Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[Nilesh Oak]

[..]
I will translate and leave it to likes of Atri ji to improvise.

without reading the WHOLE book,
One who despises/blames/criticizes a viewpoint/POV/thesis of the book,
and one who focuses on immaterial when critical aspect is being described,
is a LEARNED fool.

I am sure you are directing these "gems" at me. Why don't you calm down. We all need your help here.

Peter ji,

Nothing is directed 'specifically' at you.

I found comment of Rajiv relevant, altough he had directed it at someone else. I read BD once and began correspondance (one on one) with Rajiv and in no time I realized what a fool I made of myself. I told Rajiv that I would not waste his time but also don't consider myself fit to even comment on his forum and thus remain in 'lurk' mode. I made a commitment to read BD 10 times before commenting in the BD forum.

It is not unusal of readers who write me, telling me they are reading my book for the nth time (N =2,5,10, 20.. am not kidding) and tell me that something they missed in all earlier readings became clear...and they were writing me to explain their joy and excitment ...that ah ha moment. I have such simlar experiences while reading BD.

I had quoted this 'gem' before on this thread, long time ago.

[shiv]

[
Sure. Just look for arcaheology reports which talks about "peopling" of Mehrgarh (~7500 BC) by "people from the west".

What is wrong with that theory? Could you expand? You have got me interested. If it is the truth I will accept it. But I will validate it first and i will have to validate what you claim too.

[Prem Kumar]

If AIT needs to be defeated PIE has to be falsified.

Not true at all. I suspect too many folks on this forum believe this to be true - which is the reason for the excessive focus on linguistics.

Partly agree & partly disagree. Agreed that there is a tendency (myself included) to club Linguists with AIT-Nazis like Witzel. I remember writing that PIE needs AIT and vice versa. The real dependencies are a bit more nuanced. AIT depends on PIE more than PIE depending on AIT. PIE only demands a homeland.

If the mounting evidence from archaeology, astronomy etc quash AIT, many Linguists might disassociate themselves from AIT and be willing to reformulate PIE to support an OIT theory. Witzel et al might be thrown under the bus.

But for this to happen, one needs to understand Linguistics quite well & poke holes in their theory. And in doing so, build an OIT-sympathetic sub-section within the Linguistic community. Only then can we split the Linguistic camp into those who are willing to reformulate to fit an OIT model versus those who will go down with the AIT sinking ship. So, a study of Linguistics is quite important for OIT proponents (though it shouldnt be the exclusive focus, of course)

[Arjun]

Yes it was Sanskrit and not PIE.

Whether you call it proto-Sanskrit or PIE doesn't matter as much (though the former would be more accurate) than where the PIE homeland is located. The issue is ultimately one of PIE homeland rather than PIE in itself.

Now that doesn't mean that PIE is correct - just that killing PIE is not a necessary condition for either OIT or anti-AIT.

[peter]

Yes it was Sanskrit and not PIE.

Whether you call it proto-Sanskrit or PIE doesn't matter as much (though the former would be more accurate) than where the PIE homeland is located. The issue is ultimately one of PIE homeland rather than PIE in itself.

Oh comeon. PIE homeland is not found because PIE is fiction. Do you feel anyone will have same trouble finding Sanskrit homeland?

Now that doesn't mean that PIE is correct - just that killing PIE is not a necessary condition for either OIT or anti-AIT.

I do not think you understand the issue. AIT has no archaeological evidence to support it. Yet it is the mainstream. Why? Because of linguistics. Because PIE is sacrosanct.

[peter]

[
Sure. Just look for arcaheology reports which talks about "peopling" of Mehrgarh (~7500 BC) by "people from the west".

What is wrong with that theory? Could you expand? You have got me interested. If it is the truth I will accept it. But I will validate it first and i will have to validate what you claim too.

If you study the timeline of Indus archaeological digs it went somewhat like this:
a) First Brits dug the place and came up with some set of theories. Aryans killing and driving out Dravidians from IVC is thanks to them.

b) Some of these Brit archaeologists had worked in the near east. They made comaprisons with the euphrates and other civilizations. And saw similarities. These similarities were "explained" by learning arriving from the west. Obviously there view was coloured by various invasions of Inida.

c) Similar explanations were expounded when Mehrgarh was excavated.

To sum it most technological advance seen in India was a "copy" from the west. Be it bricks, language, alphabet you name it.

Some modern archaeologists started to challenge this framework. Possehl and Kenoyer were from west and a whole bunch from India.

These guys IMHO have proved that Indians invented their technology themselves. No borrowing from people of the west. Genetics is also proving that our DNA is local.

[Arjun]

I do not think you understand the issue. AIT has no archaeological evidence to support it. Yet it is the mainstream. Why? Because of linguistics. Because PIE is sacrosanct.

You have no understanding of what the issue is. AIT survives ONLY because of the supposed 'archeological' (though I would term it philological rather than archeological) evidence backing it. The proponents of the Steppe theory of Indo-European expansion (most of whom are linguists) themselves repeatedly stress that the ONLY reason to prefer the Steppe theory is because of the 'archeological evidence' backing it.

Now, the fact is we have discussed all of this threadbare over multiple pages in the past - it is clear that the supposed archeological evidence (horse, wheel, chariot, iron) does not stand scrutiny. But western academia differs on this point - their basis for supporting AIT is predominantly based on what they call 'archeological' evidence.

[Nilesh Oak]

Existance of Proto-connected languages (PCL) or Proto-Linked Languages (PLL) is a trivially true fact.

And linguistic Pranayama may be of assistance in making educated guesses about PCL or PLL. Arun Gupta has suggested one exercise to reconstruct Proto-Indian language and compare that with Sanskrit, to understand/test/validate numerous rules of linguistics. This is all good.

Critical to remember, theory (and development) of PIE is 'irrefutable' and thus no question of 'falsifying it'. Still logical inconsistencies and other such gobblygook can be pointed out, as is already done by many on this thread.

While all of us are saying many things with respect to AIT and PIE, I do see that many of us are saying some amazingly consistent things about this fraud, and future direction for research, e..g Arun Gupta ji, Shiv ji, KL ji, Arjun ji, B ji, Prem Kumar ji and many others.

[Prem Kumar]

In the entire period 11000-4800 Arundhati is ahead of Vashistha. Ask yourself what is unique about this event on the eve of Mahabharat?

This is a question you should be answering. Nilesh Oak has provided an explanation for the significance of this statement by giving a date range for MBH. Do you have an alternate theory for this statement to appear in MBH - if so, please explain it if you havent done so already.

[peter]

I do not think you understand the issue. AIT has no archaeological evidence to support it. Yet it is the mainstream. Why? Because of linguistics. Because PIE is sacrosanct.

You have no understanding of what the issue is. AIT survives ONLY because of the supposed 'archeological' (though I would term it philological rather than archeological) evidence backing it.[..]

No. There is no unanimity in linguists about PIE homeland. Based on whom you ask they will tell you their favorite place for the origin of PIE and the associated archaeology. There are enough linguists who attack the steppe archaeological evidence (and in my opinion correctly so).

Linguists are unanimous only on one thing and that is the origin of PIE is outside of India and to the west of it somewhere.

[peter]

In the entire period 11000-4800 Arundhati is ahead of Vashistha. Ask yourself what is unique about this event on the eve of Mahabharat?

This is a question you should be answering. Nilesh Oak has provided an explanation for the significance of this statement by giving a date range for MBH. Do you have an alternate theory for this statement to appear in MBH - if so, please explain it if you havent done so already.

You are not following my point. An event that took place 8000 years before Nilesh's date of Mbh war is not an unusual event to be put in the Mahabharat text. Two things are possible either Nilesh's date is wrong (which is most likely the case since there is no pole star at Nilesh's date) or there is a different explanation required for this event.

[Arjun]

No. There is no unanimity in linguists about PIE homeland. Based on whom you ask they will tell you their favorite place for the origin of PIE and the associated archaeology. There are enough linguists who attack the steppe archaeological evidence (and in my opinion correctly so).

Linguists are unanimous only on one thing and that is the origin of PIE is outside of India and to the west of it somewhere.

There are only two predominant (non-OIT) theories on PIE homeland - the Steppe theory (mainly associated with Gimbutas) and the Anatolian Theory (started by Colin Renfrew).....between these two linguist support is probably in 80:20 ratio. There may be other theories as well, but among Western academics support for others is probably in < 1% range.

Why do you think the recent phylogenetic paper on Anatolian theory only took the top 2 'Western' alternatives?

[Prem Kumar]

Peter: I am following your point. Do you have the exact translation of the AV reference in the MBH? As RajeshA pointed out, it will be interesting to see the tone of that statement. Whether its expressed as a surprise or as a normal astronomical observation

However, the point I am trying to get across to you is the following: "even if" the AV statement is made with the tone of surprise, "the tone" is not a sufficient piece of evidence to show that Nilesh Oak is wrong. Nilesh was trying to explain the observation, not its tone.

Instead of providing an alternate theory or additional facts, you are asking him to redo his work, which seems a bit rich.

And at any rate, Achar's date provides NO explanation for the AV statement, which is a key failing

[shiv]

Sure. Just look for arcaheology reports which talks about "peopling" of Mehrgarh (~7500 BC) by "people from the west".

To sum it most technological advance seen in India was a "copy" from the west. Be it bricks, language, alphabet you name it.

Some modern archaeologists started to challenge this framework. Possehl and Kenoyer were from west and a whole bunch from India.

These guys IMHO have proved that Indians invented their technology themselves. No borrowing from people of the west. Genetics is also proving that our DNA is local.

Peterji. You have sidestepped the question like dancing Przewalskii horse from Europe.

The first evidence of agriculture in India is in the west, in Mehrgarh, Baluchistan from 7000 BC. The first evidence of agriculture in South India is from 3000 BC.

Looks like it came from west only no?

[Arjun]

To further illustrate my point, here are two blogs relating to the ongoing tussle between Steppe and Anatolian theories:

Why Anatolian Hypothesis is Wrong

When and where was proto-Indo-European?

Both of these attempt to rebut the Anatolian claims - you will notice the repeated insistence in both blogs that the reason to go with Steppe over Anatolia is only because of supposed archeological evidence. And the highlight of the 'archeological' evidence is of course this:

So where did these Indic speakers, who introduced chariots into the Near East, come from? Archaeological evidence shows the earliest use of chariots to be on the Eurasian steppe around the second millennium BCE. The remains are clearly related to those found further west on the steppe as well, and the archaeological cultures related to the emergence of charioteering were steppe pastoralists and metallurgists. These remains, found for instance at a site called Sintashta in modern Russia, are believed to be associated with speakers of Indo-Iranian, the proto-language from which the languages of Persia and India descend. This identification is particularly secure for a number of reasons. One is that sites like Sintashta show evidence of activities, including ritual and warfare, that correlate perfectly with Indic texts like the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda is a set of over a thousand hymns in Vedic Sanskrit, an archaic form of the language. The hymns describe rituals of all kinds, including especially funerary rituals, and these expositions in the Vedas correlate perfectly with the evidence found at Sintashta and other similar sites.

For instance, Vedic funerals were accompanied by funerary games including chariot races. In these races the chariots would turn left. Not only are chariots found in southern Russia from the right time period (including the earliest known in the world), but the evidence also shows a curious feature: bits for horses that are asymmetrical. The right side of the bit is larger than the left, indicating a consistent preference for turning left!

[RajeshA]

AIT-Sepoy Rajesh Kochhar in his book made the case that Afghanistan-Eastern Iran is better suited to be the area where Rig Veda was written.

One reason he offered was that the Soma plant which some have identified with the Ephedra plant does not grow in Punjab or India generally, but it grows in Afghanistan and Iran region.

Haoma (Soma) I Botany: Encyclopedia Iranica
Haoma (Soma) II Rituals: Encyclopedia Iranica

However Shrikant Talageri in his book "The Rigveda - A Historical Analysis"! sends Rajesh Kochhar for a six!

1. The actual Soma-growing areas were distant and unknown to the Vedic Aryans in the early parts of the Rigveda, and became known to them only later after they expanded westwards.
2. The Soma plant and its ritual were not originally known to the Vedic Aryans and their priests, but were introduced to them in very early times by priests from the Soma-growing areas.
3. The expansion of the Vedic Aryans (and, by a chain of events, the dispersion of the Indo-Europeans, as we shall see in later chapters) into the west and northwest was a direct consequence of their quest for Soma.

RajeshA: I read this fascinating post from Talageri but it raises a couple of questions, regarding the conclusions drawn:

a) If the original Soma preparers - the Brigus - were pre-Rig-Vedic, doesnt it point to a NorthWestern influence on the Vedic people?

b) The lack of Soma references in the early Mandalas doesnt automatically imply that the Vedic people couldnt have come from the Northwest. Isnt it possible that the early Vedic people were from the Northwest and Soma was very important for them, which is why its mentioned in the early Mandalas? And since the plant is so remote and not readily available, it doesnt find a mention in much of the early Mandalas - the Vedic settlers got busy with other day-to-day stuff. However, its memory is preserved by the 14 hymns mentioned. And its importance drove the late Vedic Northwest expansion. This is much like the Indian emigrants to the U.S - they have their daily stuff to worry about but still retain cultural memory and want the homeland linkage

Talking from Shrikant Talageri's PoV,

The Rig Veda was "introduced" into the religious corpus of the Indics by the the ANgirases, who were the priest-family associated with the PUrus, a line within the Lunar Dynasty. The BhRgus on the other hand were the priests of the Anus or Anava (which later went on to become the Iranians), also a line within the Lunar Dynasty. Both the fire ritual and the Soma ritual are the contributions of the BhRgus to the Vedic corpus. They were incorporated into the religious practices of the PUrus as well.

The PUrus were located in the Haryana, Western Uttar Pradesh area in the early part of the Rig Vedic timeline, so West or Northwest to them would be Jammu, Kashmir and Punjab, all within India. So when we speak of Northwest we should be mindful of whether we are speaking of Northwest to India (i.e. lying outside India) or Northwest to the PUru ruled area (i.e. lying within India).

Now since both the PUrus and the Anus grew side by side, one could say both societies were Vedic in some way, but the Rig Vedic corpus we have come only from the PUrus, and that what may have been produced by Anus is lost, and the only knowledge of this Vedic corpus comes to us from that part which was later compiled by the BhRgus within Rig Veda as they became a part of the Rig Vedic tradition or from the Avesta as a memory of those among the BhRgus from the time before the split or who remained as the priests of the Anus - the Spitamas.

Then there were the Druhyus who lived even West of the Anus, and the Druhyus are also of the line of the Lunar Dynasty. Any Vedic literature that may have been compiled by the Druhyus is also lost.

So whereas the pushing of Anus westwards happened during the War of the Ten Kings, the Druhyus had already been pushed Northwest before that. So basically we have a large region spanning from just North of Vindhyas to Western UP to Afghanistan which was populated and ruled by the Lunar Dynasty.

So there were sufficient cultural and trade linkages between the PUru area and those areas where Ephedra plant grew to allow a Soma rich tradition within the Rig Vedic corpus.

The thing to note here is that the Lunar Dynasty expanded from India outwards and not the other way round, and so did Vedic society.

[RajeshA]

From Arjun's post earlier

So where did these Indic speakers, who introduced chariots into the Near East, come from? Archaeological evidence shows the earliest use of chariots to be on the Eurasian steppe around the second millennium BCE. The remains are clearly related to those found further west on the steppe as well, and the archaeological cultures related to the emergence of charioteering were steppe pastoralists and metallurgists. These remains, found for instance at a site called Sintashta in modern Russia, are believed to be associated with speakers of Indo-Iranian, the proto-language from which the languages of Persia and India descend. This identification is particularly secure for a number of reasons. One is that sites like Sintashta show evidence of activities, including ritual and warfare, that correlate perfectly with Indic texts like the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda is a set of over a thousand hymns in Vedic Sanskrit, an archaic form of the language. The hymns describe rituals of all kinds, including especially funerary rituals, and these expositions in the Vedas correlate perfectly with the evidence found at Sintashta and other similar sites.

For instance, Vedic funerals were accompanied by funerary games including chariot races. In these races the chariots would turn left. Not only are chariots found in southern Russia from the right time period (including the earliest known in the world), but the evidence also shows a curious feature: bits for horses that are asymmetrical. The right side of the bit is larger than the left, indicating a consistent preference for turning left!

1) Perhaps there is something that I am missing, so I don't know but if the chariots were only turning left, then they would only be going in circles. There wouldn't have been much migration. So I wonder whether they found horse remains there or did these Sintashta diggers dig up one of these



2) Does anyone know of which funerary rights these guys are talking of?

3) Which Vedic funerals were accompanied by funerary games including chariot races?

[member_20317]

That took me to the speculation that probably in ancient times AV system had something to do with marriage rituals.

Sighting Dhruva is the vedic tradition and hence older. Do you have a reference for when AV sighting became the ritual?

Peterji, I have qualified my writeup with the word ‘speculation’. Even so the reason that lead me to this speculation in the first place should become clear from the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vashistha

Arundhati and Vashishtha pair of stars
In traditional Indian astronomy, pair of Alcor and Mizar in constellation Ursa Major is known as Vashishtha and ArundhatiMizar is known as Vasistha and Alcor is known as Arundhati in traditional Indian astronomy.[2] The pair is considered to symbolize marriage (Vashishtha and Arundhati were a married couple) and, in some Hindu communities, priests conducting a wedding ceremony allude to or point out the constellation as a symbol of the closeness marriage brings to a couple.[3]

Ref. 3 is credited to the following quote in some other book:

M.K.V. Narayan. Flipside of Hindu Symbolism: Sociological and Scientific Linkages in Hinduism. Fultus Corporation, 2007. ISBN 978-1-59682-117-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=ewRfp4qpvt4C. "... At this time, the pundit shows the couple the Arundhati star in the sky to suggest closeness of the married couple. ... the star Vasishta of the Big Dipper constellation (Saptarishi Mandalam) and it is the star system called Mizar ..."

Even otherwise, we have AV finding mention in Ramayana as an already married couple blessing the newly wed/about to be wed, Prince and Princess. Also at the same time, Vashishta is a Vedic seer. The only way I can reconcile a presence of Maharishi Vashishta at both places is by any one of the two options below:
1) Manas putra that Sage Vashishta is given to manas presence at more than one place/time and cognization of his presence is also possible through the mansic route.
2) Vedic and Ramayan Kaal are one and the same.

I basically took the first option. Since I don’t have the proofs any which way hence its speculation.


Aside –
Background for my personal indulgence in this speculation:
When I got married I knew that we would be asked to observe Dhruva. But in cold December nobody actually moves out of covered pooja pandals to actually see Dhruva. So we observed Dhruva through mansic route . While my wife was satisfied as to the completeness of the rituals. But even at that time I was puzzled as to why we look at Dhruva. Dhruva at best looked like an idea of a son worth having. I was puzzled as to why we should invoke a son like figure in marriages. The only time one seeks the blessings of children is in Kanjak rituals for Mata’s worship. This was the background that led me to the speculation. Now for me I have decided that my children will be seeking the blessings of the whole constellation, different blessings from every constituent though.

Peter ji, I am surprised you cannot see the link between the Epoch of Arundhati and the story of Draupadi which is what the colloquial understanding of MBH has been since forever.

Please enlighten us. I do not know.

Koi nahi ji, best person to help you along would be bhabhi ji. She is about the only person who can talk with you along colloquial terms, on the subject of MBH as Draupadi's story and how EoA can be understood in that light. Also at the same time I admit to my ignorance in most matters begin discussed here. I am only making an effort to be a reasonable student.

[peter]

No. There is no unanimity in linguists about PIE homeland. Based on whom you ask they will tell you their favorite place for the origin of PIE and the associated archaeology. There are enough linguists who attack the steppe archaeological evidence (and in my opinion correctly so).

Linguists are unanimous only on one thing and that is the origin of PIE is outside of India and to the west of it somewhere.

There are only two predominant (non-OIT) theories on PIE homeland - the Steppe theory (mainly associated with Gimbutas) and the Anatolian Theory (started by Colin Renfrew).....between these two linguist support is probably in 80:20 ratio. There may be other theories as well, but among Western academics support for others is probably in < 1% range.

Why do you think the recent phylogenetic paper on Anatolian theory only took the top 2 'Western' alternatives?

No. There are many theories. Where did you get the 80 20 theory?
There is Balkan theory, there is Armenian theory...

[peter]

Sure. Just look for arcaheology reports which talks about "peopling" of Mehrgarh (~7500 BC) by "people from the west".

To sum it most technological advance seen in India was a "copy" from the west. Be it bricks, language, alphabet you name it.

Some modern archaeologists started to challenge this framework. Possehl and Kenoyer were from west and a whole bunch from India.

These guys IMHO have proved that Indians invented their technology themselves. No borrowing from people of the west. Genetics is also proving that our DNA is local.

Peterji. You have sidestepped the question like dancing Przewalskii horse from Europe.

The first evidence of agriculture in India is in the west, in Mehrgarh, Baluchistan from 7000 BC. The first evidence of agriculture in South India is from 3000 BC.

Looks like it came from west only no?

Not really. The last word is yet to be written on farming. If you read this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16655972/Earl ... anga-basin you will see that rice was domesticated in mid ninth millenium before prsent (BP) in Uttar Pradesh.

[Murugan]

Arundhati darshan seems to be quite old tradition in vedic marraiges

One reason is for the bride to remain firm like Arundhati, symbolic importance.
It is believed that if once stops seeing/spotting Arundhati star == old age approaching

[peter]

Peter: I am following your point. Do you have the exact translation of the AV reference in the MBH?

Yes. Here it is: "She, O king, who is celebrated over the three worlds and is applauded by the righteous, even that (constellation) Arundhati keepeth (her lord) Vasistha on her back." (From Ganguli: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06002.htm).

As RajeshA pointed out, it will be interesting to see the tone of that statement. Whether its expressed as a surprise or as a normal astronomical observation

Don't understand what you mean. But here is the actual "tone":

या चैषा विश्रुता राजंस्त्रैलोक्ये साधुसंमता। 6-2-31a
अरुन्धती तयाप्येष वसिष्ठः पृष्ठतः कृतः ।। 6-2-31b

रोहिणीं पीडयन्नेष स्थितो राजञ्शनैश्चरः । 6-2-32a
व्यावृत्तं लक्ष्म सोमस्य भविष्यति महद्भयम् ।।6-2-32b

However, the point I am trying to get across to you is the following: "even if" the AV statement is made with the tone of surprise, "the tone" is not a sufficient piece of evidence to show that Nilesh Oak is wrong. Nilesh was trying to explain the observation, not its tone.

I don't understand the tone business. All I know is that Bhishma Parva 3.17 negates Nilesh's position.

Instead of providing an alternate theory or additional facts, you are asking him to redo his work, which seems a bit rich.

No. See above.

And at any rate, Achar's date provides NO explanation for the AV statement, which is a key failing

This is very uninformed. A series of dates starting from Krishna's departure to the death of Bhishma match and you call that a failing of Achar? Have Nilesh show a similar match in dates over this two month period and then you have a case.

[Arjun]

No. There are many theories. Where did you get the 80 20 theory?
There is Balkan theory, there is Armenian theory...

What is the backing for non-Anatolian Balkan & for Armenian theories? How many academics backing them?

Among Western academics - it is predominantly Steppe & Anatolian, with Steppe being the overwhelming favorite. If you have any familiarity with the field you would know this.

[RajeshA]

peter ji,

I am impressed with your knowledge of the issues. Have you written any papers on the subject?

Thanks

[Murugan]

I have a noob question

Which one is ancient most amongst these three? Who influenced whom? How come first two letters are same but not the rest...

1) Alpha Beta - Greek
2) Alif Bait - Arabic
3) Alphabet

***

Also, other than Indic languages which language's letters represents the exact pronunciation, phonetics are what you read is what you speak?

[RajeshA]

Arundhati darshan seems to be quite old tradition in vedic marraiges

One reason is for the bride to remain firm like Arundhati, symbolic importance.
It is believed that if once stops seeing/spotting Arundhati star == old age approaching

That is actually a solid reason, why somebody would bring this up at the time of Mahabharata.

If sometime in the past, the Saptarishi asterism or otherwise known as Big Dipper, was named after the Seven Rishis, then of course the asterism would play a significant role in the cosmology of the Vedics.

If Arundhati, the wife of sage Vashishta, is mapped to a star around Vashishta, and for many years both the stars were considered as an ideal couple, where the husband walks in front and the wife walks slightly behind him, to show the patriarchal system in society, where the wife allows the husband to lead, and if it had indeed become a tradition for newly-weds to make a sighting of the two stars Vashishta and Arundhati at the time of wedding to be inspired by the example of the sage and his wife symbolized by the two stars, then any change in the order of those two stars would indeed cause a certain religious crisis.

If the newly weds cannot be shown the example of Vashishta-Arundhati as was tradition, then the Vedic scholars would indeed make it an issue and in fact see it as a bad omen for the upkeep of Dharma!

That is exactly what the Arundhati observation in Bhishma Parva (2:31) shows - Vyasa telling Dhritarashtra that Arundhati walking in front of Vashishta signifies an age of crisis for Dharma where Vedic customs cannot be adhered to.

The Epoch of Arundhati signifies the this age of crisis for Dharma when Vedic custom of Vashishta-Arundhati sighting for newly-weds could not be adhered to, and thus it became an issue worth mentioning in the Mahabharata!

[RajeshA]

I have a noob question

Which one is ancient most

1) Alpha Beta - Greek
2) Alif Bait - Arabic
3) Alphabet

***

Also, other than Indic languages which language's letters represents the exact pronunciation, phonetics are what you read is what you speak?

I would tip Alpha Beta of the Greeks, as the Arabs did study the Greeks well and even kept records of old Greek writings. So it could be that Alpha Beta was earlier, however the Greeks themselves took the alphabet from other people in the West Asian region. If we go by Wim Borsboom, then the alphabet is an Indian import into West Asia.

[Arjun]

Also, other than Indic languages which language's letters represents the exact pronunciation, phonetics are what you read is what you speak?

You are looking for phonemic orthographies: Wiki page

Orthographies with a high grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence (excluding exceptions due to loan words and assimilation) include those of Finnish, Albanian, Georgian, Turkish (apart from ğ and various palatal and vowel allophones), Serbo-Croatian (Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian), Bulgarian, Macedonian (if the apostrophe is counted, though slight inconsistencies may be found), Eastern Armenian (apart from o, v), Basque (apart from palatalized l, n), Haitian Creole, Castilian Spanish (apart from h, x, b/v, and sometimes k, c, g, j, z), Czech (apart from ě, ů, y, ý), Polish (apart from ó, h, rz), Romanian (apart from distinguishing semivowels from vowels), Ukrainian (mainly phonemic with some other historical/morphological rules, as well as palatalization), Swahili (missing aspirated consonants, which do not occur in all varieties and are sparsely used anyways), Mongolian (apart from letters representing multiple sounds depending on front or back vowels, the soft and hard sign, silent letters to indicate /ŋ/ from /n/ and voiced versus voiceless consonants) Azerbaijani (apart from k), and Kazakh (apart from и, у, х, щ, ю).

Many languages of India written in Brahmic scripts, such as Hindi (apart from schwa and nasal vowels) and Marathi,[citation needed], but not Bengali and Gujarati, have phonemic orthographies.

[Arjun]

If the newly weds cannot be shown the example of Vashishta-Arundhati as was tradition, then the Vedic scholars would indeed make it an issue and in fact see it as a bad omen for the upkeep of Dharma!

That is exactly what the Arundhati observation in Bhishma Parva (2:31) shows - Vyasa telling Dhritarashtra that Arundhati walking in front of Vashishta signifies an age of crisis for Dharma where Vedic customs cannot be adhered to.

The Epoch of Arundhati signifies the this age of crisis for Dharma when Vedic custom of Vashishta-Arundhati sighting for newly-weds could not be adhered to, and thus it became an issue worth mentioning in the Mahabharata!

Good reasoning !

[Murugan]

These languages' letters are not spoken in actual use while the letters are brought together to form a word unlike all Indic languages.

Are they arranged in the scientific order like in Indic scripts, especially, Brahmi/Devanagari derived scripts? The order in which these Indic scripts arranged are directly linked with the parts of the mouth, the order to be followed, the anusvar pronunciations and breath's length. And then preserved for millenniums and still being used with that order and arrangement. Is this the case with other non-indic languages?

[Arjun]

These languages' letters are not spoken in actual use while the letters are brought together to form a word unlike all Indic languages.

Are they arranged in the scientific order like in Indic scripts, especially, Brahmi/Devanagari derived scripts? The order in which these Indic scripts arranged are directly linked with the parts of the mouth, the order to be followed, the anusvar pronunciations and breath's length. And then preserved for millenniums and still being used with that order and arrangement. Is this the case with other non-indic languages?

Looks like Sanskrit- Brahmi is the only true phonemic orthography major language ever....There has been objection to Hindi on this parameter because of what is called the Schwa deletion. ie Ram written in Devnagari ( pronounced as Ram or Rama?)

[Murugan]

This -addition- of letter and speaking it with आ is very confusing in the sanskrit/other derived languages:

Nirmal = Male name
Nirmala = Female name

Ashok = Male
Ashoka = Female

Divya = Male दिव्य
Divya = Female दिव्या

Kamal, Kamala,
Ram = राम
Rama = रमा

Gadbad ho gayi hai

There is one guy - Nirmalya Kumar = निर्मल्य कुमार = Clean Young Chap.
This same name is spoken by uninitated as निर्माल्य कुमार = Impotent Young Chap

[RajeshA]

Wikipedia on significance of Arundhati

Arundhati (Sanskrit: अरुन्धती, IAST: Arundhatī) is the wife of the sage Vashishta, one of the seven sages (Saptarshi) who are identified with the Ursa Major. She is identified with the morning star and also with the star Alcor which forms a double star with Mizar (identified as Vashista) in Ursa Major. Arundhati, though the wife of one of the seven seers, is accorded the same status as the seven seers and is worshipped with them as such. In the Vedic and Puranic literature, she is regarded as the epitome of chastity, conjugal bliss and wifely devotion. In post-Puranic epic poems in Sanskrit and Hindi, she has been described as “chaste and revered” and with a character that is “unblemished, inspiring and worthy of imitation”. In the Hindu culture, there are several beliefs, practices and traditions centred around Arundhati including a ritual in the marriage ceremony after the Saptapadi, a fast, a belief about imminent death, and a maxim.

In one of the rituals of a Hindu marriage, the groom shows the bride the double stars of Vashista and Arundhati as an ideal couple, symbolic of marital fulfilment and loyalty. On the second bright day of the lunar month of Chaitra, a fast in her honour is observed in certain regions of India by ladies whose husbands are alive. This fast is observed with the belief that the ladies observing it would not be widowed.

Since the Arundhati star is faintly visible, there is a belief that when someone is near death, they can not see the Arundhati star. Due to its faintness, the Arundhati used to be shown in steps, first showing the brighter stars, and then relative to that the faint Arundhati star is directed. The maxim in Sanskrit called the Arundhatīdarśananyāyaḥ (IAST: अरुन्धतीदर्शनन्यायः), used in the meaning of inferring the unknown from that which is known, is named after Arundhati.

The life of Arundhati is described in the eponymous Hindi epic poem Arundhati composed by Jagadguru Rambhadracharya in 1994.

Considering the significance of Arundhati in Vedic customs and mythology, it is obvious why a change in her relative position to Vashishta in the sky would cause something akin to a Dharma-Sankat, and hence would mentioned in Mahabharata!

Mahakavya on Arundhati by Jagadguru Rambhadracharya [Download]

Who would have thought that Arundhati would one day save the history of India!

I only wish some riffraff in India would have been named differently.

[Murugan]

Good Site - Arundhati brought me here

http://sanskrit.inria.fr/index.html

[shiv]

Not really. The last word is yet to be written on farming. If you read this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16655972/Earl ... anga-basin you will see that rice was domesticated in mid ninth millenium before prsent (BP) in Uttar Pradesh.

Very nice paper Peterji. So where is the worry about people who came from the West? If farming was established in Mehrgarh in 7500 BC and in UP in 9000 BC anyone who came from the west could have come only for a meal of agricultural produce no. We can safely stop worrying that there is some "opening" for AIT to occur in 8000 BC unless the paper you have linked is trashed. No?

[RajeshA]

Could Sanskrit have been India's Official Language?

I touched on this issue earlier. A little history from September 10, 1949:


copied from here!

NEW DELHI, Sept. 10.— India's Law Minister, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, is among those who have sponsored Sanskrit as the official language of the Indian Union. One of his supporters is Dr. B.V. Keskar, India's Deputy Minister for External Affairs, another Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.

Questioned about this move, Dr. Ambedkar asked a PTI correspondent this evening, "What is wrong with Sanskrit?"

The Amendment will be taken up by the Constituent Assembly when the question of official language is considered by the house.

Other signatories are Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal), Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras), Mr. G.S. Guha (Tripura-Manipur and Khasi States), Mr. C.M. Poonacha (Coorg), Mr. V. Ramaiah (Pudukkotah), Mr. V.I. Muniswamy Pillai (Madras), Mr. Kallur Subba Rao (Madras), Mr. V.C. Kesava Rao (Madras), Mr. D. Govinda Das (Madras), Dr. P. Subbarayan (Madras), Dr. V. Subramaniam (Madras), Mrs. G. Durgabai (Madras) and Mrs. Dakshayani Velayudhan (Madras).

The amendment reads:

310A 1. The official language of the Union shall be Sanskrit.

2. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause one of this article, for a period of 15 years from the commencement of this constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union, for which it was being used at such commencement: provided the President may, during the same period, by order authorise for any of the official purposes of the Union the use of Sanskrit in addition to the English language.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this article, Parliament may by law provide for the use of the English language after the said period of 15 years for such purposes as may be specified in such law.

Consequential changes substituting Sanskrit for Hindi have also been suggested for the rest of the articles. — PTI

[A_Gupta]

You will notice at Lahurdeva, rice cultivation from 9000 y.a., and later arrival of Harappan crops. So, cultivation of rice moves from east to west, and some other grains from west to east.

[Nilesh Oak]

Prem Kumar ji asked Peter ji

I am following your point. Do you have the exact translation of the AV reference in the MBH?

Peter ji responded...

Yes. Here it is: "She, O king, who is celebrated over the three worlds and is applauded by the righteous, even that (constellation) Arundhati keepeth (her lord) Vasistha on her back." (From Ganguli: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06002.htm).

Don't understand what you mean. But here is the actual "tone":

या चैषा विश्रुता राजंस्त्रैलोक्ये साधुसंमता। 6-2-31a
अरुन्धती तयाप्येष वसिष्ठः पृष्ठतः कृतः ।। 6-2-31b

रोहिणीं पीडयन्नेष स्थितो राजञ्शनैश्चरः । 6-2-32a
व्यावृत्तं लक्ष्म सोमस्य भविष्यति महद्भयम् ।।6-2-32b

I don't understand the tone business. All I know is that Bhishma Parva 3.17 negates Nilesh's position.

(emphasis mine)

Prem Kumar ji, your persistance paid of. I gave up teaching 'elementary logic' long time ago, but you did marvel here.

And at any rate, Achar's date provides NO explanation for the AV statement, which is a key failing

But my joy lasted for a fraction of a second..

Peter ji says the following in response....

This is very uninformed. A series of dates starting from Krishna's departure to the death of Bhishma match and you call that a failing of Achar? Have Nilesh show a similar match in dates over this two month period and then you have a case.

Peter ji,

Prem Kumar is referring to failure/inability of Achar to validate/corroborate AV observation for 3067 BC. As to who is uninformed, I suggest let's delay the discussion on that topic. We are on observation Number 1 (AV) and 216 more to go, all from the MBH text.

The reference you are demanding response to is # 14 in my book, so it will be a while before your Q can be answered. Great news is, if you, by luck, truly understand the significance of AV reference, role of Bhishma 3.17 is to corroborate/test it for years between 11091 BC and 4508 BC. In other words, your confusion over Bhishma 3:17 will vanish in thin air.

Peter ji,

Also you have to make it clear. It would assist other forum members to respond to your Q better.

(1) Is your issue between dates of Oak vs. Achar. If so, don't bring in R N Iyengar
(2) If issue is with Oak proposal, don't bring in Achar, Iyengar. They are researchers and doing work to expand our knowledge.
(3) any other position

I will leave you now, Peter ji, in able hands of Prem Kumar ji and other AV enthusiasts, and that brings us back to observation #1......

AV observation poses a challenge and is a failure for anyone who proposes timing of MBH War after 4508 BC.

Until this is understood, let's not make unnecessary hurry to move to observation #2, never mind observation #14

The progress is being made (or it seems, after all children and also people in mid-life crisis do regerss to their earlier developmental stages), but is excruciatingly slow and hence the reason for you Peter ji to create another thread in GDF, where one may proceed at one's own pace (slow moving cars ...pls stay in right lane.. fashion).
......................................................
Now I will get back to dating of Ramayana, an ancient event, that occured long time before Mahabharata, i.e. long time before 5561 BC.

[peter]

No. There are many theories. Where did you get the 80 20 theory?
There is Balkan theory, there is Armenian theory...

What is the backing for non-Anatolian Balkan & for Armenian theories? How many academics backing them?

Well first you tell us the 80 / 20 divide data. Where did you read it and when was this published. I just find it very odd.

Among Western academics - it is predominantly Steppe & Anatolian, with Steppe being the overwhelming favorite. If you have any familiarity with the field you would know this.

I have enough familiarity to know that you are wrong.

[peter]

peter ji,

I am impressed with your knowledge of the issues. Have you written any papers on the subject?

Thanks

I am still learning. Far from paper I can barely comment here.