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.
bharotshontan
BRFite
Posts: 299
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 00:19

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

Postby bharotshontan » 04 Dec 2017 20:01

Are you guys arguing against Kurgan hypothesis here for the origins and split of Proto Indo European? I think there are two different things here that the original (and discredited) Aryan invasion theory mangled up, and that is genes spread and language/culture spread.

Kurgan model still places the earliest Rig Vedic text within northwestern part of subcontinent in Gandhara and Punjab plains. There is no tradition of migration recorded because it is just local language shifted descendents of IVC that are forming this Vedic culture base. Migrations happened much much earlier and otherwise genetically it is a cline that has existed from Paleolithic era. There is no genetic signal of the language shift in nw subcontinent towards the start of Vedic Sanskrit. There is a genetic signal for intra subcontinent population movements afterwards as Vedic culture spreads down the Gangetic plains from Indus valley.

OIT genetically is a fact but that is also in the tens of thousands of years range, not recent. As far as the proto languages that resulted in Sanskrit, I cannot argue against Kurgan hypothesis. But Kurgan does not validate the defunct AIT. If anything it negates it.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Dec 2017 22:19

bharotshontan wrote:Are you guys arguing against Kurgan hypothesis here for the origins and split of Proto Indo European?

I don't know who "you guys" are. I am not you guys.

What the hell is "proto-Indo-European"?

No such language existed. It is simply a hypothesis that postulates a mother language that is older than all languages that are together called "Indo-European"

How old is it? It all depends on how old the Vedas are. There is "internal evidence" of the Vedas and Manu's texts correlated with palaeogeological studies and palynological evidence of holocene flora that correleats well with the texts, in addition to archaeoastronomical evidence that the Vedas are older than 5000 BC - in fact older than 7-8000 years old. Now what the hell is this Kurgan hypothesis? No proof exists of the language spoken by people there. It is simply assumed to be some precursor language. And how old is this hypothetical "proto-Indo European"?

The entire language migration theory is a house of cards that is collapsing on itself.

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1988
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 04 Dec 2017 23:21

Shiv: saw your post from the previous page. Are you by any chance presenting a paper in the Swadeshi Indology conference in Chennai next month?

bharotshontan
BRFite
Posts: 299
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 00:19

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

Postby bharotshontan » 05 Dec 2017 00:38

shiv wrote:
bharotshontan wrote:Are you guys arguing against Kurgan hypothesis here for the origins and split of Proto Indo European?

I don't know who "you guys" are. I am not you guys.

What the hell is "proto-Indo-European"?

No such language existed. It is simply a hypothesis that postulates a mother language that is older than all languages that are together called "Indo-European"

How old is it? It all depends on how old the Vedas are. There is "internal evidence" of the Vedas and Manu's texts correlated with palaeogeological studies and palynological evidence of holocene flora that correleats well with the texts, in addition to archaeoastronomical evidence that the Vedas are older than 5000 BC - in fact older than 7-8000 years old. Now what the hell is this Kurgan hypothesis? No proof exists of the language spoken by people there. It is simply assumed to be some precursor language. And how old is this hypothetical "proto-Indo European"?

The entire language migration theory is a house of cards that is collapsing on itself.


Sorry, if "you guys" is coming across as offensive. It is meant towards the thread title since it has a very authoritative statement proclaiming OIT: Theory to Truth. Vedas might easily be 7-8000 years old and the precursor languages linking the Indic branches to Iranic and other groups like Latin/Germanic/Slavic etc is possibly way older than that. The issue is that AIT mangled up several items in order to proclaim some historical march of white race as was needed to show in 19th century. But is OIT propounding some historical march of brown race, in particular of north Indian race? Such a population movement happened in the stone age as the non-African branch of mankind made its first pit stop in India and then split up from India to populate Eurasia...but there is no precedent for such a population movement post-agriculture until the gypsies (which should be seen as part of Islamic slave trade). Vedic Aryas held Aryavarta as poonyabhoomi from a very long time ago and the tension with the groups of central and west Asia is seen even in Buddha's times and might even be traced to Ashura-Deva difference between Sanatana Dharma and Zoroastrianism. With such a strong concept of holy land intertwined with the geographical boundaries of Bharat, I don't see why there would be any movement of any Indians outward into Central Asia till fringes of Europe. Both AIT and its counter OIT look ridiculous. The better counter to the racially offensive AIT was to just be factual and not reverse-claim the whites as our mongrels...better to not claim any kind of relations with a problematic mlechha group like that anyway. Beyond Paleolithic continuity of Eurasian dispersal of the out-of-Africa branch of mankind out of India, there is nothing genetically showing more recent links.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 05 Dec 2017 03:00

Prem Kumar wrote:Shiv: saw your post from the previous page. Are you by any chance presenting a paper in the Swadeshi Indology conference in Chennai next month?

Yes and so is yours truly and so is 'Murugan'.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9870
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 05 Dec 2017 03:52

bharotshontan wrote:I don't see why there would be any movement of any Indians outward into Central Asia till fringes of Europe. Both AIT and its counter OIT look ridiculous.


a. I think this thread is meant not just for OIT, but for all alternatives to AIT.

b. I still think Robin Bradley Kar's ideas need examination. There is more of a cultural diffusion of language than language moving with people and genes. My summary is on my blog: http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2015/0 ... opean.html

Image

The riverine- agricultural model of linguistic expansion thus predicts that—by 1900 BC— the languages of the Indus Valley Civilization would have been part of an extraordinarily large and continuous set of linguistic developments with close links to ancient Bactria and a very ancient history in the larger region.


Image

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

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

Postby wig » 05 Dec 2017 15:44

https://www.livehistoryindia.com/amazin ... settlement

please go through the link - Around 60 kms north of Chennai, the discovery of stone hand tools was made in 1963. in a paper in the Journal Science Prof Shanti Pappu the discovery dates to 1.7 million years ago.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 05 Dec 2017 16:37

This business of Indo-European languages: Cunning linguists tell us that pre existing languages leave a tell tale substrate among contemporary speakers. Hence there is 25-40% on IE substrate among Greek or German language speakers. Even angrezi has much non IE substrate

But riddle me this. How much non IE substrate does Bengali have? Let me answer that. Practically zero. So does that mean that until Aryans brought PIE to Punjab in 1200 BC the people of bongland had NO language? And from 1000 BC Bengalis suddenly learned how to speak?

Tell me another one.

Look at the opposite side. Bhimbetka caves show paintings of people dancing and hunting. (There are many such cave paintings in India) Humans who dance and paint on cave walls have some culture. That culture is typically preceded by language. That means those Bhimbetka cave painters had some language, 30,000 years ago. What language? We don't know. You will have your ass ripped wide open by linguists and historians if you claim that those Bhimbetka Indians spoke some proto-Desi language. You are not supposed to step one millimeter outside the story that those horse eating morons from steppes spoke PIE and brought a piece of that pie to your ancestors in Poonjab. And then that Poonjab language simply exploded all over North, East and West India and there is no evidence of any other language whatsoever. The Bhimbetka speakers language is gone. Poof. I bet my left ball that this story is as fake as Pope's third testicle. And this PIE-turned Sanskrit from 1000 BC apparently not only swallowed up all of India it insinuated itself as the single major "borrowed" language among south Indian languages like Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam and Tamils - huge portions of which are full of Sanskrit apart from a "Dravidian language" "superstrate"All in just 1000-1500 years. Before that our ancestors were doing maun-vrat.

Maria Gimbutas Kurgan theory is a load of crock because she is also stuck on 1500-1000 BC dates for Sanskrit and all those bloody Kurgans are not much older. If Sanskrit turns out to be 10,000 years old - as is increasingly becoming evident, Kurgan, PIE, steppe and Witzel are all going to houriland where they rightly belong.
Last edited by shiv on 05 Dec 2017 16:38, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 05 Dec 2017 16:37

Nilesh Oak wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:Shiv: saw your post from the previous page. Are you by any chance presenting a paper in the Swadeshi Indology conference in Chennai next month?

Yes and so is yours truly and so is 'Murugan'.

Yup. Chennai here I come.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 05 Dec 2017 17:01

bharotshontan wrote:
Kurgan model still places the earliest Rig Vedic text within northwestern part of subcontinent in Gandhara and Punjab plains.

How was the Veda dated?
Who came up with those dates?
What is the evidence on offer?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8684
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 05 Dec 2017 23:14

shiv wrote:This business of Indo-European languages: Cunning linguists

Never dirty mind.

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1988
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 05 Dec 2017 23:34

Nice! I hope to make it to the conference. Will look forward to seeing Nilesh, Shiv & Murugan!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2017 09:58

UlanBatori wrote:
shiv wrote:This business of Indo-European languages: Cunning linguists

Never dirty mind.

They are cunning all right and no words can express my irritation.

For example - look at this: All historians and linguists agree that around 4000 BC the people in the Eurasian steppe "probably" used to speak "PIE" the proto language that later came to India as sanskrit.

But heloooo...?

Look at the Bhimbetka caves in Madhya Pradesh. Those people were dancing and hunting, and then painting dancers and hunters on cave walls in 28,000 BC - that is 24,000 years before those PIE speaking steppes. Surely they had some language? What language was it? Why can't we call it as "Proto-Indian"

Proto Indian was spoken in India for 30,000 years BEFORE PIE reached India. What happened to it?

Now linguists say that a "dominant language" will leave behind a "substrate" of the older language. Fine. Fine. So Greek and German have some old substrate which is not Indo-European.

But what substrate does Hindi have? What substrate does Bengali have? No substrate. All "Indo-European". So what happened to "Proto-Indian" of Bhimbetka? Apply Occam's razor. Nothing happened. Proto-Indian of Bhimbetka was Proto Indo European. So we have the same language come down to us from 30,000 years ago. Not some imaginary language spoken in Russian steppe a mere 4000 years ago. and brought to India on horses and chariots

The idea of language coming from Europe to India was a pure racist European supremacist concoction from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The date of 1500-1000 BC for Sanskrit of the Rig Veda is purely imaginary.

Don't ever forget what cunning linguists tell us. Cunning linguists told us that:
1. "Internal evidence of the Rig Veda" suggests that it came from outside India
2. "Internal evidence of the Rig Veda" tells us that it was a horse culture

But excuse me? "Internal evidence" of the Rig Veda tells us Indians that
1. It was more of a fire, forest and cow culture
2. Astronomical dates tell us that it dates back to 5000 BC

Whose "internal evidence" is longer? Yours or mine?

Fact is: Veda speaks of massive Saraswati river flowing to the sea
Fact is: Paleo geological studies confirm a large river parallel to Indus and east of it reached the sea up to 8000 BC

Ergo Vedas date back to 8000 BC

What was that again about PIE and Russian steppe and Kurgan?

syam
BRFite
Posts: 250
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 06 Dec 2017 11:19

This might be already posted. Sorry if I am making double post.

Astronomy of Satapatha Brahmana:
http://www.insa.nic.in/writereaddata/Up ... _SCKak.pdf

Ok. . This author writes for Swarajya . His name - Subhash Kak. Now only surprise will be him being member here as well.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 06 Dec 2017 13:47

shiv wrote:...

Fact is: Veda speaks of massive Saraswati river flowing to the sea
Fact is: Paleo geological studies confirm a large river parallel to Indus and east of it reached the sea up to 8000 BC

Ergo Vedas date back to 8000 BC


Not quite. We consider sea to be samudra. While all the "experts" think of samudra as a big lake. So Saraswati draining into a lake happened as late as 2000 BC.

The example these "experts" give is from many place of India where a large lake is called samudra see for example andhra pradesh.

So this saraswati and sea argument needs more teeth before it can be called a clincher.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3773
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

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

Postby Karthik S » 06 Dec 2017 16:49

shiv wrote:Yup. Chennai here I come.


Shiv ji, which day you'll be presenting? Saw the conference is for 3 days.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2017 17:02

peter wrote:Not quite. We consider sea to be samudra. While all the "experts" think of samudra as a big lake. So Saraswati draining into a lake happened as late as 2000 BC.

Wait for the full paper before you jump to conclusions. And don't be so defensive to protect the opinions of the people whom you like to call "experts" many of whom are out and out liars trying to protect obvious lies.

The environment was not forested after 3000 BC and does not show the pollen record of forest. Just desert scrub by 2000 BC. And the Nd/Sr isotope ratios in cores of Great Rann of Kutch sediment show a clear input from Ghaggar Hakra up to 10,000 years ago, but none after that. Anything draining into lake would not enter the delta at the Rann of Kutch
Last edited by shiv on 06 Dec 2017 17:06, edited 2 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2017 17:02

Karthik S wrote:
shiv wrote:Yup. Chennai here I come.


Shiv ji, which day you'll be presenting? Saw the conference is for 3 days.

They have not told me yet.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2017 17:30

Before 10,000 years ago (8000 BC) Northern India had become so cold that there was a regression of vegetation. But for about 4000 years after that the weather warmed up and there was a massive increase in rainfall and the areas that represent the Indus-Saraswati culture in Haryana was heavily forested. But aridity was gradually increasing in Rajasthan where the tree growth gradually changed to species that grew with less and less rainfall. After 3000 BC the Rajasthan area showed and increase in sand dunes as human habitation cleared areas for agriculture and the pollen record shows that crops were grown. But Gujarat at these times had "riverine forest" and there actually the Rann of Kutch bed was at a much lower level so the sea was much further north than it is today. I think even in Greek times Kutch was an Island and river tracts led to the sea explaining the jetties found in Harappa

Even in these later "drier" times there were huge huge lakes that used to form in Rajasthan - but the only clear radioisiotope evidence of Ghaggar Hakra water flow up to the sea exists up to about 10,000 years ago. In fact Vedas could be older than 10,000 years. Could be 12-15000 years. Recall that "experts" told us that Vedas had references to cold climate and therefore it must have come from Oirope. It was cold, bloody cold in North India and the Himalayan areas at the tail end of the last glaciation - the end of the so called "Weichselian" period. "Aranyakas" are about forests. vedas wwere from a time when Saraswati reached the sea and there were thick forests. That is 8000 BC or earlier. Let there be no doubt about that.

Did I mention that we fall prone at the feet of linguists and suck the toes of people who tell us that "Proto-Indo-European" was spoken in 4000 BC Eurasia when they have no evidence of the language. Why do we sit with one thumb in mouth and another thumb in musharraf when we know there was a culture with some language doing cave paintings in Bhimbetka 30,000 years ago? If I say that those Bhimbetka cave painters used to speak "proto Indian" will some Tom, Dick or Harry come and tell me no you cannot say that because "experts disagree"? What is the matter with us? Experts are always disagreeing with anyone who questions their pet theories by pointing out obvious lies and blunders. How come everyone says proto-this and proto-that every time they want to invent a language and we can't say that Indians spoke proto Indian before Sanskrit or Dravidian languages?

How come there is no "substrate" of older language among Bengalis or Oriya speakers? Or Hindi and its sisters. But was there no language among Indians before 1500 BC? If some language was there it should have left evidence as "substrate"no? It should have left evidence as "toponym" and "hydronym" no? "Experts" have taught us that. Have we forgotten so soon? Are we simply stupid or just mentally colonized to recognize some particular people as experts and swallow the cock-and-bull stories we have been told that they make up for their own convenience?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9870
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Dec 2017 01:23

A different take on Arundhati-Vasishta and other observations in the Mahabharata:
http://insa.nic.in/writereaddata/UpLoad ... yengar.pdf
(PDF file)
Iyengar, R. N. (2006). Some Celestial Observations Associated with Krsna-Lore. Indian Journal of History of Science, 41(1), 1.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8684
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 07 Dec 2017 02:23

Is this chennai thing the week of Dec. 10-13 by any chance?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 07 Dec 2017 07:11

UlanBatori wrote:Is this chennai thing the week of Dec. 10-13 by any chance?

22,23,24 Dec IIT Madras

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8684
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 07 Dec 2017 07:42

I will scratch "Ulan Batori slept hiyar" on one of the desks.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 07 Dec 2017 10:12

A_Gupta wrote:
bharotshontan wrote:I don't see why there would be any movement of any Indians outward into Central Asia till fringes of Europe. Both AIT and its counter OIT look ridiculous.


a. I think this thread is meant not just for OIT, but for all alternatives to AIT.

b. I still think Robin Bradley Kar's ideas need examination. There is more of a cultural diffusion of language than language moving with people and genes. My summary is on my blog: http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2015/0 ... opean.html


Arun - I have a few issues with this theory - which is definitely an improvement on earlier theories.

I start with this quote:
our best evidence suggests that humans tended to live in relatively small, nomadic social formations, with population densities that were very small. These conditions tend to produce extreme linguistic diversity,206 and we should therefore expect that for most of the Primal Age, all humans would have spoken languages that were relatively minor in scale and would have tended to diverge from others outside a fairly small geographic area over time. As a result, there would have been a great many language families, no one of which would have represented a very sizeable percentage of the world’s population.


This is just an assumption. I mean that a "great many minor languages would have developed". The assumption fails on two counts
1. That communities lived apart for long enough for languages to change significantly. Today the human genome makes us one species because no matter how remote the area where people lived - they maintained a tenuous contact with their neighbours and families - perhaps across dozens of kilometers. A local disaster (such as famine/pestilence) would have sent a local community scurrying back to the place of origin. Or else a boom in economy would have expanded the population and the hunt for partners would have taken people back to a nearby community.
2. The remarkably constant "ASI-ANI" mix of the Indian genome which is over 12,500 years old does not suggest isolated pooling of communities (until relatively recently)

Once again this author is an unwitting victim of the assumption that the language Sanskrit and therefore the Vedas date from a relatively recent period. For over a century it was assumed to be from 1500 BC but what this author has done is to push that 1500 BC date back to 3500 BC to include the Saraswati Sindhu civilization. He arbitrarily picks the date range 75000 to 3500 years as the "primal age". In fact it could be 75,000 to 10,000 years or even earlier than 10,000 years.

Unfortunately Europe and the west are only interested in making the connection between their languages and India. The author rightly recognizes this and writes
Although the so-called "Indus Valley" Civilization (a.k.a. the "Harappan" or "Sindhu-Sarasvati" Civilization) represents one of the very first such successful transformations in our natural history as a species, and although the Indus Valley Civilization long predates similar developments in ancient Greece, Rome or Israel, most scholars deem these early developments irrelevant to Western prehistory because of a specific linguistic proposition: they believe that the Indus Valley Civilization spoke a non-Indo-European language and that its traditions are therefore phylogenetically unrelated to the larger family of Indo-European civilizations that show up in the subsequent historical record


But western scholars were prisoners to the dates of the Vedas and they dated the Veda to 1500 BC - so their own views have been stuck at 1500 BC. This man has simply moved it back to include Harappa.

This completely leaves out the possibility that the Vedas are much older. without repeating what I have said earlier in this thread let me point out that even by 1200 BC arcahic Greek and Sanskrit were very very different. And by 800 BC Latin was very different from Sanskrit. If there was a common language it must have diverged much earlier. 3500 BC is "better" but is simply guesswork that fails to take into account the "internal evidence" of Sanskrit texts. Note that western linguists have been very liberal in choosing whatever is convenient to them as "internal evidence" of Sanskrit texts. Even 3500 BC is probably too late a date for Sanskrit and I posit that proto-Sanskrit pre dates 10,000 BC

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 07 Dec 2017 14:09

A_Gupta wrote:A different take on Arundhati-Vasishta and other observations in the Mahabharata:
http://insa.nic.in/writereaddata/UpLoad ... yengar.pdf
(PDF file)
Iyengar, R. N. (2006). Some Celestial Observations Associated with Krsna-Lore. Indian Journal of History of Science, 41(1), 1.

A different take alright.

It is ridiculous and illogical to the core.

Here is my critique & praise of it, from my first book...
--
R. N. Iyengar offers an ingenious and admirable explanation however his conclusions are decidedly false. I mention his effort to express my appreciation for his creativity, much desired, but characteristically lacking among many others. He combines the second couplet of Arundhati observation1 with another unrelated couplet14, both of them from different Adhyayas of Bhishma Parva. In the absence of my discovery, I would have failed to notice his novel combination of couplets and curious aspect of his interpretation. I do not believe that combining of partial statements from two different Adhyayas is either warranted or justified. His combination of couplets from two different Adhyayas is as follows,

Arundhati has gone ahead of (her husband) Vasishtha1
Dhruva, the Pole Star blazing and fierce, is moving anti-clockwise14

I will return to this innovative combination and interpretation of R N Iyengar, in the light of my discovery, at the end of this chapter.
--
Revisiting interpretation of R N Iyengar

Before I conclude, I want to go back to the ingenious work of R N Iyengar. He combined portions of two couplets, one from Bhishma1 Adhyaya 2 and another from Bhishma14 Adhyaya 3. I consider such combination neither required nor justified. For fun and only as a hypothetical exercise, I want the reader to recall it and apply it to my results.

Arundhati, who was otherwise always walking behind Vasistha, began walking ahead of Vasistha, during the Mahabharata War and during the time interval defined by the ‘Epoch of Arundhati’. I could imagine an observer in Mahabharata times, interpreting the phenomenon described by ‘ingenious combination’ of R N Iyengar. I have borrowed his combination but not his explanation for my hypothetical exercise, on the part of an observer in Mahabharata times. An observer, noticing Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha (who otherwise was walking behind Vasistha) may visualize the celestial the North Pole (and the North Pole star if there was one available) blazing and fiercely moving in the reverse direction, as an explanation for the miraculous walking of Arundhati ahead of Vasistha!

My interpretation of the synthetic couplet of R N Iyengar is a hypothetical exercise and not to be taken seriously. My interpretation of his synthetic couplet corroborates well with my explanation of Arundhati observation, however, neither my usage of his couplet nor his combining of the couplet is rational and justified.


And here is my critique of his take, on 'Fall of Abhijit', from the same book..


R N Iyengar attempts to interpret this observation, goes all over but really nowhere and fails miserably. He does not use this information anywhere either to make a case for his Mahabharata time-line or to employ it as a corroborative evidence for his timeline. I would hate to force my assertion on my readers and thus reproduce his explanation in the original. R N Iyengar writes,

The above verse appears in all editions of Mahabharata, including the recognized BORI, Pune, critical edition where it appears in Chapter 219. These four verses refer to the four stars Abhijit, Rohini, Dhanishtha and Krittika. The literal meaning of the first two verses is easy. However, what is meant by Abhijit and Rohini is not clear. In Vedic literature, there is ambiguity as to whether the number of nakshatras was 27 or 28. In the much later Siddhantic astronomy whenever 28 stars are mentioned in dividing the ecliptic, Abhijit is placed between U. Ashada and Shravana and is identified with star Vega (α Lyrae). In Taittriya Samhita (4.4.10) only 27 stars are mentioned, whereas in Taittriya Brahmana (1.5.1.3) 28 stars with Abhijit placed between U. Ashadha and Shravana are listed. Again, even though Rohini is popularly identified with Aldebaran, there is an indication in the above text that Jyeshtha was once called by the same name Rohini. Abhijit’s competition with her elder sister Rohini and eventual vanishing from the sky should be an allegory for brightening followed by dimming beyond recognition. If we take the traditional position of Abhijit as the correct position since ancient times, its relative brightening would have been with respect to Antares (Jyeshtha Rohini). There is an indirect allusion to the missing Abhijit in Taittriya Samhita (Brahmana 3.3.6.4) also. In the available ancient Chinese, records on supernovae, there is reference to a star near Antares that vanished in 1400 B.C. Could this be the vanishing star referred as Abhijit in Mahabharata? The statement that this hap-pened when time (year) began with star Dhanishtha lends support to this possibility. Winter solstice at Dhanishtha was the period of Vedanga Jyotisha, which has been dated to 1400 B.C. The meaning of the last three lines of the above verses, in relation to the previous ones is not clear as noted by S.B. Dikshit, a scholar of great repute.


Notwithstanding the meaningless chatter of this passage, I want to highlight few precious nuggets quoted by R N Iyengar before I move on. Taittriya Samhita mentions only 27 nakshatras while Taittriya Brahmana mentions 28 including Abhijit and also the fact that there is an indirect allusion to the missing Abhijit in Taittriya Samhita/Brahamana. These three observations provide corroborative support for my solution to the problem of ‘Fall of Abhijit’. Since I have not established the solution as yet, I leave the subject as is for now. I may mention while passing that my solution to ‘Fall of Abhijit’ could be used to determine the timing of Taittriya Samhita and Taittriya Brahmana.
--

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 07 Dec 2017 15:53

UlanBatori wrote:I will scratch "Ulan Batori slept hiyar" on one of the desks.

I will do it for you.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9870
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Dec 2017 18:28

Papua New Guinea - 7 million people and 820 languages, arising from the small isolated communities - I think that is an example that leads to the idea of the origin of linguistic diversity. If chances of a language surviving increase with the number of people that use it; and if the utility of a language increases with the number of people you can potentially talk to, then a major language will be formed.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9870
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Dec 2017 18:32

Paper 11 on this page attempts to explain the Saptarishi cycle:
http://www.tifr.res.in/~vahia/papers.html

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 07 Dec 2017 20:06

A_Gupta wrote:Papua New Guinea - 7 million people and 820 languages, arising from the small isolated communities - I think that is an example that leads to the idea of the origin of linguistic diversity. If chances of a language surviving increase with the number of people that use it; and if the utility of a language increases with the number of people you can potentially talk to, then a major language will be formed.

The idea that languages will develop differently in isolation is not the problem. The problem is the assumption that languages developed in isolation from 75,000 ybp till 3500 ybp. There is no basis for this assumption. It is simply guesswork which seems to be the norm for linguists when they are not bluffing.

Even worse is where the theory fails to explain what linguists claim - (and which is mentioned in the paper too IIRC) that older languages leave a substrate. The entire Indian subcontinent excluding Dravidian language areas has no non IE substrate worth talking about. If hundreds or thousands of different languages had existed - surely some evidence should appear in languages considering the geographic diversity.

In fact much much more likely is a gradual spread of humanity like an ant colony. That is the expanding arms never lose touch with the areas and people that they broke away from. But eventually distance creates a barrier that creates a new language.

These are all hypotheses, with no proof, but even as hypotheses go the assumptions that are made without adequate explanation or consideration of both genetic and linguistic homogeneity in India and the "internal evidence" offered by ancient Indian texts.

All that said I am very very vary of linguists claims of 820 languages. India has how many - 15 "different" languages - all connected up and closely related. It does not take much effort for a Marathi speaker to pick up Hindi or Gujarati and not difficult for a Kannada or Telugu speaker to pick up Tamil because these languages share so much commonality. It is the classification that linguists make that creates "languages" out of "dialects" and silly classifications like "sister language", "daughter language", "substrate", "superstrate", "borrowing" etc - some of which are too contrived and tentative to be credible

Technically "dialects" can be classified as different languages depending what is convenient for linguists. They make up the rules. Scouse, Mancunian, Scottish and Irish accented English all sound like different languages to the outsider and I can well imagine how "orientalists" classified Papua New Guinea languages. In fact I trust linguists so little I would have to look at the research papers (if any) myself and judge whether the miserable buggers have, as usual. bluffed and fudged as they keep on doing. As I have repeatedly said - unlike science - there is no accountability in liguistics. What is written remains without anyone really cross checking. Now that you mention it I am going to start checking the information available and I expect some gol-maal will soon show itself up

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 07 Dec 2017 20:24

I will start looking at Pacific Island languages - I recall a paper/book that Nilesh Oak had sent me which has a very interesting take connecting them with IE languages.

But just look at the hypocrisy of linguists. On the one hand they claim that geographic isolation created 820 languages in Papua New Guinea and leave that statement unqualified like European philologists before they "discovered Sanskrit". Those Papuan languages could well show connections if anyone bothered to look for them - and I am sure someone has done that. But European philologists simply assumed that European languages though similar had somehow come down from biblical languages. That lasted until Sanskrit opened the door

I quote:
Max Muller wrote:
The world had known Latin and Greek for centuries, and it was felt, no doubt, that there was some kind of similarity between the two. But how was that similarity to be explained? Sometimes Latin was supposed to give the key to the formation of a Greek word, sometimes Greek seemed to betray the secret of the origin of a Latin word. Afterward, when the ancient Teutonic languages, such as Gothic and Anglo−Saxon, and the ancient Celtic and Slavonic languages too, came to be studied, no one could help seeing a certain family likeness among them all. But how such a likeness between these languages came to be, and how, what is far more difficult to explain, such striking differences too between these languages came to be, remained a mystery, and gave rise to the most gratuitous theories, most of them, as you know, devoid of all scientific foundation. As soon, however, as Sanskrit stepped into the midst of these languages, there came light and warmth and mutual recognition. They all ceased to be strangers, and each fell of its own accord into its right place. Sanskrit was the eldest sister of them all, and could tell of many things which the other members of the family had quite forgotten.’


The racist AH Sayce wrote:
Had it not been for Sanscrit, with its copious grammar, its early literature, and the light which it threw on the forms of Greek and Latin speech, comparative philology might never have been born. Sanscrit was the magician's wand which had called the new science into existence,and without the help of Sanscrit the philologist would not have advanced beyond the speculations and guesses of classical scholars.


After this Europeans got their chaddis all twisted up trying to make mothers, daughters and sisters out of all European languages which used to be totally different languages till then,

I am sure that if some people turn similar attention to 820 Papua New Gunea languages we can also create mothers, daughters, sisters, substrates and superstrates out of them . But Europeans are only bothered about Sanskrit because in New Guniea hamara baap ka kya bigadta?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9870
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Dec 2017 22:38

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ct/424704/
What's a language, anyway?

With this above as background, I'd say, emanating from the Saraswati-Sindhu region, via largely cultural influences, not permanent movement of people, but perhaps aided by the peregrinations of pastoral peoples, there grew to be this continuum of related dialects stretching eastwards into the Ganga-Yamuna plains, and westwards into Central Asia and the edges of Europe (kind of as show in Robin Bradley Kar's diagram). When exactly? You figure out the dates. This is the root of the Indo-European language family.

At some point, there was a movement of people from Central Asia into Europe; the IE invasion there seems archaeologically and genetically established.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 07 Dec 2017 22:47, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48125
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 07 Dec 2017 22:41

Nilesh Oak wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:I will scratch "Ulan Batori slept hiyar" on one of the desks.

I will do it for you.



Let us know if Waldies is still there!

So who all are the luminaries going to be there and is there a brochure?

Also please have the talks all YouTube so that we can also see them.

Thanks.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48125
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 07 Dec 2017 22:47

I heard a English scholar talk about what is meant by bird songs?

He said birds have two occasions to burst out in song :
- To attract mates
- To ward of competitors or warning cries

And these morons think the Vedas were bird songs.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9870
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Dec 2017 22:54

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Papuan_languages
While some linguists have put a set of 15 languages of Papua New Guinea into a family, others say that some of the languages share only 2-3% of their vocabulary, they don't have a relationship.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 08 Dec 2017 07:33

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:Not quite. We consider sea to be samudra. While all the "experts" think of samudra as a big lake. So Saraswati draining into a lake happened as late as 2000 BC.

Wait for the full paper before you jump to conclusions. And don't be so defensive to protect the opinions of the people whom you like to call "experts" many of whom are out and out liars trying to protect obvious lies.

The environment was not forested after 3000 BC and does not show the pollen record of forest. Just desert scrub by 2000 BC. And the Nd/Sr isotope ratios in cores of Great Rann of Kutch sediment show a clear input from Ghaggar Hakra up to 10,000 years ago, but none after that. Anything draining into lake would not enter the delta at the Rann of Kutch

The evidence from Mahabharata is of breaking up of saraswati river as Balram's pilgrimage during the war goes through many places and at some places saraswati no longer flowed and at others there were lakes. Based on whose date you believe this lake formation due to saraswati breaking up can be dated.
Haraxavati the river in Iran never reaches the sea. And drains into inland lakes. Both Saraswati and Haraxavati are supposed to be cognates according to "experts" and derive from the same root which denotes lakes. I don't believe them but that is the consensus today. The "experts" as I suggest earlier bring to the table that the word samudra is routinely employed for lakes and not sea. So the argument that post 8000 BC the saraswati did not flow into the sea and hence vedas have to dated before 8000 is not strong enough.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 08 Dec 2017 07:35

ramana wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote:I will do it for you.



Let us know if Waldies is still there!

So who all are the luminaries going to be there and is there a brochure?

Also please have the talks all YouTube so that we can also see them.

Thanks.

http://swadeshiindology.com/si-3/schedule/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 08 Dec 2017 07:36

A_Gupta wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/difference-between-language-dialect/424704/
What's a language, anyway?

With this above as background, I'd say, emanating from the Saraswati-Sindhu region, via largely cultural influences, not permanent movement of people, but perhaps aided by the peregrinations of pastoral peoples, there grew to be this continuum of related dialects stretching eastwards into the Ganga-Yamuna plains, and westwards into Central Asia and the edges of Europe (kind of as show in Robin Bradley Kar's diagram). When exactly? You figure out the dates. This is the root of the Indo-European language family.

At some point, there was a movement of people from Central Asia into Europe; the IE invasion there seems archaeologically and genetically established.

Plausible

About that Atlantic link above - I liked what I read though I did not read it all. I think what gets forgotten in discussions of languages is that Europeans saw languages as nations. Lots of old definitions of nation claim language as the unifier - at least for Europe. Hence India was many nations. That said - for 19th century philologists Sanskrit suddenly created one superior Christian nations of descendants of Japheth that displayed greater antiquity than the hated Semites with their descendants in the Levant/Assyria. The Aryans of India who went there from Europe, with their great language were "fallen people, corrupted by black heathen Dravidians.

The dates for Sanskrit that were fixed back then - 1500-1000 BC have never change. History has compressed itself as and when needed to fit that date.

European took "internal evidence in the Vedas" to conjure up "Aryans" and "dasyus". The took one word "horse" and one verse (10:18) about burying a man to connect with graves in Eurasia. But they did not want to look at "internal evidence" of the Vedas speaking of a Saraswati river.

If I look at internal evidence of the Vedas that speaks of a forested environment and a river reaching the sea in the area where the Saraswati is said to have been and then I look for modern research papers on palynology and palaeogeology I find that the last time that area was thickly forested and featured a river going all the way to the sea, it was 10,000 years ago (8000 BC).

Look at Manusmriti: This mentions Vinasana - where the Saraswati disappears in the desert. That actually happened between 9000-6000 years ago (7000 to 40000 BC). Nilesh Oak's date of 5560 BC for Mahabharata fits in well with this. But Manu also speaks of lots of forest products and advises students to wear either deer skins or clothes made of flax or hemp. Cotton gets a mention but not as fabric. So Manu is after cotton (7000 BC) but before Harappa.(3000 BC)

Harappa was arid. Not forested other than seasonal desert scrub. Practically no deer bones found in Harappa - so very unlikely that generations of students were wearing deer skins. Harappans wore cotton and silk.

So we are probably looking at a Vedic culture that started developing 10,000 years ago. In fact I would suggest that there is no point looking for evidence of Vedic lifestyle in Harappa, Its like looking for that in modern Bengaluru.
Last edited by shiv on 08 Dec 2017 07:40, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 08 Dec 2017 07:39

peter wrote:The evidence from Mahabharata is of breaking up of saraswati river as Balram's pilgrimage during the war goes through many places and at some places saraswati no longer flowed and at others there were lakes. Based on whose date you believe this lake formation due to saraswati breaking up can be dated.

See post above this. Modern scientific papers document this. Keep up your search. I will publish my findings when I am done. You may discover something new if you can remove the tinted glasses that linguists have put over your eyes

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 08 Dec 2017 07:42

Nilesh Oak wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:A different take on Arundhati-Vasishta and other observations in the Mahabharata:
http://insa.nic.in/writereaddata/UpLoad ... yengar.pdf
(PDF file)
Iyengar, R. N. (2006). Some Celestial Observations Associated with Krsna-Lore. Indian Journal of History of Science, 41(1), 1.

A different take alright.

..... I do not believe that combining of partial statements from two different Adhyayas is either warranted or justified. His combination of couplets from two different Adhyayas is as follows,

Arundhati has gone ahead of (her husband) Vasishtha1
Dhruva, the Pole Star blazing and fierce, is moving anti-clockwise14

....

The Dhruva moving away from its position was a big deal for Indians because its "sthirtha" (hindi word) was seen as something to cherished upon. This is the significance of names like yuddhishtira (sthir in yuddha ).

It seems to me you are cherry picking. If the Dhruva observation is not reconcilable for your epoch (4500 BC there was no Dhruva or pole star. There was one in 3000 BC which was moving and moved till it was no longer a pole star) you don't get to throw out the observation.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 08 Dec 2017 07:49

A_Gupta wrote:Paper 11 on this page attempts to explain the Saptarishi cycle:
http://www.tifr.res.in/~vahia/papers.html


Here is my correspondence with Prof. Vahia in 2010, for what it might be worth.
--
I wrote..

Prof. Vahia,

I read your paper on 'Saptarshi's visit to different nakshatras'. I also believed (and still believe) that there has to be some astronomical basis for 'Saptarshi Ganana'. So far I came across only two attempts to understand the Saptrashi Ganana including yours. The other attempt being made by PV Vartak, which is non-astronomical in nature but equally compelling. In addition, it does not contradict what you are hypothesizing but rather may turn out complementary.. assuming each of the two attempts are validated or tentatively accepted as the best explanation so far.

I quickly ran some simulations this morning and verified your results i.e. the pointer (Line) defined by 'celestial north pole' and passing through the region between Merak and Dubhe (two stars of Saptarshi), pointing towards the closest nakshatra in the path of this pointer (line) as indication of 'Saptarshi' being in that nakshatra.

When I ran the simulations beyond the range specified by you, basically the direction reverses! I presume you already knew this. In fact, one can never say 'Saptarshi's were in 'Castor' or "Zosma' (Purva Phalguni) and these two stars can be taken as boundaries of motions of 'Saptarshi' as defined by you.

The good analogy would be that of the motion of crankshaft and piston (only in reverse fashion). The circular motion of crankshaft can be compared with the motion of 'celestial north pole' due to precession and nutation and the area of displacement of the piston is the area of 'Nakshatra space' where 'the pointer' moves.

Thus by the references of 12th Canto of Bhagavat were written, the Saptrashi movement w.r.t. nakshatras was mythologized.. otherwise, the reference would not have referred to 'Saptarshi' in purva ASHADHA (Bhagvat 12:2:27-32), since Saptarshi will never go (per your theory) beyond Castor on one side and Zosma on the other.

Would be curious to see your comments on my interpretation.

Regards,


Prof Vahia responded...

Dear Nilesh,

Thank you for your e mail. I do greatly appreciate your comments. The principal author of the work is Dr. Aniket Sule and I am forwarding this response to him also.

There are several subtle problems with the Saptarshi Calendar and that is why it was discontinued. The problems are:

1) The crank shaft problem that you have highlighted - Saptarshi does not go to all the Nakshatras but reverses its path.
2) It spans a single nakshatra only once in 100 years and takes up to 800 years in other nakshatras.
3) Its line is not always easy to follow, especially when there is no pole star.

My suspicion is that it came into being soon after Mahabharat when they wanted to 'restart' the civilisation with new calendrical system and for a time, Saptarshi must have been an attractive alternative. Later, when the calender failed, various attempts were made to give it metaphysical meanings and Saptarshi reference also turned into referring to the body and mind etc. and it was generally assumed that the Saptarshi of the Calendar and the Saptarshi in the sky are not related. The genius of Aniket's work is to establish that it did begin as an astronomical reference but the choice was time limited and hence the original meaning was lost with time....

By the way, I do not subscribe to astrology at all and do not assign astrological ideas to my life or to events on earth.

With warm regards,

mayank


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests