Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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: 33300
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: 5
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

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Jul 2017 05:13

Anshuman.Kumar wrote: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



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.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8337
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....

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Jul 2017 06:51

UlanBatori wrote: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 that might be a clue....


Nope. Indus Script has not been deciphered and we've found very little in the way of 'literature' of IVC. All we have are seal sequences 5-20 symbols long (unlike Egyptian heirelographics, which are in some cases, 100s of symbols long).

Pretty sure IVC seals are not its script- because if it were, we'd have found way longer sequences of symbols. On the other hand, a civilization like IVC is practically impossible without writing, so its possible they either wrote on parchment or palm leaves.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8337
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?

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Jul 2017 06:58

UlanBatori wrote: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?



Yea that is one of the biggest criticisms of 'from outside of India' theories re: Aryans of Rig Veda. Its pretty abnormal for a bunch of immigrants to not show any recollection whatsoever of their original homeland. Only way AMT is right, is if AMT occurs in 10,000-9,000 BC, i.e., just after the ice ages end and passes in Hindu Kush opens up and Vedas are from 7000-5000 BC period.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2862
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

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Jul 2017 07:15

Dipanker wrote:
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


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.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33300
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: 8337
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: 2862
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.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Jul 2017 07:57

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.


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.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33300
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.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Jul 2017 08:19

UlanBatori wrote: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.


the bolded part can be answered by looking at historically documented migrations from Steppes to outside steppes, like turks or Mongols : they go everywhere, hardly anyone (even their own descendants) go back.

And why would they ? Central Asia is a harsh land- almost as hot as India in the summer (though not as humid) and as cold as the prairies in winter. Hardly any crops grow there, except for in a narrow band surrounding the Amu and Syr Darya rivers. You move around all the time, tending to your herds of goats, sheep, camels and horses. You also have to be an excellent rider and archer just to protect your herd from predators and thiefs.

Now, compare that to lands like Ukraine and you are much better off - you can farm gobs and gobs of food in Ukraine, even though its just as hot in summer and cold in winter as CA.
Seen in comparison, India or China are heaven...better weather (atleast for half the year- China is nice in summer, India is nice in winter),land of plenty of food and resources, you get to build a giant mansion, sit put and be lazy...why would anyone go back ?

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1293
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!

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Jul 2017 08:40

^^
So you think Asuras are Assyrians but Iranians came under their dominance ( Medes, their close cousins and Persia the province of Iran, where Persians came to reside were Neo-Assyrian empire vassals), which given Assyrian brutality, must've been humiliatingly subjugating and started to see the Assyrians as their Gods ?
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 ?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8337
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: 4956
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: 33300
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: 2862
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.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Jul 2017 09:03

Dipanker wrote:
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.



ofcourse, no doubt but i think you misunderstood me.

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.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1293
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: 1293
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.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Jul 2017 10:02

Pulikeshi wrote:
If there is no Sanskrit - how do we deduce that they are descendants of Sanskrit? :shock:


Arre baba, in my hypothetical, i said we don't know of Sanskrit. but since we know middle Indo-Aryan languages descend from Sanskrit, thats why i used the term. As a famous author once said 'A rose by any name is still a rose'. Point is, say we have no trace of Sanskrit. We could still say, by just seeing modern north Indian languages, that they shared a common linguistic origin. For all Indo-European languages, PIE is such a thing.

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'


Okay but that classical Sanskrit is descended from Vedic Sanskrit, is pretty obvious. Sure, we may be missing a few more 'language steps' along the way, but the descent is pretty unquestionable, unless you believe in extraordinary linguistic coincidences.

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.


Actually, fun fact: the country with the greatest density of languages is......Papua New Guinea.
But yes, i think if we use the 'span of IVC civilization' as a rough geographical analogue- aka Eastern Afghanistan to central-western India, it does show a huge diversity of Indo-European languages, particularly in the remote and mostly inaccessible mountains of Badakhshan,Kaffiristan, northern Pakistan and Kashmir.

And no, an imposed language can have variants too. I've been told by many arabs that Iraqi/levantine Arabic is practically unintelligible to Moroccan and Maghreb Arabic. As a Bengali, i don't know what i understand less- Marathi or Bengali from Chittagong or Sylhet. Linguistic divergence can happen due to political developments (repeated partial conquests, ideological imposition of language, etc) as well as due to sheer time and acceleration of technology. As technology throw up more 'terms' in the language, the more chances we have of a language divergence.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Jul 2017 10:13

Pulikeshi wrote:
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!


++
Highly illuminating. IMO, its possible that Zoroastrianism mutated significantly under the Parthians : who were not Persians but people from what would be modern day turkmenistan and Aral Sea region, who settled into Northern Iran during conflict with the Seleucid empire. Under them, Greek religion and Greek customs flourished, so it could be a case of 'imitate the victor, out with the old, in with the new' mentality ingrained during that stage.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6794
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: 6794
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.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 13 Jul 2017 12:53

JE Menon wrote:>>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.


this is neither here, nor there, technically speaking, from the linguistic community. this is because linguistics assume an 'ink drop in a bottle of water' diffusion model. By that model, Sanskrit is not the oldest found member of the Indo-European language, its Hittite, which is more archaic than Sanskrit. However, i simply see no reason why human social variables, such as linguistic evolution rate,has to be 'continuous and symmetric' in the first place. If we do not make the 'ink in water drop dissipating' model assumption, then there is no telling whether Sanskrit, Hittite or Mycenaean Greek is the older of the Indo-European languages.

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.


It is called Proto-Indo-European, because the 'Indo' group- which has Indo-Aryan (desi languages), Indo-Iranian (Iranic languages such as Pashto, Baloch, Persian, etc), Burusakshsi (Pamiri and Badakhshan languages) as well as tocharian (extinct, languages of Kushan, Hunas, etc) constitute just as big, if not bigger linguistic diversity than European languages and way, way bigger demographic numbers historically. So they can't just call it 'European' or 'proto-European' without being straightaway accused of pro-Euro bias.

As for population boom, the Steppe hypothesis relies on geological factors- which are pretty sound, i must say, from a purely geological perspective. the fact is, the area around Caspian sea, into Russia and Kazakhstan, are below sea level. What would be Central Russia and Siberia today, 14,000 years ago, would've been covered with ice sheets. By 13,000 years ago, the ice sheets are gone/rapidly shrinking and created a series of massive lakes (mega-glacial lakes), especially in the Caspian depression. this would've provided enough water supply for rich grazing grounds and perhaps densification of fruit bearing trees, which are original to central Asia (the foothills of tien Shan mountains is the original homeland of trees such as apples, apricot, plums, peaches etc)- enough to cause a densification of population. However, somewhere in the 9,000-3,000 BC period, these lakes must've run dry, due to no more glacial melt-water and thus, forcing people to migrate.

From a purely geological perspective of massive lakes being created at the end of the ice age in the upper reaches of the steppes, which then disappear, is true. Rest of the scenario (densification of population, spread of fruit bearing trees all over central asia and then their subsequent disappearance due to aridity leading to migrations) is filled in by linguistic community.

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.


Beats me. Big flaw in PIE in central Asia theory, is that it assumes a densification of pre-historic human population in the region. I will point out, that there is no evidence of densification of population in CA before 3,000 BC and that date is way too late to be sustained/caused by 'glacial meltwater lakes the size of Lake superior or bigger in Caspian depression), not to mention, Caspian sea is salty and always has been, it'd be near impossible to have freshwater glacial meltwater lakes, i.e., no mixing with saltwater from the Caspian.

the other problem is, earliest evidence of CA cultures, such as Shintasha, Andronovo, Yamna, etc, show nowhere close to the densification observed in Nile valley/Mesopotamia (Ubaid period) or IVC (Mehrgarh-Bhirrana period) during the 9,000-2,000 BC period.


On the other hand, archaeologically and population modelling-wise, collapse of IVC leading to spread of IE languages is far more sustainable for the following reasons:

1. IVC was gigantic for its day. I am almost sure, IVC represented a greater share of urban population worldwide during the 3,000-1900 BC period than any other civilization for any other period of history. At its peak, IVC covered more area than Mesopotamia, Egypt, Minoan and Anatolian civilizations combined, with more urban sites than entire west asia and mediterranean combined.
So we have definite evidence of massive demographic presence in IVC and its subsequent dispersal, as the period of 1900 BC-100 BC sees much sparser population in Indus Valley and thus, centre of gravity of Indic civilization during historic times has been Ganges valley and not the Indus.

2. IVC collapses around 1900 BC and by 1700 BC, we have almost total abandonment of IVC sites west of Haryana. Few isolated exceptions, such as Pirak, limped on till 800s BC. the rise of urban sites across Ganges post 1700 BC shoots up nearly four-folds. Indo-European speaking groups, such as Hittites, Mitanni, etc all arrive in middle east between 1700-1500 BC, which (around 200-300 years) fits very well with medieval gypsy migrations from India into middle east in terms of 'travel rate as a culture'. While we do not know decisively the language of the steppe cultures such as Andronovo, Shintasha, etc, we decisively know the language of Hittites, Mitanni.

3. Both Hittite and Mitanni show an east to west vector of transmission. Note however, that the arrival of turks in middle east, via Azerbaijan predominantly, show a NE-SW vector. Same is noticed during the expansion of Khazar empire in medieval times or Russian Empire in Colonial times. the vector is key, because we note in every single North of Caucasus (which is where PIE homeland is, according to Steppe hypothesis) expansion into middle east, we see a North to south vector via Azerbaijan. Only cultures arriving from east of the Caspian Sea ( Stan countries or Indian subcontinent) show an east to west vector. the Gypsies too show an overarching east to west vector. If PIE was based around Ukraine, there is no reason for Hittites, who inhabit central and eastern turkey or Mitanni, who inhabit southern turkey/North Syria to show an east-west vector instead of a N-S vector.


4. the Iranians also show an east-to west displacement in the recorded history of the Greeks & Indians, where Indian literature tends to put 'Parasikas' in the Helmand river valley, early Greeks place them in Anshan, which is west of Helmand valley.

5. the above mentioned site of Pirak, is decisive evidence of IVC continuity from IVC times to late Vedic/just before Buddhist era and is a decisive counter to 'lost culture of IVC'. Styles such as Banjara clothing, Sindhi pattern, etc are all present in IVC times, showing decisive proof that IVC culture was not 'erased' by Invading Aryans like say Pharaonic Egyptian culture was erased by Christianity and Islam.

6. the site of Shortugai is on the banks of Amu Darya in Afghan-tajik border region and is the first EVER decisive proof of North to South or South to North transmission of settlement in the Hindu Kush region. Shortugai is decisively IVC- it has same layout, same pottery and same seal inscriptions. It is also a relatively late expansion of IVC, being founded around 2000 BC and for bloody good reason: its right next to the Lapiz Lazuli mines of Badakhshan, which we see decisive evidence of being a precious gemstone in Bronze Age, in the story of Gilgamesh, where it is specifically singled out along with gold for being a 'royal item'.

7. BB Lal has proven decisively that there is no evidence of material culture displacement from BMAC (Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex) into he IVC, which is necessary for an Aryan migration theory. He's proven, through qualitative and quantitative material analysis, that BMAC to PGW artefact transfer, is consistent with trade and we see the same with sites like Sutkagan Dor and BMAC during IVC period itself.

All these points are universally ignored by the religion of PIE amongst linguistics and which present a far better archaeological model for IE expansion than from Central Asia.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1293
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: 33300
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: 1582
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: 9667
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: 1582
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)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33300
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 19:20

Thangaraj and Chaubey, geneticists whose papers were discussed on here now have a rebuttal of Tony Joseph article in the Leftu newspaper

Too Early to settle the Aryan Migration Debate?

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1582
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Jul 2017 19:55

shiv wrote:Thangaraj and Chaubey, geneticists whose papers were discussed on here now have a rebuttal of Tony Joseph article in the Leftu newspaper

Too Early to settle the Aryan Migration Debate?

They write...

The split with the European is around 6,000 years and thereafter the Asian branch (Z93) gave rise to the South Asian L657, which is a brother branch of lineages present in West Asia, Europe and Central Asia. Such kind of expansion, universally associated with most of the Y chromosome lineages of the world, as shown in 2015 by Monika Karmin et al., was most likely due to dramatic decline in genetic diversity in male lineages four to eight thousand years ago (Genome Research, 2015; 4:459-66). Moreover, there is evidence which is consistent with the early presence of several R1a branches in India (our unpublished data).
[emphasis mine]

Any guesses for 'dramatic decline in genetic diversity in male lineages 4 to 8 thousand years ago'?

I have one conjecture with pinpointed accuracy - Year 5561 BCE

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33300
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 21:03

Nilesh Oak wrote:Any guesses for 'dramatic decline in genetic diversity in male lineages 4 to 8 thousand years ago'?

I have one conjecture with pinpointed accuracy - Year 5561 BCE

Excellent point. :!:

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9667
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 13 Jul 2017 23:07

1. [Fact] Indian civilization has spent a tremendous effort over a long period of time to preserve the Vedas pronunciation-perfect.
2. [Fact] The sound of the Vedas has been preserved with much greater fidelity than its meanings.
3. [Fact] Just like other civilizations can say "India didn't keep history", India can rightly say about other civilizations "They didn't keep a grammar".
4. [Speculation] I've been inclined to think that the Panini grammar and the standardization of Sanskrit was the culmination of an effort driven by the need to preserve the Vedas.
5. [Speculation] However, Panini barely addresses the Vedic dialect. One might think that this is because by the time work had progressed that far, the Vedic dialect was dying out.
6. [Speculation] However, there is another possible driver for standardization of Sanskrit. The Saraswati-Sindhu civilization had a penchant for standards - the standard weights and measures are found over a huge area. Maybe the civilization had a goal to standardize language as well, so that its far flung parts could always be in communication.
7. [Speculation] This would put the time of Panini squarely in the urban phase of the civilization, e.g., say around 3000 years before present.
8. [Speculation] This would make the Vedas much much older; what then needs to be explained is certain anachronisms in them - how these came to be.
9. [Speculation] After all, everyone is throwing around dates with abandon; why not me too? As long as I mark speculation as such. :)

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2862
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 13 Jul 2017 23:32

JE Menon wrote: Even now the buggers are wandering about on yaks in yurts and crushing a form of yogurt to survive, as UlanBatori will proudly testify;


Aren't these Ulan Batorians located roughly >2000 miles east of Ukrainian/Russian steppe where the TFTA Yamnayans lived? AFAICT not related.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6794
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 14 Jul 2017 00:20

Yes, but can you tell the difference from the Mongoliandu steppe and the Kazakh one? Friend of mine who spends a lot of time roaming the stans right up to and in to the Ferghana Valley says not really...

Actually he's been pleading with me for years to go along with him... May take him up on the offer.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, Falijee, V J and 31 guests