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.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Rudradev wrote:
What is the relationship between Onge and AASI? To say that Onge probably preserve a lot of the AASI genome is (by Vagheesh's standards) not a ridiculous extrapolation. They are an isolated population, like Darwin's finches, and have been for millennia presumably without any incoming gene flow. They may well have lost some of the original AASI markers (because of endogamy, non-random mating, selection, and genetic drift) and acquired some new ones (because of mutation) so they would not be exactly the same as AASI. However the assumption is that they would not have had AASI markers displaced and lost forever by incoming migration. Unless one can show that later populations went to the Andamans and bred with the indigenous people whom we now know as Onge, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are as "pure" a descendant population of AASI as we can get in modern times.
True, but confusing, because Onge have ~25% Iran_N.
Moreover, one Onge sample has the 13901-or-whatever lactase persistence allele.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Rudradev wrote:The Mallick paper does show something interesting though.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 61557/#R22

See extended data Figure 4B.

Look at the node just to the left of "South Asia- Hazara" from which everything from "South Asia-Burusho" to "East Asia_Miao" descends. Onge is part of that clade. Which means AASI, though not shown on that figure, lies somewhere upstream of Onge on the same clade.

This very same clade includes MANY Siberian populations but NO West Eurasian populations.

What are the chances that common prior lineages of descent between Siberians and Onge (including AASI) are responsible for the "West Siberian Hunter Gatherer" ancestry markers that Vagheesh et al found in the "Indus Periphery", Swat, and other samples? And NOT "Steppe_MLBA input" as Vagheesh et al claim?
Also: http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2016/0 ... india.html
There is a problem somewhere in the modeling, IMO.
Nearest neighbor modeling makes Indians closer to East Asian groups than to other Indo-European language speaking groups.
Yet supposedly Indian ancestry doesn't line up.
If the modeling is good, obviously there is a huge amount that I utterly don't grasp.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Post by Rudradev »

The way I understand it is that neighbor-joining methods are strictly numerical (distance) based, and are considered not to provide enough evidence to justify the "rooting" or hierarchical organization of trees. You can construct a star-shaped topology of connectedness, but not a phyllogram (showing directionality of ancestry) strictly from neighbor-joining data.

The gold-standard of data for building a rooted phyllogram is data that fits an ultrametric matrix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrametric_space This is almost never found in real world samples, so what they do instead is build neighbour-joining diagrams and then winnow out different possible topologies using things like the Viterbi algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viterbi_algorithm , maximum parsimony inferences (correcting for the least number of possible mutation events to get from putative ancestor to descendant/s), etc.

I am a molecular biologist by training, not a statistician or informatics specialist by a long shot... so my understanding of these things is vague at best.

I may be wrong but to my mind, a simplistic analogy is something like this. Let us say my sister marries a chinese guy and they have Indo-Chinese children. Now consider some random BRF-ite, who is not related to me by blood but is fully Desi like me. Let us say both I and the random BRF-ite also have spouses who are fully Desi. Now, my sister's children and my own children will be very close "neighbours" (with respect to certain markers anyway) but in terms of ancestry, my children will have (overall) more in common with the random BRF-ite's children than with their first cousins. Neighbour proximity alone, in this case, does not automatically mean greater common ancestry.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

^^^ Thanks, Rudradev, I'm an engineer and theoretical physicist by education and so will try to get to the mathematics behind that.

I appreciate your example. By your analogy, Indians with Steppe ancestry - mated in the last 4000 years - should show greater nearest neighborhood with other Steppes descendants, than with people Indians have been reproductively isolated from for since they departed to the Americas > 14K years ago (probably more like 20K years ago). So I'm still hyper confused with no ultra metric spaces or Viterbi algorithm to rescue. :)
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

https://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_statistics
Fifth cousins share 0.0488% of their DNA.
Assume a population sampling of people descended from a common ancestral population and all 5th cousins or further apart. If 100,000 SNPs are being used two individuals in the sample might have just 49 SNPs in common? Third cousins have 0.781% in common - 781 SNPs in common? Am I hallucinating again like yesterday? How many samples are needed to characterize a population of common ancestry?
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Post by Rudradev »

No no... the isogg page is talking in terms of centiMorgans. I can go into more detail on what that unit means but for now, 1 centiMorgan is on average 1 million base pairs. 5th cousins are on average identical along 3.32 centiMorgans which is 0.0488% of their total autosomal genomes.

By contrast a SNP is exactly one base pair ("single nucleotide polymorphism" = SNP). A millionth of a centiMorgan on average.

Humans, as a reference point, have 3 billion base pairs in the genome. Of these 99.9% are identical for all humans... any variation between humans is contained entirely in the remaining 3 million base pairs. Humans and chimpanzees are 97% identical. So 5th cousins share much more than 0.0488% of DNA in the entire genome.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Post by Murugan »

It remains to be seen how and when the hybrid native south asian people (made up of Indian Hunter Gatherer + TFTA Pastoralist + Avestin Agriculturist) developed the inherited PIE language in the native heartland, called it Sanskrit and took it in different directions - to extremely north-west Lithuania (?) and to extreme south-east New Zealand, taught it to Maoris. Also pushed it further to eastward to Cebu phillipines.
Roughly, the sanskrit influence encompasses distance between Lithuania and New Zealand (18,000 kms), mumbai (hunter gatherer) to wellington (maoris) is 12K kms. Kazakhastan (TFTA Pastoralist) to Pakistan (IVC fringe) 2000 km.



Lithuanian gene study would be interesting.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4243
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Post by Prem Kumar »

Hi Rudradev: a request for you to read and comment on the quote below
Prem Kumar wrote:Let me ask a dumb question:

Modern Indian population is being modeled as a cocktail of Steppe_MLBA, Iran_N, AASI, Onge etc. Presumably because:

1) Common mutations can be found
2) They fit a statistical curve
3) aDNA from Steppe, Iran are available, thereby positioning them as a possible source

Point (3) is critical because that's what helps them postulate a directionality of gene flow. However, we know that Indian aDNA is missing. If Indian aDNA is available and carries the same mutations at a sufficient enough antiquity, the directionality is reversed. This is why Vagheesh is so keen to claim that Indian aDNA does not have Steppe DNA, even though he and others have never seen Indian aDNA! Because it can completely reverse the story.

However, even without Indian aDNA, why can't a statistical curve be drawn, which models Steppe_MLBA as a combination of say modern-Indian-DNA, Iran_N etc? We can see which curve fits best. By modern-Indian-DNA, I don't mean "modern DNA". Its ancient DNA but present in modern day Indians.

To me, this sounds like a vector algebra problem. I can pick any set of x, y, z co-ordinates as my basis vectors and represent any point in the 3-dimensional space in terms of these basis vectors. The question is what vectors are chosen & why
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Post by Murugan »

Some researchers, even those associated with the current study like Shinde, aren’t quite convinced that an ancient influx of people into the subcontinent from the northwest has finally been established by the latest findings. Shinde does not like the word ‘migration’. “It is better to say movement,” he says, implying a two-way pattern. “Everyone back then was moving to and fro. Some people were moving here and some were moving out. There was contact, yes. There was trade. But local people were involved in the development of several things. So I am not very sure of the interpretation.”
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... ink-we-are
****

Distanct between IVC Fringe to Kazakhastan - 2000 km.
Kerala to Kedarnath is 2500 km which Adi Sankaracarya traveled in ancient time.

At least During mature Harappan period gold from Kolar gold field was exported to ISVC Lothal which is near Bhavnagar - 1500-1700 km.

***

Interestingly, Pakisatan has common border with Iran (persia) and afghanistan not with Saudi Arabia, though the language of Pakistan is influenced by Arabic and not persian or pashto
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

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

Post by Lalmohan »

and over human history there have been wholesale migrations - voluntary or otherwise that will radically challenge the neighbour theories
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Post by Murugan »

At least During mature Harappan period gold from Kolar gold field was exported to ISVC Lothal which is near Bhavnagar - 1500-1700 km.
Indian Bead makers colony in Mesopotemia

****
“The first Indus-inspired circular stamp seals of “Gulf-type” appear in the layers at Qala’at al-Bahrain concurrent with the construction of the city wall ca. 2050 BC. The synchronous introduction of Indus “writing” is suggested by the occasional presence in the Gulf seals of short inscriptions written in the characters of the Indus script. The distribution of this class of inscribed ‘Gulf Type’ seals ranges as far as Babylonia in the west to Sindh and Gujarat (Dholavira) in the east. By all appearances, this first series of stamp seals native to the Gulf is connected with a league of Tilmun-associated merchants that was now actively involved in the Meluha trade.”

“The introduction of sealing technology was accompanied by the introduction of a formal weight system, as evidenced in the cubical and spherical stone weights that correspond perfectly to the standard weight units of the Harappans. In Babylonia, Tilmun’s newly adopted Meluhan weight system became known as the Tilmun norm (na Tilmun) (UET 5 796)” (p. 50).
https://www.harappa.com/content/babylon ... -and-early
It may be worth noting that this flowering of Indus cultural influence was followed by the decline of Indus civilization in both in the homeland and in the Gulf. Could its blossoming in Dilmun have been associated with some population of Meluhans trying to get away and establish a new presence in another place?
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Rudradev wrote:No no... the isogg page is talking in terms of centiMorgans. I can go into more detail on what that unit means but for now, 1 centiMorgan is on average 1 million base pairs. 5th cousins are on average identical along 3.32 centiMorgans which is 0.0488% of their total autosomal genomes.

By contrast a SNP is exactly one base pair ("single nucleotide polymorphism" = SNP). A millionth of a centiMorgan on average.

Humans, as a reference point, have 3 billion base pairs in the genome. Of these 99.9% are identical for all humans... any variation between humans is contained entirely in the remaining 3 million base pairs. Humans and chimpanzees are 97% identical. So 5th cousins share much more than 0.0488% of DNA in the entire genome.
Thanks for straightening me out!

I was trying to figure out how many Chinese, Indian, common markers the autosomal genes of your nieces and nephews would have common with the random BRF-ite; how really we have to think of populations, not individuals, and then went on a wholly wrong turn.
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

SI-3 presentations coming out at Snail's pace (the following presentation came out 1-2 days ago)

Here is one that presents some of our BRFites...

https://youtu.be/RaN5bYPWtX8
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

Post by shiv »

Nilesh Oak wrote:SI-3 presentations coming out at Snail's pace (the following presentation came out 1-2 days ago)

Here is one that presents some of our BRFites...

https://youtu.be/RaN5bYPWtX8
The very first talk - 0 to 10 minutes is by a brfite!
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

Post by shiv »

New article. Please share and spread
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XZbqX ... phXo3_J6iY
also
https://www.facebook.com/shivsas3/posts ... 7916928711

"The 4 Hoaxes that made Sanskrit "come" to India
THE 4 HOAXES THAT MADE SANSKRIT “COME” TO INDIA

It is now well known that modern archaeology, isotope studies of geological cores, palaeobotany, fossil palynology and software simulation of ancient astronomical events have proven that ancient Sanskrit texts record events from 5000 years ago and earlier. (1,2,3,4) Nevertheless western academia and texts still insist that the language “came to India” from outside around 1500 to 1000 BC with migrants. To make this story come true they have created four fake, non existent entities that I call “The 4 Hoaxes”. They are, from oldest to newest: Aryans, Dravidians, the Avestan language and “Proto-Indo-European” language or PIE.

About 200 years ago no Indian was asking how his language was similar to Latin or English. As far as Indians knew they always had their language dating back to very ancient times. A large proportion of Indians knew that their language had a lot of Sanskrit derived words. Others in the South also had Sanskrit derived words but were not getting upset and claiming that their language was older or wiser, or that Sanskrit was an alien language introduced by intruders. The basic structure of alphabet, the counting and the writing were shared across the subcontinent. Everyone was quite satisfied with the ancient origins and no one was looking across the seven seas for a source of their language.

Things were a bit different in Europe back then. For Europeans, language meant nation. Countries were built around languages. While all the European languages seemed different, scholars knew that they had some similarities, though no one knew how or why. This lasted until Europeans came to India and learned Sanskrit. Suddenly, from Sanskrit, Europeans discovered how and why European languages were so similar (5).

But for Europeans, similar language meant similar people. So people speaking a similar language had to be related to them in some way. So they picked up one word from the Rig Veda “Arya” and used that word to create an imagined race of people - the Aryans. The Aryans, it was said, connected Europe to India. Obviously light skinned Aryans must have come to India from Europe carrying a language that linked all European languages (6). But if Aryans were connected to Europe, and the same Aryans were in India, why were Indian Aryans dark skinned and practising a horrible un-Christian religion, worshipping the devil, as it were?

This is where it was required to invent “Dravidians” - an even more dark-skinned people speaking what seemed to be an alien language. By this time, Europeans were over-running and decimating inferior native “Indian” populations in North and South America and Australia, and had dominated Africa. Their idea of migration was conquest of “inferior peoples”. So they imagined a story where Aryan conquerors from Europe drove away the native dark-skinned Dravidians from North India and then settled down to compose the Vedas. For the conquest story to be true they had to dig through the Vedas to cherry pick and mis-translate words that they could use to fulfil the fairy tale of language coming from the west. Words from the Rig veda like “dasyu” were interpreted to mean Dravidian enemies being driven away and “anas” was taken to mean “without nose” - that is with small flat noses as Africans were supposed to have, indicating their inferior racial characteristic.

The story goes that the Aryans, after driving away the Dravidians, settled down to a peaceful rural life among rivers and forests to compose the Rig Veda. When did this happen? It was guess work and Max Muller gave this a date of about 1000 to 1500 BC (5). Muller and others did not know that by 1500 BC the land was arid and dry and did not have the rivers and dense forests that were imagined for the benefit of the conquering Aryans. But these were minor impediments to the grand story. And so, gradually, over time, it was said, the European Aryans mixed with the impure Dravidians to become the corrupted heathens that they “found” in India (7).

Having decided that the language must have come to India from Europe or some far away place, Indologists were still left with the problem of finding where that magnificent mother language came from. None could be found in Europe, or anywhere outside India. However they did find evidence of a “Zoroastrian” religion in Iran. The language of the Zoroastrians was discovered to exist among Parsi priests in Gujarat as well as in Sanskrit translations of Parsi texts (8). Using the reference texts in Sanskrit linguists created a language called “Avestan” which they claimed was spoken 3000 years ago. Again, clear proof of links between the Zoroastrian religion and the Vedas were ignored as well as evidence that the Vedas were older than the Zoroastrian texts (9,10). It was simply declared that “Aryan” migrants or invaders on their way to India split into two groups. One went to Iran and became Zoroastrians, and the other group went to India to compose the Vedas (after disposing of the Dravidians there). In their early years it seems likely that Zoroastrians spoke a variant of Sanskrit and not “Avestan” a language “reconstructed” 3000 years later simply to create a waypoint in the imaginary movement of “Indo-Aryan” languages. After World War 2 - the word “Aryan” was dropped and the modern name “Indo-European” languages, or IE languages was given. This conveniently whitewashed the racist origins of the name.

Having created “Aryans”, “Dravidians” and “Avestan” there still remained the problem of where the original “mother language” was, which was said to have come to India. Already, the date for Sanskrit in India had been fixed to 1500 BC or later - with no proof whatsoever, but finding a connecting language outside India remained a problem until linguists came up with the innovative idea of cooking up yet another language, this time a “mother language” for all languages from India to western Europe. They called this language “PIE” or Proto-Indo European. PIE was reconstructed from known modern and ancient Indo-European languages. “Cognate words”- that is words from different languages that carried similar meaning and sound were used along with grammatical rules to infer and construct an “oldest common language” that was called PIE. Sanskrit and other Indian languages descended from Sanskrit (like Hindi, Bengali, Marathi and Gujarati) form the major part of the “Indo” ot Proto Indo-European.

If you construct a “mother” language from other languages, then it is natural that the new “constructed” language will have words that are similar to the words used to construct it. It is an illogical circular argument to construct such a language and then claim that the newly created language was the “mother of later languages”. That is like making a salad from carrots, tomatoes and cucumber and then claiming that the salad was the original entity that gave rise to carrots, cucumber and tomatoes later. However that is exactly what is being claimed now. Across the board, genetics researchers trying to search for human migrations are quoting “PIE” as a real language that was really spoken by some people - covering up the fact that the language is not real and was never spoken by anyone. It is a hypothetical “model language”. What is even more interesting is where “PIE” was placed. It is claimed that PIE was spoken in the steppe area of Russia many thousand years ago. This is an astounding claim because the language PIE is not a real human language as noted above. Even more surprising is the claim that people in the “steppe” actually spoke this non existent language. The convenient placement of PIE in steppe is possible only because no one knows what language was spoken in the steppe in that remote era. To top this sophistry one author (11) has creatively added his own words to embellish translations of the Rig Veda to claim that steppe-type graves are described in the Rig Veda (see footnote)

The story of language movement to India has been built up on the “4 hoaxes” detailed here. There is good evidence of “Indo-European” language having been here well before the 1500 BC date made up by the 4 hoaxes. Dates available for Sanskrit in India go back to at least 5000 BC, and any theory that speaks of IE languages coming to India has to come up with dates earlier than 5000 BC. If there were migrations that carried the language to India, then those migrations should really be searched for prior to 5000 BC because an Indo-European language (Sanskrit) was present in India by then.


Shiv Sastry

Footnote: In the book “Horse, Wheel and Language” (11) a reference to a grave in the Rig Veda 10.18 is falsely compared to steppe graves by the addition of words like "chamber", “roof” and "walls" that do not appear in any original translations of the corresponding sukta of the Rig Veda. Here are the details:

Rig Veda 10.18 – David Anthony “Horse, Wheel and Language”
One hymn (Rigveda 10.18) describes a covered burial chamber with
posts holding up the roof, walls shored up, and the chamber sealed with
clay—a precise description of Sintashta and Andronovo grave pits.

Rig Veda 10:18 - Griffiths translation:(12)
“I stay the earth from thee, while over thee I place this piece of earth.
May I be free from injury. Here let the Fathers keep this pillar firm
for thee, and there let Yama make thee an abiding-place.”

Rig Veda 10:18 - RL. Kashyap’s translation (13)
“For you I heap up this earth and heap it around you; In placing this clod
of earth may I not harm you; May the fathers sustain this monument for
you; May Yama make an abode for you here“

No translation of the Rig Veda supports David Anthony’s claim which has been used to connect Rig Veda with Andronovo/Sintashta




REFERENCES
1. Tracing the Vedic Saraswati River in the Great Rann of Kachchh, Nitesh Khonde, Sunil Kumar Singh, D. M. Maurya, Vinai K. Rai, L. S. Chamyal & Liviu Giosan https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05745-8
2. Adaptation and human migration, and evidence of agriculture coincident with changes in the Indian summer monsoon during the Holocene, Gupta, Anil K. ; Anderson, David M. ; Pandey, Deep N. ; Singhvi, Ashok K. (2006) Adaptation and human migration, and evidence of agriculture coincident with changes in the Indian summer monsoon during the Holocene Current Science, 90 (8). pp. 1082-1090. http://repository.ias.ac.in/21932/
3. Ancient Textiles of the Indus Valley Region, Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, 2004, Ancient Textiles of the Indus Valley Region, in Tana Bana: The woven soul of Pakistan, edited by Noorjehan Bilgrami, pp. 18-31. Koel Publications, Karachi.
4. ​ Oak,​ ​ Nilesh​ ​ Nilkanth​ ​ ​ (2011),​ ​ When ​ ​ did ​ ​ the ​ ​ Mahabharata ​ ​ War ​ ​ Happen: ​ ​ The ​ ​ Mystery ​ ​of Arundhati ​ , ​Danphe​ ​ Incorporated,
5. India, What can it teach us a course of lectures delivered before the University of Cambridge. F. Max Müller, London. Longmans Green and co, 1883, pp 22 https://archive.org/stream/cu3192402322 ... 7/mode/2up
6. Huxley,​ ​ L.,​ ​ (1890),​ ​ ​ “The​ ​ Aryan​ ​ Question​ ​ and​ ​ Prehistoric​ ​ Man”,​ ​ ​ ​ Collected​ ​ Essays​ ​ VII https://mathcs.clarku.edu/huxley/CE7/Aryan.html
7. The living races of mankind : a popular illustrated account of the customs, habits, pursuits, feasts & ceremonies of the races of mankind throughout the world by Johnston, Harry Hamilton, Sir, 1858-1927; Hutchinson, H. N. (Henry Neville), 1856-1927 Publication date 1902
8. There Never Was a Language Called Avestan, Shivshankar Sastry http://www.swatantramag.in/?p=2067
9. A History of Zoroastrianism Vol I, by Boyce, Mary. https://archive.org/details/AHistoryOfZ ... ianismVolI
10. The Zend-Avesta Part 1 The Vendidad by James Darmesteter, https://archive.org/details/zendavestapart1t025014mbp
11. Anthony​ ​David​ ​ W.,​ ​ (2007),​ ​ The ​ ​Horse, ​The ​ Wheel ​ And ​ Language ​ How ​ ​ Bronze-age ​ riders ​From the ​ Eurasian ​steppes ​ Shaped ​the Modern ​world ​ , ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Princeton​ ​ University​ ​ Press,​ ​ Princeton​ ​ and Oxford,​ ​ 2007
12. The Rig Veda, Ralph T.H. Griffith, Translator [1896] http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/index.htm
13. Rig Veda Samhita Mandala -10, RL Kashyap, Pub: Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture, Bangalore http://www.vedah.com



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

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

shiv wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote:SI-3 presentations coming out at Snail's pace (the following presentation came out 1-2 days ago)

Here is one that presents some of our BRFites...

https://youtu.be/RaN5bYPWtX8
The very first talk - 0 to 10 minutes is by a brfite!
BRFites's Q&A session is also nice. "Uncle went to Ajamer vs Uncle died" :rotfl:
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

shiv wrote:New article. Please share and spread
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XZbqX ... phXo3_J6iY
also
https://www.facebook.com/shivsas3/posts ... 7916928711

"The 4 Hoaxes that made Sanskrit "come" to India
Good one, Shiv!

My take: I'm painfully aware that science can work only with available data, and there are too few data points to capture any of the likely real-world complex set of interactions that led a group of related languages to spread across Asia and Europe; Occam's Razor then favors the simplest hypothesis that fits the data. What about all the indications that Sanskrit in India is older than 2000 BCE? All of these require interpretation of text; and e.g., a traditionalist like KLPDubey would tell us we are misinterpreting the Rg Veda; so what is the "correct" interpretation of text? A series of ad hoc hypotheses can be used to sweep away all the textual evidence, leaving only the fact of the language, but not what the text says. But it is precisely that the set of ad hoc hypotheses is needed that makes me dubious of any claim that Sanskrit (or precursor) entered India after 2000 BC.

There is the archaeoastronomical information; and on the other hand there is the "krishna ayas(?) == iron? bronze?" that can be interpreted to date the Veda closer to the beginning of the Iron Age in India. I think to be fair, most outsiders are going to, with reason, to go with the story of the Steppes people, P.I.E., and the technologies associated with the horse as the driving force of how the group of related languages spread around the world. There are small voices of dissent, even in Europe, e.g., the Lithuanian archaeologist who says that "the Corded Ware horseman is a theoretical construct, not supported by archaeology, and domesticated horses were likely simply a source of winter meat". But the overwhelming simplicity of the Steppes story and the genetic evidence purporting to show significant Steppes incursions into India and into Europe means that we are going to be a minority view for a long, long while.
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

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote: My take: I'm painfully aware that science can work only with available data, and there are too few data points to capture any of the likely real-world complex set of interactions that led a group of related languages to spread across Asia and Europe; Occam's Razor then favors the simplest hypothesis that fits the data. What about all the indications that Sanskrit in India is older than 2000 BCE? All of these require interpretation of text; and e.g., a traditionalist like KLPDubey would tell us we are misinterpreting the Rg Veda; so what is the "correct" interpretation of text?
I have deliberately quoted from RL Kashyap and although who seems to have continued Aurobindo's work but has added modernity to the interpretation. One book by him called "Semantics of the Rig Veda" is a detailed analysis of each of the most common critical words - an interesting if heavy read. However I quote him (from his Book 10 and Book 7) because he agrees with the analysis that overall references to the Saraswati in the Rig Veda refer to BOTH a river and more esoteric meanings depending on the context that name is used in. I take his word for it. I will have yo open the book again to tell more detail - pardon me - I will, in due course.

But then we jump into "post Vedic texts" mentioned by Macdonnell and Keith's "Vedic Index of names". The Baudhayana Dharma Sastra and the Manava Dharma sastra are both quoted as referring to geographical locations where "Vinasana" - the place where the Saraswati dries up. So here we have more than one reference to what seems to be a river and outside of the Vedas.

Let me use Occam's razor differently. If it is possible for linguists and archaeologists to use words like Arya, Ashwa, Dasyu, Anas. Pur etc, and David Anthony's use of Rig Veda 10.18 and 1:162 to create interpretations which have become critical to the whole question of language movement, then these should be no difficulty whatsoever in accepting the multiple references to Saraswati as a river as well as the astronomic references. However if we are going to use them they must be used via Vedic scholars rather than via a linguist's mechanical "Google translate" type work.

Between you and me and BRF we find that the Veda scholars reject Indological interpretations but accept that Saraswati could have reference to a river. The real problem is that the entire world has swallowed and internalized the Aryan/Dravidian story that depends on the misuse of those words. It is very difficult now to turn the clock back and get a "retraction and apology" for misuse after the "horse has bolted" as it were. The only option as I see it is to tear down the foundation of that story using whatever reference we can use for that while spreading the word and casting the doubt that genuinely must be cast on what seems to me to be be a cock and bull story of language spread.

I suspect IE may have been widespread from India to East Europe. I am sure it went to west Europe from East Europe/steppe. That half of the story may be correct. It is our side that is fake. but this is my current hypothesis. The whole idea of having one single language as origin at one point could be wrong. There are several other dubious assumptions but I won't go into that now. Let me just point out one curious fact relating to this question. I think we (us/Indians/BRF) are too accustomed to using "science and truth" in our dealings. But it seems to me that it boils down to belief. A lot of people simply "believe" one story despite non credible aspects. They don't want to look at reason. There is cognitive dissonance at play here. My intention is to knock down that belief brick by brick as far as is in my power. In fact nowadays western academia are increasingly floating on iffy things like "belief" and mutual support==mutual back-scratching== peer review. As Maria Wirth or Frawley says - accepting the Indian view is going to directly question western constructs. The battle ahead is big.
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

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote: and on the other hand there is the "krishna ayas(?) == iron? bronze?
I am looking for specific line quotes here mandala-sukta-mantra. Failing that I am going to mock and taunt the person who makes the claim and say "Nyahaha you are bluffing" - to cause "knives to be drawn out" If the refs come I will go back to the Rig veda scholars i trust and look at what it means. I have already done this on the biorxiv site.
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

Post by shiv »

From David Frawley
https://twitter.com/davidfrawleyved/sta ... 6531589120
India is a vast Dharmic civilization, not a subset or sidelight to western civilization. It cannot be understood according to western civilizational values, dichotomies or terminology. You cannot understand India’s civilization without calling western civilization into question.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

shiv wrote:
A_Gupta wrote: and on the other hand there is the "krishna ayas(?) == iron? bronze?
I am looking for specific line quotes here mandala-sukta-mantra. Failing that I am going to mock and taunt the person who makes the claim and say "Nyahaha you are bluffing" - to cause "knives to be drawn out" If the refs come I will go back to the Rig veda scholars i trust and look at what it means. I have already done this on the biorxiv site.
Hmm, it might be Atharva Veda, Yajur Veda or Brahmana only.
Need to look at each use of "iron" (Griffiths translation).
https://www.google.com/search?ei=Ld7hWt ... wEwLHleRuM
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

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:
shiv wrote: I am looking for specific line quotes here mandala-sukta-mantra. Failing that I am going to mock and taunt the person who makes the claim and say "Nyahaha you are bluffing" - to cause "knives to be drawn out" If the refs come I will go back to the Rig veda scholars i trust and look at what it means. I have already done this on the biorxiv site.
Hmm, it might be Atharva Veda, Yajur Veda or Brahmana only.
Need to look at each use of "iron" (Griffiths translation).
https://www.google.com/search?ei=Ld7hWt ... wEwLHleRuM
seven-no-Trump garu I have something very interesting for you. I betcha you will read it before I do - in the context of Iron. Start from page 29
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitst ... er%203.pdf

That was third in a set of 3 documents
No 1: http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitst ... er%201.pdf
No 2: http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitst ... er%202.pdf
ShyamSP
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2564
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by ShyamSP »

shiv wrote:
...“The 4 Hoaxes”. They are, from oldest to newest: Aryans, Dravidians, the Avestan language and “Proto-Indo-European” language or PIE. ...

...None could be found in Europe, or anywhere outside India. However they did find evidence of a “Zoroastrian” religion in Iran. The language of the Zoroastrians was discovered to exist among Parsi priests in Gujarat as well as in Sanskrit translations of Parsi texts (8). Using the reference texts in Sanskrit linguists created a language called “Avestan” which they claimed was spoken 3000 years ago. Again, clear proof of links between the Zoroastrian religion and the Vedas were ignored as well as evidence that the Vedas were older than the Zoroastrian texts (9,10). It was simply declared that “Aryan” migrants or invaders on their way to India split into two groups. One went to Iran and became Zoroastrians, and the other group went to India to compose the Vedas (after disposing of the Dravidians there). In their early years it seems likely that Zoroastrians spoke a variant of Sanskrit and not “Avestan” a language “reconstructed” 3000 years later simply to create a waypoint in the imaginary movement of “Indo-Aryan” languages. After World War 2 - the word “Aryan” was dropped and the modern name “Indo-European” languages, or IE languages was given. This conveniently whitewashed the racist origins of the name.
...
Do you have any idea what is native word (pre-colonial - in old-Persian, Persian, Parsis texts) for "Avestan" / the language spoken/written in Gathas? Zarathustra Gathas and Yasja/Yajna are too close to vedic chants and rituals to consider them to be independently invented and developed in old "Persia/Iran"
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

^^^^
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.d ... _india.pdf
These results indicate that iron using and iron working was prevalent in the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas from the early second millennium BC. The dates obtained so far group into three: three dates between c. 1200-900 cal BC, three between c. 1400-1200
cal BC, and five between c. 1800-1500 cal BC. The types and shapes of the associated pottery are comparable to those to be generally considered as the characteristics of the Chalcolithic Period and placed in early to late second millennium BC. Taking all this evidence together it may be concluded that knowledge of iron smelting and manufacturing of iron artefacts was well known in the Eastern Vindhyas and iron had been in use in the Central Ganga Plain, at least from the early second millennium BC.
Just when Vagheesh's steppes people were arriving.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

https://www.sindhulogy.org/cdn/articles ... nt-shinde/
...this civilization covering an area of 2.5 million sq. km nearly four times the size of its contemporary Mesopotamian and Egyptian Civilizations
Mature Harappan:
The northernmost site is Manda on the River Beas in Jammu while Bhagtrav on the Tapti in Maharashtra forms its southern boundary. Alamgirpur on the Hindon River near Delhi and Sutkagendor on the Arabian Sea shore near the Iranian border forms its eastern and western peripheries respectively
We need to ask: what language or languages did the people in this area speak? Compare with how many languages were spoken in one-quarter of the area of Mesopotamia and Egypt. If standardization of weights, measures, city plans extended over this entire area, was there also a lingua franca?
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Some ancient climate info in here:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 3616650267


Record of vegetation, climate change, human impact and retting of hemp in Garhwal Himalaya (India) during the past 4600 years
Show all authors
Dieter Demske, Pavel E Tarasov, Christian Leipe, ...
First Published June 3, 2016
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Large PDF
http://www.gilgamesh.ch/KochMahabharata6x9_V1.00.pdf
Dieter Koch
Astronomical Dating of the Mahābhārata War

Goes a lot into "long astronomical oral tradition written down a thousand years after the event" (and therefore could have been carried by Aryans into India).
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Archaeology of the Middle Gangetic Plain: 2015 article
http://web.inflibnet.ac.in/ojs/index.ph ... /3256/2535

Last page is important.
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

Post by shiv »

ShyamSP wrote:
Do you have any idea what is native word (pre-colonial - in old-Persian, Persian, Parsis texts) for "Avestan" / the language spoken/written in Gathas? Zarathustra Gathas and Yasja/Yajna are too close to vedic chants and rituals to consider them to be independently invented and developed in old "Persia/Iran"
That is precisely what I searched for and was unable to find. You have probably read my article (not the one you quoted above) about how the name Avestan was invented. If not, here it is
http://www.swatantramag.in/?p=2067
Parsis nowadays refer to the langauge they speak - now Gujarati in India. The old language of the gathas is so long forgotten that nobody knows. Even "Middle Persian" is a feku name but at least a language exists to carry that name. Avestan is feku in name and conception.

It amazes me how "scholars" we desis have greatly respected saw no problem in first imagining the language that Zoroastrians may have spoken and calling it Avestan. From there they simply went ahead and cooked up a language and now flaunt it like it really existed. This fraud has been foisted on us for 200 years and need to be torn down ASAP
Last edited by shiv on 27 Apr 2018 09:46, 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

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:Archaeology of the Middle Gangetic Plain: 2015 article
http://web.inflibnet.ac.in/ojs/index.ph ... /3256/2535

Last page is important.
Thanks for digging this up. I have archived it as part of my personal collection.

But have you noticed something about this paper - something in common with a lot of other papers from India. Many of these papers have scirntific findings that kick AIT in its backside, but the paper authors are hesitant to declare that. they tend to tentatively speak of "the Vedic period" blah blah. Heck the concept of Vedic period circa 1000 BC is as much bullshit as Iron age 1000-600 BC - because I ran has been found in Bihar/UP and Andhra Pradesh going back to 1800 to 1600 BC. For that tech to spread across the country - I would guess that the first iron smelting would have occurred 2500 BC or earlier.

There are some weird assumptions that we have inherited from the west that we apply unknowingly. One is an assumption that we should not be really going much further than 2000 BC because god made world in 4000 BC. Another is that in 10,000 years all languages would have changed beyond recognition. This is an assumption. But if we apply this assumption to Vedic sasnkrit see what we get:

1. Vedic sanskrit has been preserved unchanged from at least 1500 BC (AIT dates)
2. Since all languages according to linguists most definitely become unrecognizable in 10,000 years, it would be a reasonable assumption that some recognizable elements of Vedic Sanskrit should have been present 5000 years before its date of 1500 BC - i.e. 6500 BC.
3. Now that we have a date for early Vedic Sanskrit - where in the world is there any evidence of the content of Vedic Sanskrit.Names of body parts horses and wheels occur in many parts of the world. But the hydronyms and toponyms are only in India
4. So a likely source of Vedic sanskrit would be India
5. Where else has an earlier IE language been identified? Nowhere
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12109
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

..because iron has been found in Bihar/UP and Andhra Pradesh going back to 1800 to 1600 BC.
To be fair, I used scholar.google.com to find everyone who cited
The origins of iron working in India: new evidence from the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas, Rakesh Tewari
Of those that I could access most are skeptical of the 1800-1600 BC dates. That is, they cite Tewari, but use only later dates.

We need more solid finds that corroborate Tewari; in the mean time we include it in our working hypothesis to see where it gets us.
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

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:Large PDF
http://www.gilgamesh.ch/KochMahabharata6x9_V1.00.pdf
Dieter Koch
Astronomical Dating of the Mahābhārata War

Goes a lot into "long astronomical oral tradition written down a thousand years after the event" (and therefore could have been carried by Aryans into India).
Hmmmmm..see how apologetic these guys need to be to the "establishment"
It is not the intention of this study to challenge the late dating of the
Mahābhārata Epic or other texts of the Vedic tradition, as given by
the scientific establishment. However, the problem should be taken
seriously. While it is understandable that historians and Indologists,
who usually do not have deeper insight into astronomical and
calendrical issues, give less weight to archaeoastronomical argu-
ments and even tend to disregard them completely, astronomical
dating does weigh very heavy from the point of view of the “strict”
sciences.
It is therefore necessary to discuss the problem duly, as
has also been pointed out by authors such as Tilak, Sengupta, Elst,
and others.
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

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:
..because iron has been found in Bihar/UP and Andhra Pradesh going back to 1800 to 1600 BC.
To be fair, I used scholar.google.com to find everyone who cited
The origins of iron working in India: new evidence from the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas, Rakesh Tewari
Of those that I could access most are skeptical of the 1800-1600 BC dates. That is, they cite Tewari, but use only later dates.

We need more solid finds that corroborate Tewari; in the mean time we include it in our working hypothesis to see where it gets us.
Here is the Tewari article
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/iron-ore

I would ignore what "others say" and simply use the two tables in the Tewari paper which conveniently has 2 gora aadmi names attached to those old dates to make sceptics stand up and do immediate salaam
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

A_Gupta wrote:Large PDF
http://www.gilgamesh.ch/KochMahabharata6x9_V1.00.pdf
Dieter Koch
Astronomical Dating of the Mahābhārata War

Goes a lot into "long astronomical oral tradition written down a thousand years after the event" (and therefore could have been carried by Aryans into India).
For those interested....

Dieter's Koch's random shots at AV observation & other stuff including his own claim (repeating claim of Dr. Daftari) and my response.

Total 10 parts.

Here is part 1 of 10

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2017/05 ... ch-part-1/
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Post by Murugan »

A_Gupta wrote:^^^^
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.d ... _india.pdf
These results indicate that iron using and iron working was prevalent in the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas from the early second millennium BC. The dates obtained so far group into three: three dates between c. 1200-900 cal BC, three between c. 1400-1200
cal BC, and five between c. 1800-1500 cal BC. The types and shapes of the associated pottery are comparable to those to be generally considered as the characteristics of the Chalcolithic Period and placed in early to late second millennium BC. Taking all this evidence together it may be concluded that knowledge of iron smelting and manufacturing of iron artefacts was well known in the Eastern Vindhyas and iron had been in use in the Central Ganga Plain, at least from the early second millennium BC.
Just when Vagheesh's steppes people were arriving.
Way back, I posted about excavation in Atranjikhera in UP and findings of iron implements in GD forum quoting Rakesh Tiwari current Director General of ASI. He is available on facebook and is a very friendly person.

His original article is here:

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/iron-ore
Discussion

These results indicate that iron using and iron working was prevalent in the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas from the early second millennium BCE. The dates obtained so far group into three: three dates between c. 1200-900 cal BCE, three between c. 1400-1200 cal BCE, and five between c. 1800-1500 cal BCE. The types and shapes of the associated pottery are comparable to those to be generally considered as the characteristics of the Chalcolithic Period and placed in early to late second millennium BCE. Taking all this evidence together it may be concluded that knowledge of iron smelting and manufacturing of iron artefacts was well known in the Eastern Vindhyas and iron had been in use in the Central Ganga Plain, at least from the early second millennium BCE. The quantity and types of iron artefacts, and the level of technical advancement indicate that the introduction of iron working took place even earlier. The beginning of the use of iron has been traditionally associated with the eastward migration of the later Vedic people, who are also considered as an agency which revolutionised material culture particularly in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar (Sharma 1983: 117-131). The new finds and their dates suggest that a fresh review is needed. Further, the evidence corroborates the early use of iron in other areas of the country, and attests that India was indeed an independent centre for the development of the working of iron.
Last edited by Murugan on 27 Apr 2018 10:33, edited 1 time in total.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Post by Murugan »

One branch of hunter-gatherers were agriculturalist by stroke of luck :
Lahuradewa (district Sant Kabir Nagar; 26°46’ N; 82°-57’E) is in the trans-Sarayu plain, the Sarayu being a major tributary of the Ganga. The excavations have revealed new information regarding the early farming cultures of the Sarayupar region, including evidence for the domestication of rice (Oryza sativa) in Period I, radiocarbon dated to c. sixth and fifth millennium BCE.
From Shri Rakesh Tiwari's above cited paper.

The above is important because the site Lahurdewa is very far from Rakhigarhi
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9120
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Post by nachiket »

Nilesh Oak wrote: For those interested....

Dieter's Koch's random shots at AV observation & other stuff including his own claim (repeating claim of Dr. Daftari) and my response.

Total 10 parts.

Here is part 1 of 10

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2017/05 ... ch-part-1/
Nilesh Oak ji, I always had one doubt about the A-V observation since I first read the discussion on BRF between you, shiv, etc. Since epoch of Arundhati lasted from ~11000 BCE to ~4500 BCE, why would Vyaas consider it as an omen around 5561 BCE? At that point it has been that way (Arundhati walking ahead of Vasishtha) for over 5000 years. Or am I mistaken in my understanding of this phenomenon?
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Post by Murugan »

1) Because vyasa was born around 5561 BCE.
2) The sense of omen was prevalent in his time.
3) Vasishtha Arundhati darshan was practiced at that time and before that time, especially as a post marriage ritual.
4) Vyasa was an astronomer too
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Post by Murugan »

Distance Between Lahuradewa and Rakhigarhi approx 1000 kms = Lahurdewa is 1000 km east of Rakhigarhi

Evidence of rice cultivation at both the places are found at same timeline, i.e. 6th millennium BCE.
Rakhigarhi is not final antiquity of India.

***
Ye bledy yindians are now reduced to Hunter Gatherers, ye are no more SDRE. So what if you hv grown rice as hunter gatherer 3000 km away from avestin agriculturist same time. you don have right to call yourself so.
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

Post by shiv »

Post Reply