritic but (pre-)Rgvedic.

[Vayutuvan]

Shiv ji
I am asking them to defend their position. IOW, I am throwing the gauntlet down. But then again, it might be too easy to knock down these straw men arguments, especially when one confuses circular proofs with corroborations.

[Arjun]

it might be too easy to knock down these straw men arguments, especially when one confuses circular proofs with corroborations.

This is par for the course for the AIT crowd. We have accumulated enough evidence, both from AIT-Nazi literature and from the arguments of their representatives on this thread, that the logical abilities of this set is severely stunted. Presenting a circular proof as corroboration is one example. Being completely unable to understand basic logic as in 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is another.

I think we have also established on this thread the incredible naivety of AIT Sepoys as regards the Euro-centrism phenomenon (obviously this is one aspect we will have to distinguish between AIT Nazis and AIT Sepoys. One can't accuse the former of being naive)

[Vayutuvan]

Just to set the boundaries for discussion on the question I posed, let me put down a small lesson in mathematical logic so that SN_Rajan ji and ManishH ji would not go off on some tangent (assuming they take up the challenge).

1. If it is established that "If A then B and if B then A" (which is shortened to "A iff B"), then it is established that if one can prove A then both A and B are proved (or vice versa) (modus ponens).

2. Now let us say C entails A, i.e. there is a proof path that leads from C to A (or contradiction of not A) and C is either a theorem independent of B or an axiom. Similarly, let us say D entails B and D is either a theorem independent of A or is an axiom. Then C and D corroborate each other.

3. On the other hand if our stipulation that C should not depend on B (similarly D should not dependent on A) is violated, then it is circular and C is not admissible as a proof of A. The case with D is symmetric.

4. In mathematical logic, a set of axioms are called consistent iff exactly one of A and NOT A is a theorem.

5. In physical sciences, the axioms either are observed ("Grass is green") or assumed to be true unless otherwise proved wrong through observation, for example conservation of energy. If any of the axioms are violated through observation, then all the theories which are dependent on those axioms must be revised.

This is all really very basic stuff and a reasonable amount of competency can be gained in a short period of time by going through Tarski's lucid book "An Introduction to Logic".

Now the basics are out of the way, here is a theorem: "PIE is a made up language". The proof is trivial, because it is in fact made up by some linguists.

This is falsifiable by showing that there is a record of PIE. I challenge those who believe that the above is not a theorem to show the proof.

[member_22872]

I think that the reason Manish ji and other linguists root for PIE and any other theories based on it is not because they think PIE exists, but because of the rules of phonetics, one of the rule being, phonetic change has no exceptions. So they take up known language - Sanskrit and phonetically back step in time and arrive at a data base of PIE words. And now since they theorized that phonetic change laws have no exceptions, they assume the sounds they arrive at in PIE are true.

If and when they find exceptions in sound changes, they explain away as the sound change is due to substrate or superstrate effect, thus conveniently sidestepping an exception, there by upholding the law- phonetic sound changes have no exceptions.

[member_20317]

Actually Anthony's book narrates the whole time-chain of how the Dereivka dates were challenged by one Haeusler and finally corrected by the archaeologist community when more data came in ...

Of course Dereivka is no longer held as the earliest site of horse domestication. It is further east in Botai - which still is the Eurasian steppe.

ManishH ji, that is a fine way of NOT saying that somebody just ate your AIT by more than 2000 kms and 1000 years in about 9 years. What will Anthony do now. Retract again considering evidence in Arabia. Surely Al-Magar should count as better evidence then Botai or Dereivka. Or is there something special about the Bit and Bridle between the two places that can be theorized around.

The fact based arguments of SN_Rajan ji that batted for a “clear trail (Hiebert 1995, 192 sqq.) leads towards the subcontinent” for horse domestication, were the context. Not the actual dates of Dereivka. I don’t care for Dereivka. Neither do others. Only people who would care are the ones holding on to 2 teeth of a horse.

All an Internet Hindu like myself sees is, Marsha Ann Levine, University of Cambridge - “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.”


The Sequence reproduced below for the benefit of the records of others on the forum:

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).

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).

[A_Gupta]

ManishH ji, that is a fine way of NOT saying that somebody just ate your AIT by more than 2000 kms and 1000 years in about 9 years.

You shouldn't have to say more than that. To the objective observer, the AIT is shown to be a flimsy theory by the above. To the true believer, however, it shows the resiliency of the theory, it can accommodate any set of input facts and still come out with the same conclusion.

[shiv]

Guess how many "Indo-European" words in the Mitanni treaties and Kikkuli texts that we talk so much about? Less than 20. The evidence is miniscule. Fragmentary.

Yet from this fragmentary record of a language that has been transcribed from cuneiform Witzel claims to be able to compare with Sanskrit and reach the following conclusion:

In sum, Mitanni-IA is older than the RV, cannot have come from the Panjab but must have been spoken in the north-eastern border areas of Mesopotamia where it influenced the Hurrite language of the Mitanni that belongs, just like its later relative Urartu, to the Caucasus group of languages.

David Anthony for his part says this:

The Mitanni King Kurtiwaza explicitly named four Old Indic gods (Indra, Varuna, Mithra,and the Nasatyas), among many native Hurrian deities

So the Mitanni texts prove not only that the Old Indic language existed
by 1500 BCE but also that the central religious pantheon and moral be-
liefs enshrined in the Rig Veda existed equally early

In both cases these men make the case that the (less than) 20 words of Mitanni found are proof of a language older than Rig Vedic sanskrit. If you ignore the fact that making such a judgement from less than 20 words read from Akkadian cuneiform text which has ideograms as well hardlly represents a language and is not enough to compare two languages, you are still left with a problem that Witzel and Anthony simply ignore. At least half the words actually seem to be more like Sanskrit and less like Iranian or the "Proto-Indo Iranian" that can be reconstructed from Sanskrit and Iranian. Prominent amongst these is the retention of the Sanskrit "sa" sound as oposed to the "ha" sound of Old Iranian/Avestan.

Naturaly, Witzel will ignore such details when he has to bluff his way past inconvenient problems. Whenever possible, inconvenient facts are itgored or fudged or explained away in linguitic gobbledygook. And ManishH ji also told us "The Mitanni texts" have been dated on linguistic grounds alone" What he left out was the fragmentary evidence and the inconclusive "proof". It appears that people who belong to the community of linguists have a ready-made escape route where they pour in their linguistic theories and hide behind a mess of unintelligible constructed words. This is one such case where the bluff lies in the fact that the idea that the Mitanni texts are older cannot be proven and the idea that it could well have been Vedic sanskrt cannot be conclusively disproven without much more evidence that does not exist. But lack of evidence never stopped linguists from arriving at "proof". Lack of evidence is never lack of proof for the linguistics community. So they say it is now porven fact tthat the Mitanni texts were Rig veda concepts and language in Syria 300 years before the Rig Veda and Sanskrit arived in India. Institutionalized bluffing.

Paul Thieme, whose 1960 paper is linked below was too honest. Witzel quotes Theime several times but never uses the paper linked below.

The pdf linked below where the author convincingly argues that the Mitanni texts were Vedic Sanskrit in origin. This author makes his arguments based on the same sparse words of Mitanni Sanskrit/IA that exist. I have read that this paper by Paul Thieme, was never effectively countered by anyone. Characteristically it has been ignored. Read the whole pdf. I have uploaded one single page as a jpeg as an example. Read especially the bit about Varuna spelt in cuneiform on the right

http://flh.tmu.ac.ir/hoseini/arya/articles-1/27.pdf
.

[RajeshA]

There were really very few in Europe in the second half of 19th century and first half of 20th century, who accepted the antiquity of the Vedas!

One of these few was Hermann Jacobi, a German, who was a member of the Royal Asiatic Society and used to write in its journal - Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society!

Two of his papers here deserve a mention:

Published in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Volume 41, Issue 03, July 1909, pp 721-726
Author: Hermann Jacobi
On the Antiquity of Vedic Culture [Download]


Published in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Volume 42, Issue 02, April 1910, pp 456-464
Author: Hermann Jacobi
The Antiquity of Vedic Culture [Download]

Pity Cambridge doesn't want to make these papers directly accessible from their web page. Many volumes have been digitized by Google and are available on Internet Archive, however their naming is so unsatisfactory that it is difficult to see whether anything from 1909/1910 would be available!

From Wikipedia

Apart from Jaina studies, Jacobi was interested in Indian mathematics, astrology and the natural sciences, and using astronomical information available in the Vedas, he tried to establish the date of their composition. Like Alexander Cunningham before him he tried to systematise how, from the evidence available in inscriptions, a true local time could be arrived at.

Jacobi's studies in astronomy have regained importance today in the context of the Out of India theory, because his calculations led him to believe that the hymns of the Rigveda were to be dated as early as 4500 B.C. Thus he is the only renowned Western Indologist whose research supports the claim of the proponents of the theory that the Vedas are to be dated back much earlier than the first half of the second millennium B.C. According to mainstream Indology, the Indo-Aryan Migration took place during this period of time and the Vedas were only composed after the migration. When Jacobi published his views in an article on the origin of Vedic culture in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1908), he therefore triggered off a major controversy in Indology.

In his later life, Jacobi interested himself in Poetry, Epics and Philosophy, particularly the school of Nyaya-Vaisheshika. It is said that Jacobi was greatly influenced by Jain Philosophy and wished to be a Jain in his next life.

However before one gets all gung-ho over him, another piece of information. He is also the co-author with Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak of "The Arctic Home in the Vedas". So according to him, yes, Vedas are very old, but they were written by Aryans sitting on the North Pole! So again a different AIT!

What may be interesting would be the astronomical calculations according to which he puts the date of the Vedas to 4,500 BCE!