Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 12 Jul 2017 07:39

UlanBatori wrote:BTW, the term "Adi Dravida" now means "Dalit" and are viewed as a juicy Flock to convert by the Joshua Project.

This is unsurprising and is the current state of a 150 year long bluff that created superior Aryans and inferior Dravidians . The superior Aryans allegedly arrogated to themselves the status of Brahmin. And despite these "Aryan" Brahmins being unarmed, shirtless and skilled only in Veda-droning and butt-resting in front of "fire-altars" they "subjugated" the inferior Dravdians, who remained too dumb for 3000 years to pick up the tools they were using in their trades as carpenters or stonemasons to hit a Brahmin on the head and put him in his place. So they now require rescue by the Church

And we believe this shit

Schmidt
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 19 Aug 2016 08:02

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Schmidt » 12 Jul 2017 10:41

Shiv ji , it might be possible that Tamil developed out of Kannada

But is there any Kannada literature comparable to Tamil sangam works that are dated back to 300 BC , in their scope of work , as well as sheer beauty ??

Or did all the Kannada writers switch to composing in Tamil en masse

syam
BRFite
Posts: 495
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby syam » 12 Jul 2017 11:03

@shiv ji, is there any institute or organisation that promotes OoT theory ?
If there is no org. out there, what are the chances to start our own?

We have no institutional backing to do any thing. May be this will change the fate of Indic studies.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 495
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby syam » 12 Jul 2017 12:14

SriJoy wrote:No institution supports OOI.
~~~~~~

Ok then. It is time to start one of our own. And give guest lectures where ever it is possible and publish papers.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1495
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Pulikeshi » 12 Jul 2017 12:27

UlanBatori wrote:Perhaps the right answer to the Dravida question is that we should seek the word root in Tamizh, not Samskrtam. Incidentally, the words "choru" (rice), "vair" (stomach) etc cited in the pages posted by Guptaji, occur in Malayalam, not in modern Tamil. Cooked rice is now "shadam" in TN and Tamil-speaking Sri Lanka.


My two cents in creating the malicious divide with Aryan / Dravidian and cooked up PIE - real scholarship has been found wanting...

Rice - if you do a dictionary or wiki search claims the following origin: Middle English: from Old French ris, from Italian riso, from Greek oruza .
Where as any one who knows Tamil recognizes the word "Arici" (அரிசி) - so why is Greek picking up a Dravidian word? :P

Welcome - if you do a dictionary or wiki search claims the following origin: Old English wilcuma ‘a person whose coming is pleasing,’ wilcumian (verb), from wil- ‘desire, pleasure’ + cuman ‘come’ The first element was later changed to wel- ‘well,’ influenced by Old French bien venu or Old Norse velkominn
Where as any one who knows Tamil recognizes the word "Vanakkam" (வணக்கம்) - why is this word so similar to Old Norse Velkominn? :eek:

Kill - compare with Tami word "kill" (கில) or "kol" (கொல்) - exact word! exact meaning! :eek: :shock: :P

The horse manure stinks in this field!
There is a quick list one can make similarly... some learned scholar someday may illuminate! :mrgreen:
Last edited by Pulikeshi on 12 Jul 2017 12:29, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 12 Jul 2017 12:29

There is no institution that I know of working on OIT. If OIT must be institutionalized I agree that existing timeframes must be deconstructed.

My personal view is that if we set out on a pre defined goal that OIT represents the truth, that idea can be accused of searching only for evidence to reach a specific conclusion. That is what many AIT people did. I also feel that "instititionalizing OIT" in the absence of a reasonable body of academic works that support OIT will only expose the idea to debilitating criticism.

However I do believe that OIT of many things, including possibly language can be shown to be a credible possibility using the massive amount of literature that is available, but taking down AIT from its current well accepted state is my only focus. There is some suggestion of OIT that I have sensed but that information is worthless until it is collected and collated into a coherent argument.

An institution to research the idea would require a body of dedicated people willing to fight on linguistic turf because AIT linguists have surrounded themselves with a chakravyuha of linguistic gobbledygook. But language aside we could reclaim astronomy, maths the Panchatantra and some aspects of neuroscience but all these are outside my expertise or interest

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1495
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Pulikeshi » 12 Jul 2017 12:47

JE Menon wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVjvhcO-7Lg
There are some sarcastic hits on NRIs, but she's fantastic. The spirit. It is coming back.


Thank you! want her to speak more tamilized angrezi -
I was rolling on the floor onlee with the comment on the Chinese Ambi's (pun intended) name :rotfl:

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1495
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Pulikeshi » 12 Jul 2017 13:05

SriJoy wrote:
syam wrote:See your above post. You still didn't answer the origin part. We are discussing about origins. Not where the horse trotted.

@Dipankar , you too. The origin of Horse is still debatable.


Ok. Archaelogically we have Arabian horse in Assyria, decisively, from 1200 BC period. So why should we consider origin myths of people who came much later (Jews, who did not write the OT till 900-800 BC) as the 'origin story' ?
that myth about Solomon getting a gift, is as credible as stealing ' Huwawa, the God of seven shimmering auras, slain by Gilgamesh' from the far older Sumerians. Unless of course, you think Huwawa= Yahweh (name of Jewish God) and 'seven auras of Huwawa = seven heavens and seven hells' is all just a big coincidence.


Since we are talking about the Ashuras (Assyrians ;-)) lets make sure we know the king names from the four periods:
Early_Assyrian_Period
Old_Assyrian_Period
Middle_Assyrian_Period
Neo-Assyrian_Period

The Assyrians predated the Arabs and please correct me if I am wrong - they had the Arab tribes as vassals..
Till the tables were turned and they are still tearing each other apart today...

wiki wrote:The Arabs appear to have been under the vassalage of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–612 BC), and the succeeding Neo-Babylonian (626–539 BC), Achaemenid (539–332 BC), Seleucid and Parthian empires.


wiki wrote:"Arab tribes, most notably the Ghassanids and Lakhmids, begin to appear in the southern Syrian Desert from the mid 3rd century CE onward, during the mid to later stages of the Roman and Sasanian empires"


That the numerals were considered Arabic and now Hindu (or pusillanimously "Hindu-Arabic" for the PC chicken hearted)
merits looking at the "arabian horse manure" in greater detail.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 12 Jul 2017 14:34

Schmidt wrote:Shiv ji , it might be possible that Tamil developed out of Kannada

But is there any Kannada literature comparable to Tamil sangam works that are dated back to 300 BC , in their scope of work , as well as sheer beauty ??

Or did all the Kannada writers switch to composing in Tamil en masse

This is outside of my sphere of expertise and I really should not comment any more bar "what I have heard from a friend whom I trust"

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 12 Jul 2017 14:46

Pulikeshi wrote:Rice - if you do a dictionary or wiki search claims the following origin: Middle English: from Old French ris, from Italian riso, from Greek oruza .
Where as any one who knows Tamil recognizes the word "Arici" (அரிசி) - so why is Greek picking up a Dravidian word? :P

I vaguely recall an article that stated that the word rice originated from the Tamil word. The Spanish and Portuguese words are similar - "arroz"

I get a big kick out of the variable usage of the terms "sor" and "chor" for cooked rice. Cunning linguists made a huge song and dance about "Satem" and "Centum" based on these imaginary "sound changes" . These buggers have been allowed to get away for too long. As regards the "sound change" of S to H between Sanskrit and the Zoroastrian language (which I refuse to call by the fake name Avestan) - There are parts of Gujarat with the same local Gujjus who have this S to H sound change. So much for theories of gradual evolution of language families.

That said the same "sound changes" of S to H from India to Iran actually extends all the way to Greece. But it's not there in neighbouring Rome. Sarpa-Herpes, Sindhu-Hindu etc. The Romans were quite happy to say "Serpent" and English was happy to accept that. I simply must quote again from my notes about these cunning linguists

A research study by linguist Angela Marcantonio actually showed how PIE
has frequently been built up using circular reasoning of this type and anomalies and contradictions
are explained by creating more and more “rules”.
A review of Marcantonio’s observations by Spanish linguist Jesus Sanches notes, “In some cases
the number of rules equals the number of forms This is how the corpus of PIE reconstructions has
grown in the last 150 years: by a cumulative amount of laws, many of them designed 'ad hoc'.
What is the use of a law, e.g. Grimm's Law, if it is immediately followed by new laws, e.g. Verner's,
to make it tenable? Marcantonio sees the adjustable parameters of PIE laws as an indication of
circularity.


Another chap called Jay Jasanoff writes:
“No less important than what linguistic evidence can do is what it cannot do. It cannotprovide us
with fixed dates or absolute chronologies [..] The nineteenth and early twentieth-century scholars
created the myth of the “Aryans” committed every possible methodological error in leaping from
Proto-Indo-European to the Proto-Indo-Europeans — the error of confusing language with “race”;
of uncritically ascribing language spread to violent conquest; of attributing conquest to racial
superiority; and of selectively interpreting the material evidence to locate the IE homeland where
their prejudices led them to expect it.
Current-day reimaginings of the past are usually more subtle.
But the use of linguistic data to support prehistoric scenarios of conquest or ownership, often with
an ethnic or national bias, remains surprisingly common. Linguistically literate readers should be
prepared to correct for this practice when they encounter it.


bloody linguists... :x

svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby svenkat » 12 Jul 2017 18:52

Primus ji,
1)You are right about the afghan-pakjabi relationship.
2)The brahmana gotras are in general named after the mantra drshtaas/rishis of vedas.Is that the case in your community?This is really tangential to the general tenor of my post.The 'exclusivism' of the said community need not be linked to migration/invasion.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Jul 2017 19:46

svenkat wrote:Interestengly dravida,andhra,karnata,gurjara and maharashtra are the five 'sub sects' of pancha dravida.Dravida has a generic and particular meaning here.

Svenkat ji

Do you know where these descriptions occur? (References that is)

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Jul 2017 19:48

^^^
Isn't Sanskrit word for RICE is 'Vrihi'? 'Vari' in Telagu?(I was told).

'Vari' in marathi for grain similar to 'rice'.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Jul 2017 19:56

Shiv writes..

A research study by linguist Angela Marcantonio actually showed how PIE
has frequently been built up using circular reasoning of this type and anomalies and contradictions
are explained by creating more and more “rules”.
A review of Marcantonio’s observations by Spanish linguist Jesus Sanches notes, “In some cases
the number of rules equals the number of forms This is how the corpus of PIE reconstructions has
grown in the last 150 years: by a cumulative amount of laws, many of them designed 'ad hoc'.
What is the use of a law, e.g. Grimm's Law, if it is immediately followed by new laws, e.g. Verner's,
to make it tenable? Marcantonio sees the adjustable parameters of PIE laws as an indication of
circularity.

I had a pleasure of listening to her at 'River Sarasvati conference' at Kurukshetra University. My paper (presenting work of Sue Sullivan - IVC script dictionary) was immediately after Angela Marcantonio's presentation, and I did refer to her work and made comments of the effect, quoting her, work, how linguists pulled new rules, out of their AXX, to explain the stuff, so as to stick to their preconceived notions and nonsensical theories.

Few linguists, present in the audience, remained stone-faced. Many did not approach me during the rest of the conference, who otherwise were having friendly chat with me during early part of the day.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 12 Jul 2017 20:17

Ahem!
Ashuras (Assyrians

Based on the most current research from Ulan Bator U (uBU) Department of Linguistic Anthropogenic Biogas and Uncertainty Generation, we must point to the obvious.

ASSURA == (what we genteelly refer to as "Oiseule")
Adjective or noun, denoting person possessed of great Managerial and Political skills. "Academic Adminitrator". "Corporate/Academic Climber". "Chaired Professor of Sanskrit in Ivy League University". "Senior Journalist for The HUNDI".

svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby svenkat » 12 Jul 2017 20:55

Nilesh Oak ji,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancha-Dravida

There are claims in this article that the references are found in Kalhana,Skanda Purana,maratha era records.

I have seen these accounts in 'magazines'/books published by orthodox people and bought/read by similar people.

svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby svenkat » 12 Jul 2017 21:12

https://mahaperiyavaa.blog/2012/10/26/rare-photo-of-isayanur-paati-kasi/

This photograph was taken at the time of bhikshapradana to the panchagoudiya yatis at varanasi ( October 1934).

I have seen a similar photo of Kanchi periyava(who was a bastion of orthodoxy in TN) with panchadravida sanyasis at kashi.

Let alone brahmanas,there were panchadravida yatis in kashi.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 12 Jul 2017 21:26

Nilesh Oak wrote:
svenkat wrote:Interestengly dravida,andhra,karnata,gurjara and maharashtra are the five 'sub sects' of pancha dravida.Dravida has a generic and particular meaning here.

Svenkat ji

Do you know where these descriptions occur? (References that is)

Quoting an earlier post of mine
shiv wrote:It appears that the word Dravidian was coined by a fellow called Robert Caldwell.

His book Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or south Indian family of languages is available for download here
https://archive.org/details/comparativegramm00caldrich

Read the Introduction on page 4 onwards for a few pages.

Caldwell refers to Pandits who speak of 5 Dravidas:
Telinga, Karnata, Marathi, Gurjara and Dravira

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 13 Jul 2017 01:36

amp/www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/too-early-to-settle-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19265947.ece/amp/

"Moreover, there is evidence which is consistent with the early presence of several R1a branches in India (our unpublished data)."

Seems this is going to end debate on any aryan migration into The subcontinent.now.let them come up with any new convoluted theory.

AMT is about to die forever...come September..as
Shinde has said the results of Rakhi garhi samples are about to come in September at a seminar in NMML

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 13 Jul 2017 06:47

OK, so we don't know who the Aryas were, we don't know where Dravida came from. Do we know what Mohenjodaro, Harappa, Dholavira and Rakigarh were called in their heyday?
I mean, if one was called New Dusseldorf or Puthu Tirunelveli that might be a clue....

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 13 Jul 2017 06:55

The other question is why there is no memory in the "Old Country" about these brilliant Veda-writers who emigrated to the IVC. I mean, didn't they send home some Seals etc to Dusseldorf? Free copies of Vedas 4 Bavarian Tree-Swingers?

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 13 Jul 2017 07:03

SriJoy wrote:I don't know it will. the linguists have a religious affiliation with Amt. Which is why they cooked up 'Indo European language link' with R1a DNA. I will point out, no steppe culture before the turkish Khaganate (roughly 400s AD) left behind a single written evidence. None, nada, zip. So how do you associate DNA with language ?! If linguists can ignore this glaring flaw in their hypothesis, they will just end up shifting their goalposts once again and in a few years, claim R1a has nothing to do with Aryans and try to link it with another DNA sequence.


I think they rely more on the R1b carrying Yamnaya people into Europe for bringing in the Indo-European into Europe, than R1a bringing it to India.

Did you read this article in Nature magazine published in 2015:
Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe

Another one from NatGeo, this basically refers to the article above:
Europe's Languages Were Carried From the East, DNA Shows

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 13 Jul 2017 07:23

On the general note about famous and rich friends of mine who tell me stuff - one more old friend who is a big name in genetics said..(no point naming him because if I do you guys will know I am bluffing).

Anyhow this guy told me the latest developments. If you take human DNA and give it special chemical treatment and then look at the unravelled strands under a special microscope the DNA strands curl up into shapes where they spell out the language that the owner of the DNA used to speak. In this manner any DNA can be examined from thousands of years ago and it will curl up into shapes that spell the language spoken. In fact human DNA from Yamanava graves spelt "P.I.E.". DNA harvested from fingerprints on the Mitanni doucheuments have spelt the language "Indo-Aryan 1500 BC". Bee DNA from 2 million year old amber spelt "bzzzz". Linguists are working on that one

Just because you guys are ignorant of genetics does not mean that science is not progressing and going from strength to strength

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 13 Jul 2017 07:41

Srijoyji, memories of the Native Land should have been seen in MoJo etc., good point. But my question is why there was never any return traffic. Did the Aryans so biss off their home crowd that they were never allowed back? Seems to me that fossils/ remains in the Black Forest should have been pretty well preserved, and a few must have got dug up by the bombs or WW2. We never hear of any. The ppl digging trenches in Belgium in WW1 should have run into some buried towns as well. Why focus only on what is found in Indiapakistan? Why not what has never been found in Europe? I mean other than a couple of buried chariots in Siberia, caves in Spain/France, and pyramids in Egypt.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 13 Jul 2017 07:44

SriJoy wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
I think they rely more on the R1b carrying Yamnaya people into Europe for bringing in the Indo-European into Europe, than R1a bringing it to India.

Did you read this article in Nature magazine published in 2015:
Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe

Another one from NatGeo, this basically refers to the article above:
Europe's Languages Were Carried From the East, DNA Shows


Ok, R1a or R1b, my point is, there is zero evidence to link genetics to language in pre-Mongol era Steppe culture. they are the first ones to leave written evidence of a steppe culture, although you can say technically, Gokturks (turkish Khaganate) left behind a few Vikings-esque runes. So if they can just make-up a language to DNA link, they can do it again, for a different set of central asian DNA.


Their logic is simple, the languages of ethnicities A, B,C, D, E... in Europe are related and these ethnicities also share the DNA R1b. Now genetics and archeology have proven that these R1b carrying people migrated to Europe from the steppe, thus ancestors of A,B,C,D,E... spoke a common steppe language, a language they call PIE.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 13 Jul 2017 08:18

Dipanker wrote:
Their logic is simple, the languages of ethnicities A, B,C, D, E... in Europe are related and these ethnicities also share the DNA R1b. Now genetics and archeology have proven that these R1b carrying people migrated to Europe from the steppe, thus ancestors of A,B,C,D,E... spoke a common steppe language, a language they call PIE.

This is the way science is moving nowadays and corresponds well with the statement that the effort required to rebut bullshit is 10x that required to produce it. I would like to take the assumptions down one by one but can't be bothered to put in the effort required.

    The shared genes of ABCD & E are fact
    The "related languages" of ABCD & E today are fact
    The common ancestor (call him X) of ABCD & E is a logical assumption, not fact
    The existence of this common ancestor only in the place where archaeology has found evidence and nowhere else is an assumption
    The idea that common ancestor in assumed place spoke a particular language is fabrication
    Giving the fabricated language a fabricated name "PIE" only obfuscates the original fabrication that X spoke a particular language

2 facts+2 assumptions+2 acts of fabrication = new fact: Accepted in pir reviewed journals.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1495
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Pulikeshi » 13 Jul 2017 08:33

SriJoy wrote:I am not convinced that Assyrians were the 'asuras' per se. Sure, they were the most brutal of empire-builders (fits with Asuras) and their name is a close cognate, but Iranians make a better case for being 'Asuras', since 'Ahuras' are the Iranian deities while Daevas are their demons- exact opposite of Hinduism. In anycase, there is little to show Arabs all the way down in Yemen/Hejaz region were vassals of the Assyrians/Babylonians/Persians etc. Its he arabs in the Persian gulf (arabian side) and northern Saudi arabia that were vassals.


One needs to look closely at pre-Iranian Iran :P As it had an out of India migration of people that are affiliated with who became the Assyrians.
The first Persian empire begins with the Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE)... much later
Points for guessing the original Sanskrit word for Haxāmaniš which Achaemenid is derived (A Bahuvrihi compound) which is really just Sanskrit :P)

See this quote in Wiki: Iranian Assyrians
The Assyrian presence in Iran goes back 4000 years to ancient times, and Assyria was involved in the history of Ancient Iran even before the arrival of the modern Iranian peoples to the region circa 1000 BC.


The Iranians (Zoroastrian) for sure have migration myth: Airyanavaeja
The Indian Arya do not!

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 13 Jul 2017 08:44

Srijoyji: All of what you say, applies to other migrations: say desis to yooess or bilayat. Nice climate, nice this, nice that. But there is always an affinity for others of one's tribe and the memories of "back in the old country", however drab that may be in the eyes of others. In the AIT case it might have taken a few years to make a trip, but there had to have been return contacts. For one thing, a nomadic people, used to cold weather, would not much love humid and hot north India, so the change is not that great.

As for Mongols etc, is it true that they did not return? I think Kublai (wherever he lived) and Chenghis could have built their makaans in any place they conquered, why did they insist on returning to the smelly slums of old Ulan Bator? So that thesis fails. If they returned and continued to be rulers, that means all their cousins and their armies returned too, otherwise the gentle folks they left behind would have disemboweled them on arrival.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby RoyG » 13 Jul 2017 08:46

Shiv, I remember we had discussed Suzanne Sulivan's work. Have you seen the docs in the link below? I really think she may have cracked it mainly using brahmi script.

Thermoluminescence dating showed that the pot was made in 1528 BC, a date very late for Indus Script, and the earliest known example
of Brahmi script.


Had no idea brahmi was this old.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... zVZc2JyRDA

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 13 Jul 2017 08:49

Sullivan's work was great. I have those pdfs somewhere whoops - I don't have one of them. Thanks

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 13 Jul 2017 08:52

SriJoy wrote:yeah but its not necessarily true. I will give you an example : Han Chinese language. 2300 years ago, there were nearly a dozen related languages to 'Han', all in the central China region. For comparison's sake, think of if as Hindi was 'Han Chinese' and Han Chinese's relatives were like Punjabi, Bhojpuri, Bengali, Gujarati, etc. By 1300 AD, i.e., in 1000 years, all but Han Chinese disappeared from central China. So if you look at DNA, it doesn't say anything about Language change. My kids are not fluent in Bengali but they sound like a standard west-coast Canadian in English. And if they end up marrying an African, its highly unlikely my grandchild will speak even a word of the said African language- yet, by genetics, he/she would be 50% African...

What i am trying to say, is that for all you know, all these R1 DNA people could've been slaves of another DNA group thousands of years ago, who forced our ancestors to speak Indo-European, the native tongue of this hypothetical peoples, then died out.

Linking languages, especially hypothetical ones, with DNA groups, is always a dangerous and unsubstantiated ideology.


Let me give you a similar but contrarian example. So we have dozens of north Indian languages, Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Braj-Bhasha, Awadhi etc. Let us for a moment assume that in the present time there is no trace of Sanskrit left, none whatsoever. Will it be still possible then to come to conclusion that all these languages may have had a common ancestor language since they all appear to be related?

For European case, you can replace Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujarati etc. with German, English, French etc. and Sanskrit with PIE.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1495
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Pulikeshi » 13 Jul 2017 09:33

SriJoy wrote:^^
If so, why would their (and our, aka mutual, original) Gods- the devas- be turned into demons and not just retained, with the Asuras just complementing the original pantheon ?


The version of Zoroastrianism that remains is a later version that is from the CE - A much older version (perhaps there were others as well) existed... Perhaps the destruction of Persepolis and the library by Alexander has forever sealed the fate of a very keyholes history of this region and its culture.
From what can be gathered it was wide spread, but died out mostly towards the East, but remained till the eventual annilation by Islam -
This older version has been called Zurvanism - it was monist in construct unlike the more well known Mazdaism that you are referring to.. Zurvan is identical to Prajapati for all practical purposes and Anura Mazda and Angra Mainyu are identical twins engendered by Zurvan. My guess is the worship of Indra, Varuna, Agni & Mitra took many forms and multiple variants in each geography... Thus the Ashuras are many!

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1495
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Pulikeshi » 13 Jul 2017 09:45

SriJoy wrote:
Dipanker wrote:What i am trying to say, is that, lets say for a minute that there is no trace of Sanskrit. Just because we speak descendants of Sanskrit, doesn't mean Sanskrit came from our ancestors in this scenario. It could easily have been a foreign language, imposed on our ancestors like the Chinese empires imposed Han language, till all trace of our original language is wiped off. that is what i am trying to say. No doubt, something like PIE existed. but its timeframe is purely hypothetical and its a pure assumption that just because Europeans speak descendants of PIE, at one point their ancestors must've come up with PIE. it could've easily been enforced on them, the same way Arabic was enforced on Egyptians and their original language (Coptic) has almost died out.


If there is no Sanskrit - how do we deduce that they are descendants of Sanskrit? :shock:
It is incredible that a non-existent mother language PIE has been constructed using a classical language that has been deliberately constructed aka Sanskrit!

Sanskrit (classical) is a deliberately designed work of art, we know not what all variants existed prior and along with it... most may have been lost. The only version that is older than this constructed language - has been recited forever, but has been held timeless, authorless and 'meaningless'
There must be a measure for density and diversity of language in the Indian Sub-Continent and I'd dare say it will far exceed anything found outside of this region... this I suspect is a good indicator of original homeland more than anything else... If a language were imposed chances are there aren't as many variants even over time - if anything antiquated phrases would be found anachronistically sticking to colloquial tongues - similar to how English is spoken/more so written in India even today.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7022
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby JE Menon » 13 Jul 2017 11:45

>>For all Indo-European languages, PIE is such a thing.

Except that the antiquity of Sanskrit is greater (so far as is known hitherto) than all the European languages. Hence the moniker "Indo"-European. I am pretty sure that Indo did not come first out of charitable consideration. In other words, someone correct me if I'm wrong, there is no European language whose "distance" from Sanskrit is lower than the daughters of Sanskrit in India, which might suggest a direct connection with the mythical PIE.

Other questions, perhaps borne of ignorance: (a) why is it called PIE and not Proto-European if it went directly west from the steppes, and (b) who the fu(k created such a "massive" population (as the Nature paper title suggests) in that area such that it became unsustainable and had to massively exit the region. How did they get there and settle and develop PIE before any of the other more resource rich areas did, considering that leisure time was surely at a premium? Even now the buggers are wandering about on yaks in yurts and crushing a form of yogurt to survive, as UlanBatori will proudly testify; hell even his Alien Invasion Theory seems more sustainable than this bit of fantasy trashtoon.

At this point I'm tempted to reprise that cringeworthy Rahul Mehta utterance "All Wise Men Think Alike" (no Rahul, that's not encouragement to return!).

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7022
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby JE Menon » 13 Jul 2017 11:54

An answer to question (a) which just occurred to me. They called it PIE because if they called it PE or (more appropriately PEE - proto-East European), they would look bloody ridiculous. Hwhy? What would they base their arguments on? If they ignored Sanskrit altogether, considering that this monster literature and classical language of greater antiquity is quietly sitting in the east, watching in bemusement at their ideological and racist contortions to deny their own mother!!!

It's a bit like a baztard denying his own mother, who harbours only love for him (albeit now in a detached form), saying "no, she's not my mom... I come from a greater person's loin, someone more like me, someone more beautiful, someone younger, someone richer, someone better liked... "

Wait.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1495
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Pulikeshi » 13 Jul 2017 15:45

Especially as I am fascinated by the movie Prometheus:

A Grammar of modern Indo-European - Prometheus Edition

The dates include an archaeological terminus post quem, and a linguistic terminus ante quem. In such a huge time span we could differentiate between language periods. However, these (linguistic and archaeological) limits are usually difficult to define, and their differentiation hardly necessary in this grammar. Similarly, the terms Hittite, Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, etc. (as well as modern languages) might refer in the broadest sense to a time span of over 1,000 years in each case, and they are still considered a single language; a selection is made of the prestigious dialect and age for each one, though, as it is done in this grammar, where the prestigious language is Late Indo-European, while phonetics remains nearer to the middle-late period of IEDs, whose post-laryngeal output is more certain.


The above quote is from page 35 of the Preface - what is fascinating to me is that a designed language's grammar (Sanskrit's Grammar) that post dates the several of the "ancient languages" including the most ancient by far of Vedic Sanskrit is used to reconstruct not only a more ancient (non-existent) language called PIE, but also used to reconstruct what is supposedly a modern Indo-European grammar :rotfl:

So one guy Panini got it so perfect - that it will be used as the template to cook a valiant history for Europe and project it to a glorious future!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 13 Jul 2017 15:54

JE Menon wrote:An answer to question (a) which just occurred to me. They called it PIE because if they called it PE or (more appropriately PEE - proto-East European), they would look bloody ridiculous. Hwhy? What would they base their arguments on? If they ignored Sanskrit altogether, considering that this monster literature and classical language of greater antiquity is quietly sitting in the east, watching in bemusement at their ideological and racist contortions to deny their own mother!!!

It's a bit like a baztard denying his own mother, who harbours only love for him (albeit now in a detached form), saying "no, she's not my mom... I come from a greater person's loin, someone more like me, someone more beautiful, someone younger, someone richer, someone better liked... "

Wait.

Let me ask some questions based on what cunning linguists themselves state

    Now here is a language - Sanskrit. Technically it is not "attested" - i.e written proof of the language is unavailable until 500 AD or some such relatively recent date. But cunning linguists say that Vedic Sanskrit is 3500 years old - that figure sits comfortably with their other recipes. Fine. Let me simply accept that.

    The cunning linguists also say that there existed some "proto-language" which they call PIE which existed somewhere between India and Europe around some date earlier than 3500 bce (1500 BC). Fine let me accept that as well.

    They say that this proto language started in an area where horses and chariots have first been found as archaeological evidence. Taking the Horse and Chariot as start date of PIE we are looking at a date of 4500 bce for PIE. Fine I accept that

    They say that languages spread from Horse riding horse eating Eurasia all across Europe and also to Iran and India. Fine Fine Fine. I accept that

    They (the cunning linguists) say that all the languages seem like different languages because they undergo gradual "sound changes". Fine. Let me accept that

Now riddle me this.

Of all the "Indo European" languages that used to be PIE in 4500 bce and gradually split up into different languages because of "sound changes", why is it that 96% (Ninety-six per cent onlee) of Vedic Sanskrit words have cognates in other Indo-European languages, while languages like German barely make 40%.

This can be explained by saying that Vedic Sanskrit has been preserved intact by Vedic scholars for 3500 years and hence retains 96% of the original words that PIE started with 4500 years ago. But this also means that Vedic Sanskrit is also closest to PIE. Other languages have lost words and gained words for 4500 years. But Vedic Sanskrit has remained intact from 3500 bce (linguist's dates) and therefore retains much of the original sounds and words of PIE. That is why 96% of words in Vedic Sanskrit can be found in some other IE language but no other language has such a high percentage of cognates with any of its sister IE languages.

If Sanskrit is "closest" to PIE (as was once though to be the case before this theory was discarded by cunning linguists) one must ask several more questions. They say that Sanskrit has retained the memory of horses from the Steppe region. But why does Sanskrit have no word for "Steppe"? Why does Vedic Sanskrit have no memory of Steppe geography and instead buggers about talking of Sindhu and Yamuna instead?

The argument that Vedic Sanskrit originated outside India as PIE is quite weak IMO

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Jul 2017 17:14

RoyG wrote:Shiv, I remember we had discussed Suzanne Sulivan's work. Have you seen the docs in the link below? I really think she may have cracked it mainly using brahmi script.

Thermoluminescence dating showed that the pot was made in 1528 BC, a date very late for Indus Script, and the earliest known example
of Brahmi script.


Had no idea brahmi was this old.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... zVZc2JyRDA

My talk presenting work of Sue Sullivan. I did share the slide that has combination of Brahmi and IVC script during this talk ( the pot referred to above from 1528 BCE).

The presentation video remained focused on me and never on slides. Oh, well.

https://youtu.be/A8iYCld5CcY

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 13 Jul 2017 17:40

The invasion of Europe by the Yamnaya people from the steppes around 5000-4800 years before present with population and culture replacement seems well established in the archaeological record, and via population genetics, both modern and with ancient DNA. Of course, we don't know what language they spoke, but if there ever was an invasion of Indo-European language speakers, this was it.

If we accept that this above is how Europe got Indo-Europeanized (but note, we have no evidence of language), then any out-of-India scenario has to have the Central Asian Steppes people speaking Indo-European languages well before the heyday of the Harrapan culture (4600-4000 years ago), let alone its decline (3900-3700 years ago).

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Jul 2017 18:15

RoyG wrote:Shiv, I remember we had discussed Suzanne Sulivan's work. Have you seen the docs in the link below? I really think she may have cracked it mainly using brahmi script.

Thermoluminescence dating showed that the pot was made in 1528 BC, a date very late for Indus Script, and the earliest known example
of Brahmi script.


Had no idea brahmi was this old.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... zVZc2JyRDA

She did not crack it mainly using 'Brahmi', although Brahmi was certainly part of it. She looked at few other languages -Elamite and also current Indian languages (scripts) and also words (e.g. Meena for fish and such)


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests