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: 32465
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 26 Oct 2016 22:07

Yayavar wrote: hard evidence would be good.

I have a quibble with this widely accepted cliche, but not for this thread :wink:

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4638
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 26 Oct 2016 23:31

:) I dread..but still look forward to it in another thread.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2687
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 27 Oct 2016 02:19

I have a quibble too.

"Evidence" suggests a need to prove something. "Hard evidence" suggests that there is a universal standard by which evidence (in the realm of history) can be qualified as "good" enough to be valid, or rejected otherwise.

So my questions are: (1) to whom do we need to prove the veracity our own history, the very process by virtue of which we exist as we are today? and (2) if we accept the need to prove our history to someone else, we also have to accept standards of what constitutes "hard" vs "soft" evidence as set by someone else who will sit in judgment over these things. And thus set ourselves up for defeat in a rigged system whose pretense of impartiality we have implicitly accepted. No?

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4638
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 27 Oct 2016 04:28

Hopefully you are not talking in context of my post which basically said - we have indirect evidence suggesting evolving writing scripts. It would be more satisfying to have 'hard evidence' too -- in the sense find an rock or clay or metal inscription in such scripts.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32465
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2016 09:56

Yayavar wrote:Hopefully you are not talking in context of my post which basically said - we have indirect evidence suggesting evolving writing scripts. It would be more satisfying to have 'hard evidence' too -- in the sense find an rock or clay or metal inscription in such scripts.

OK - I feel my hand is being "forced".

There is a "level of credibility" that triggers belief, and in this case it is not YOU personally who is an unbeliever but you would be happier to see what you call "hard evidence" because it gets easier to show and convince others whose "trigger for belief" rests on that "hard evidence"

This raises a philosophical question. If "hard evidence" is unavailable for a given statement would it be "less credible" than something else for which "hard evidence" is available?

My philosophical quibble with standards of hard evidence is in an article I have written. It is about habits that were inculcated several thousand years before "hard evidence" proved them to be valid. I am not arguing for or against - I am just pointing out that absence of hard evidence should not be an excuse for outright rejection. The other areas of modern science and society where a similar lack of hard evidence can be misleading are too far off topic as is the link below:
https://www.facebook.com/shivsastry/pos ... 3772589826

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4638
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 27 Oct 2016 11:51

Certainly lack of 'hard evidence' is not rejection and it is not implied that way either. Indirect evidence is sometimes all we have and all we will get. But anything circumstantial certainly requires more effort. If there is a fossil for a bird and a fossil for an amphibian, then a fossil (or livin fossil like duck billed platypus) fills the gap and gives a better understanding - it is hard evidence of the evolution from one to the other. But if none were found one still can make the case of that evolution. So I dont see anything wrong with the term 'hard evidence'.

Indirect evidence, as I noted on evolution of scripts is a valid inference. A script called 'Ni' existed the Budhdhist text says. What if we actually found text in Ni? It then not only confirms Ni but also shows us its form. We get additional information on its relation to other scripts, possibly an indication of how scripts evolved etc. So a 'hard evidence' would enhance our knowledge more than the indirect reference does.

wrt 'washing hands' - yes, it implies that the Indians understood contamination and spread of disease. But does it mean they had a well defined germ theory? Probably did even if it did not include having seen microbes under a microscope. However, would it not be nice to find a description of such a theory? If it is not found does not mean there was no understanding of infection - the behaviour and habits as described in your article attest to a knowledge of spread of infection. Yet one has to agree that it is a different level of inference.

Same goes with determining Neptune exists from the orbit perturbations. Those indicated it existed. It is certainly more satisfactory in actually spotting it using a telescope.

So, I dont see any issue with 'hard evidence'. I just disagree that indirect evidence implies rejection. But I agree that a direct evidence of something is more complete because it includes more information. If a Sumerian tablet said IV had seals, it is one thing; whereas finding those seals is more satisfactory. Is it less credible if there were no actual seals found? Possibly unless there were lots of Sumerian tablets talking about the seals. If only one referenced it one would be unsure. But finding even one seal would be sufficient evidence of seals existing.

In short we certainly infer based on whatever knowledge and information we come across. An inference from indirect evidence is certainly valid. It is not to be rejected. Finding direct evidence provides more information and possibly indirect evidence for something else.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 579
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 27 Oct 2016 17:17

Re Shiv:- You are misconstruing my comments. I am believer in Out of India theory. I also believe that Harappan knowledge base cannot disappear completely. It was not just one town, but hundreds of cities over thousands of years. But how did it mutate and where is the related evidence? Sanskrit is a complicated language, it cannot appear suddenly in 600 AD. One explanation is that it evolved from Harappan language. But Where is the physical evidence of its development? So I repeat, what efforts have we have made to fill gaps between 1500BC Harappan script to 500BC Brahmi Script and then from 500BC Brahmi Script to 600AD Sanskrit? Discovery of one text of Ramayan has pushed back date of evidence from 1000AD to 600AD.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32465
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2016 17:43

Gyan wrote: But Where is the physical evidence of its development?

I am currently writing a reply to Yayavar on the question of what he called "hard evidence" - but before I post that let me point out to you that your asking for "physical evidence" is fundamentally a belief on your part that the presence of physical evidence is necessary for proof. This is a deeply etched belief in our minds - and when we are presented with "physical evidence" we say "OK now I believe it. It was not so believable until this physical evidence was shown to me"

There is a history to this belief - it was not always so. But i don't want to repeat myself - because what you ask and the discussion I had with Yayavar are very similar - I will expand in a separate reply below. In fact the question of physical evidence or writing and literature have a deep bearing on the way we see the world today.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32465
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2016 18:33

Yayavar wrote: I just disagree that indirect evidence implies rejection. But I agree that a direct evidence of something is more complete because it includes more information.

Please pardon me because this threatens to be a long reply. And please don't think I am buggering about trying to dodge the question of "hard evidence". Not dodging, although it sounds like dodging.

Let me approach this from the opposite direction. When something called "hard evidence" exists, why is it "more credible" or "more complete"?

If you start from the perspective that any information "X" must have "hard evidence" to prove that it is true, then you can divide all information into two sets
1. Information without hard evidence = myths, lies, theories, hypotheses ("untruth")
2. Information with hard evidence= truth

The key of course is "What is accepted as hard evidence?" which has placed some information into the realm of "truth" while other information is "untruth"

Let me take this forward by quoting you and Gyan because both are relevant here. I will quote both and explain below

You said:
yayavar wrote:I find it hard to imagine that people created very complex languages - with massive literature and error corrections - without a way to write it. I agree though that hard evidence would be good.


Gyan said:
Gyan wrote: But some issues on Archeological evidence or lack there of, does raise problems. IVF Ended around 1500 BC and definitely had a written script as preserved in hard archeological evidence. Then the next archeological evidence is Brahmi Script in 500BC. What was happening for 1000 years in India? Why does the vibrant Vedic culture not leave behind any evidence of written texts or even temples even though older IVF evidence has been found?


Both of you are asking for "hard evidence" of language. Neither of you are denying that the language is older, but yet both of you have a need for what you call as "more complete" and gyan asks for "physical evidence of its development"

It turns out that the tradition of "written proof" - a.k.a. ' "the written word" ("It is written...") is a tradition that was started with Christianity. The demand for physical proof was one aspect of Greek philosophy the romans inherited, and the Christians took over the Roman empire.

Earlier Greek philosophers wrestled with ideas that could be proved and could not be proved. Many of their arguments (if you read Greek philosophy) were uncannily like Vedantic philosophy or crude renditions of that. Plato in his book "Republic' dreamed of a nation/republic where thinkers and writers would not be allowed to write about things that could not be seen and felt or "known" in this physical world. That meant that Greek Gods with their supernatural powers were not to be believed as real because no power known to human could do those things. So those Gods would be declared "irrational". This was a self goal of an idea by a Greek philosopher because it was ultimately used by Christians against the Romans and by the Protestants against Catholics. What we have inherited today is a Protestant version of verifying the truth (but I digress)

The Christians initially did two things. They wrote about Jesus Christ's life and since it was a written record by human hands it was "truth". Because Christs' life as written was "the truth" all the Greek beliefs had to be discarded as untruth. In fact a lot of Greek texts were simply destroyed in the same friendly way as the later followers of Islam. But these original Christians were Catholics. Then came the Protestants. Now they took "rationality and credibility" even further. They drew a line with Jesus Christ. they said "Everything in the Bible, miracles and all, are true" but miracles that came later (as believed by Catholics) are not true.

Everything after Christ was "written down" by "chroniclers" or "historians" so it was all true true true. everything that came earlier was false false false.

This version of "What has physical proof" and "what does not have physical proof" lasted 1800 years before the first crisis came. In the 1800s German "Assyrilologists" in the Levant started finding ruins and even texts that were older than their 2000 year old history of Christ. This upset them greatly and in fact Nazis were among the people (along with Brits and others who agreed with them) that this could not be right. How could the hated Semites, the ancestors of Jews have "Hard archaeological evidence", "physical evidence" that was older than Europe's Christian past?

Relief came in the form of the conquest of India and the "discovery" of the Rig Veda. Suddenly Sanskrit became the mother language. The Brahmins they met, fair skinned initially (maybe Afghanistan/Punjab) were their long lost European brothers. But soon this theory had to die. How could the black Brahmins of Bengal be their brothers? So the search began for the "Uhreimat" the original land of the Vedas. In general the Europeans pointed to Scandinavia with blue eyes and blond hair. This was not just Nazis, but the British too.

The discovery of Mitanni treaties and Kikkuli horse trainning manuals in a Sanskrit clone language gave "hard evidence" to the Europeans that Sanskrit started in Europe, went to Syria for 100-200 years before vanishing completely and then went on to India. Via Iran

The important thing here for our discussion is that there is now "hard evidence" or "concrete proof" in the form of the Mittanni treaties that a Sanskrit like language was there in Syria in 1800 BC. There is no earlier "hard evidence" in India just as you and gyan have averred. Sanskrit had already been dated to 1500 BC with no proof at all. If you take "hard proof" Sanskrit in India has existed only from 600 AD. But Prakrits were there in Ashoka's time in 300 BC. So the 1500 BC date for Rig Veda is most certainly wrong. But there is no "hard evidence". No "concrete proof"

So now history has been written for us by the West. Indo european languages started somewhere in Eurasia. Why? Because there is "hard evidence" of horses and wheels and all Indo European languages have common words for wheel and axle. Therefore the language must have come from central Asia.No hard evidence of labguage - but extrapolation from archaeology. But when did it arise? Well No "hard evidence" except for a Sanskrit like language in Syria (Mitanni treaties)

Therefore we say 'The mother of Sanskrit was born in Eurasia with horses and wheels. It went to Syria and left "hard evidence' as the Mitanni texts. It then went to India. there is no 'hard evidence" in India. Sanskrit is simply given a date of 1500 BC.

If you look for hard evidence, DO NOT struggle against AIT. it is all known, discovered and "written"

If you are willing to deduce from the existing evidence in the absence of hard evidence, then welcome to the club
Last edited by shiv on 27 Oct 2016 21:44, edited 2 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32465
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2016 19:11

And as a corollary to my long post above I would like to add:

It is because of the lack of "hard, concrete evidence" that ancient Indian texts are all mythology, while the histories of Europe are all true chronicles.

Pre history used to be prior to the time before Christ but because of "hard evidence" in the Levant proving the old testament. Anything before 2000 BC is simply mythology conjecture. Ancient Indian science and astronomy was random, like monkeys on typewriter producing Romeo and Juliet by random chance.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2687
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 27 Oct 2016 21:20

Excellent posts, Shiv.

I would like to add. All other things being equal, the exact same piece of "evidence" (e.g. some writing on a flexible piece of cellulose-fiber-based surface, be it papyrus or palm leaf) remains "hard" in a dry, arid land for much longer than it does in a lush, tropical, monsoon-blessed, life-filled land.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32465
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 27 Oct 2016 21:43

Rudradev wrote:Excellent posts, Shiv.

I would like to add. All other things being equal, the exact same piece of "evidence" (e.g. some writing on a flexible piece of cellulose-fiber-based surface, be it papyrus or palm leaf) remains "hard" in a dry, arid land for much longer than it does in a lush, tropical, monsoon-blessed, life-filled land.

Exactly the same holds true for bones - apart from the fact that a tradition of cremation and ash disposal in rivers has gone on a long time. Now at some future date if someone dredges the silt deep in the Bay of Bengal - one may find "hard evidence" of things that are myth today.

The words "believer" and "unbeliever" are so significant in this context. These concepts have been known for a long loooooong time

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4638
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 27 Oct 2016 22:04

Shiv: Thanks for the detailed response that gives me a much better understanding. But there is a disconnect between what you are considering and what was being implied in this context. To clarify it more I used Fossil record or Uranus examples which certainly are not human written records. There might be a psy-ops war out there with the pseudo-historians of Whitzel variety and other AIT supporters but that is not my concern in every discussion.

In the current context where we were talking of writing i.e. scripts, we have - just from my posts - (a) suggestion of why oral was preferred - for dissemination, multiple copies, no technology to do the same otherwise (b) references to different scripts in Jain/Budhdhist stories on Mahavira and Budhdha. (c) logically, a complex language and complex ECC without writing doesnt seem likely

Thus the implication was that there is evolution of writing. We have two end points - let us say - IV seals which are undeciphered and the Brahmi around 400BC in Anuradhapura. But there was certainly writing before. Mittani treaty afaik is in cuneiform though it uses Sanskrit terms and shows Indic influences. Thus it provides us an additional knowledge point - it shows us the influence of Indics in ancient times including on Egyption civilization, it shows another script used for Sanskrit and indicates that the language is much much older. It is a data point in out-of-india - how Indian influence spread all the way out to Syria and beyond.

So this 'hard evidence' is great - it gives us more information that we would have had otherwise. It in no way says there was no other script or evolution or thinking in Indian regions. Sure there will be others who will use it to spin it their way. So what? This evidence is an interesting clue that must fit into the overall inferences we derive from indirect and other direct evidences. It has to tie with human migratory evidence too using DNA markers, it has to tie with other evidence that might surface. Who says that there is no rock edict in Brahmi in the vast areas of IV domain waiting to be discovered or another one to be found in TN/Andhra where so much has been found. And if there is none - so be it. We will find other clues - hard and derived over time and continue our knowledge quest. The psy-ops guys will do their worse let them. We have lived through the worst already.

So the christian emphasis on written record does not dissuade me from the excitement of finding a more direct evidence. It gives me additional clues and knowledge. Carbon dating, form of inscription, if deciphered what is written, where was it found etc. are all data points in painting the whole picture. In parallel multiple sources of indirect evidence provide us other data points too.

Yes, it is harder to find physical evidence in some areas. Deserts or the arctic will preserve but hot tropics or temperate climates will not be as kind. Burial will preserve more than burning. Thus that makes physical evidence even more exciting - it will be rarer but will validate or invalidate some findings and will provide additional pointers. We have been finding a lot of buried cities of IV. Finding submerged ancient dwarka - that is hard evidence beyond references to the city. It now provides us with a lot more to investigate.

Those with ulterior motives might spin it their way - that danger will always exist but we can ignore it in search of 'purer' knowledge.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32465
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 28 Oct 2016 09:19

Yayavar wrote:
In the current context where we were talking of writing i.e. scripts, we have - just from my posts - (a) suggestion of why oral was preferred - for dissemination, multiple copies, no technology to do the same otherwise (b) references to different scripts in Jain/Budhdhist stories on Mahavira and Budhdha. (c) logically, a complex language and complex ECC without writing doesnt seem likely


There are probably dozens of aphorisms to describe what I have in my mind.
I will start with two that I can recall to try and make the point I want to make, although it does count as rhetoric

1. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it is a duck
2. Paraphrasing Conan Doyle/Holmes: "When you have looked at all possibilities and ruled them out, what remains, however improbable, is the answer"

What I am trying to get at is summarized in these bullet points
  • The Vedas are self-described as "sounds", not text to be written
  • Accurate intonation/sounds/meter are important for the Vedas and cannot be transmitted by written text
  • An extraordinary amount of effort has gone into making them accurately transmitted orally from generation to generation
  • No evidence exists of their having been written down or transmitted by writing. Error correction methods are all oral, none call for writing
  • The "youngest" dates for the Vedas (accepted by gora scholars whose truths most of us subscribe to) is older than 1200 BC (>3200 years old). Dates that can be gleaned from within the Vedas go as far back as 8000 BC
  • The oldest written texts available anywhere in the world are about 4500 years old - small seals/fragments
  • The Vedas have 10,600 verses. It is difficult to believe that a body of literature that is so large would have left no written evidence unless they were not meant to be transmitted in writing which is the exact truth of the Vedas
The Vedas do not need writing for transmission or for error correction. Just like music: I would guess that 99% of all music that is taught is done without any written error correction. Yet music knowledge is transmitted well without text. Writing is unnecessary for certain types of information transmission. It is a projection bias error to assume that writing is always necessary and must have existed before the Vedas

So here I call into question your premise quoted below and accuse you of starting with a bias by saying:
logically, a complex language and complex ECC without writing doesn't seem likely

You are applying what you see as logic without asking if your premise is itself wrong in assuming that error correction is not possible without writing.

Yayavar wrote:Thus the implication was that there is evolution of writing. We have two end points - let us say - IV seals which are undeciphered and the Brahmi around 400BC in Anuradhapura. But there was certainly writing before. Mittani treaty afaik is in cuneiform though it uses Sanskrit terms and shows Indic influences. Thus it provides us an additional knowledge point - it shows us the influence of Indics in ancient times including on Egyption civilization, it shows another script used for Sanskrit and indicates that the language is much much older. It is a data point in out-of-india - how Indian influence spread all the way out to Syria and beyond.


I have no doubt whatsoever that writing has evolved - but in this context that does not interest me simply because it is a mistake to link up "Vedas" with "writing" I believe it is necessary to make a mental leap to consider that knowledge, analysis and transmission of information could have been invented by humans and used long before the idea of writing. In fact, aid to memory and calculation like counting on fingers to keep in time and gestures to indicate timbre and meter are muscle memory used for ECC. Try and explain the words timber and meter out of a dictionary/written text?

Let me just add something I said long ago. Writing is a formula for forgetting. But explaining that is a different subject

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4638
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 28 Oct 2016 11:25

I think we have spoken to different things though there is overlap.

One can remove Veda - Rigveda to be precise - from the context and still discuss writing and benefit or non-benefit of hard-evidence. One can argue that the basis of ECC or other rules could all be derived, applied and done orally.
But even with that one can discuss evolution of writing, indirect inferences and benefits of hard-evidence. If the objection is to findin 'hard evidence' wrt Rigveda that was not proposed at all.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4072
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 11 Nov 2016 17:21

Oo La La !

Light Skin Oiropeans' skin colour stems from ONE Ancestor Lived Between India and Middle East 10000 Years Ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... s-ago.html

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1365
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

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

Postby wig » 23 Dec 2016 11:50

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 131715.cms

5,000 years ago, clay was 'plastic': Expert
Before plastic, there was clay. Demonetisation may have made you more dependent on your debit or credit cards for your everyday buys, but such a system was a way of life 5,000 years ago -during the Harappan civilization. So says Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, one of the world's most reputable experts in Harappan civilization. .
Texts from ancient Mesopotamia have recorded accounts of earthen tablets being used to conduct trade with the Harappan civilization, like credit cards. Kenoyer, delivering a lecture at the Indian Museum on Thursday , said the system was borne out of necessity -just as you use plastic money in order to avoid dealing with large volumes of cash, or because you may not have all the cash you require right then. .
In essence, a debit or credit card bears information about a bank account. When it is swiped by a merchant, it extracts a payment promise from the bank."The trade volume between Mesopotamia and Harappa was huge, and would have required tonnes of copper to mint coins. But they used a sy stem of earthen tablets that contained seals of both civilizations, and were a token of credit," claimed Kenoyer, who teaches at the department of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Just like your credit card, it seems. Kenoyer said a Japanese team has discovered three unusual round pendants of baked clay in Kanmer near Dholavira, Gujarat. "Since the same seal was on all three tablets, it indicated they served as a passport for travellers between different regions," he said.
Kenoyer's journey into Harappan civilization also has a Bengal connect. Shell bangles that many married women wear in Bengal also adorned Ha rappan women. The thickness of the bangles indicated social hierarchy . In 1982, Kenoyer travelled extensively through Bishnupur and Barrackpore, where the shell bangle industry continues with the Harappan tradition.
Amar jutoe Harappar mati Park Street e eshe laglo (The shoes that I am wearing are laced with earth from Harappa)," Kenoyer said, his lucid Bengali drawing gasps. He said he picked up the language as a kid at Shillong, his birthplace.
The Harappan Gallery at the museum has been shut for 16 years. "We will reopen the gallery shortly ," said Sayan Bhattacharya, education officer, Indian Museum.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14976
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 01 Jan 2017 11:41

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/25/celebrate-dna-day-with-genographic-join-search-and-learn/


Celebrate DNA Day with Genographic! Join, Search and Learn
Posted by Miguel Vilar on April 25, 2016

Join us at National Geographic in wishing every past, current, and future Genographic Project participant a Happy DNA Day!

Sixty-three years ago today a ground-breaking paper was published that introduced us to the double helix and revealed the structure of DNA, catapulting forward the field of genetics. The scientific world never looked back.

Eleven years ago this month, National Geographic launched the Genographic Project. This project brought the capability of personal genetics to the household and introduced everyone to the terms mitochondria, Y chromosome, and haplogroup. Nearly three-quarters of a million people have since joined the project, learning about their own haplogroup and their personal genetic story, helping us push science even further ahead. That science can now use your help!


A few months ago, we opened the Genographic Project database to researchers and genealogists to help us analyze the thousands of anonymous DNA results. The product of that research is now starting to come in.





Image

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Neshant » 01 Jan 2017 14:32

On a galactic scale, the movements of people on this tiny marble called Earth is almost zero.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1547
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 03 Jan 2017 01:48

My public talk at the Press club of India, New Delhi (courtesy: Srijan Foundation)

https://youtu.be/RedV48OCEFg

ashbhee
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:05

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

Postby ashbhee » 29 Jan 2017 20:08

This is what Epigrapher Bryan Wells says about Indologists Steve Farmer and Michael Witzel in this article. I love this guy.

“You would be better off getting medical advice from your garbage man than you would getting ideas about the Indus script from listening to Steve Farmer,” says Wells.

Wells compares fact-checking Farmer to fact-checking Donald Trump. “You have to fact-check every single thing he says because it’s mostly wrong.”

Wells would show Witzel a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Ten reasons you don’t know what you’re talking about” while in the back of a cab.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/25/14371 ... orithms-ai

vanand
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 52
Joined: 12 Apr 2011 13:19

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

Postby vanand » 31 Jan 2017 23:24

I find out this URL the author says there are anthropological evidence that show population of Gujarat is composed of more or less the same ethnic groups as are noticed at Lothal in 2000 BC
http://www.sol.com.au/kor/16_01.htm

The below URLs is also interesting
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_inva ... coffin.htm
http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/ ... n-theories
http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/f ... ad;id=1040

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15949
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 02 Mar 2017 16:09

The Traditional Epoch of Yudhishthira Era and Mahabharata War

By Vedveer Arya Image

LINK

Mahabharata War started on 25th Oct 3162 BCE.


Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4072
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 02 Apr 2017 17:05

Genetics and the Aryan Debate
By Michel Danino

http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/ ... yan-debate

Priceless Golden Nuggets:

“We found an extensive deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.”


“The supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000–4,000 years before present therefore did not make a major splash in the Indian gene pool. This is especially counter-indicated by the presence of equal, though very low, frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’ — that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.”


This shows, once again, that “the Indian maternal gene pool has come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late Pleistocene.” The authors then studied the “U” haplogroup, finding its frequency to be 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24% from Europe to Anatolia; but, in their opinion, “Indian and western Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened after the corresponding splits.” In other words, there is a genetic connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than was thought.


Another important point is that looking at mtDNA as a whole, “even the high castes share more than 80 per cent of their maternal lineages with the lower castes and tribals”; this obviously runs counter to the invasionist thesis. Taking all aspects into consideration, the authors conclude: “We believe that there are now enough reasons not only to question a ‘recent Indo-Aryan invasion’ into India some 4000 BP, but alternatively to consider India as a part of the common gene pool ancestral to the diversity of human maternal lineages in Europe.” Mark the word “ancestral.”

johb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 20:00

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

Postby johb » 13 Apr 2017 07:03

This needs a strong response
Who is this Shoaib Daniyal
https://scroll.in/article/737715/fact-c ... -was-syria

Aarvee
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 07:43

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

Postby Aarvee » 13 Apr 2017 10:15


KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 214
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

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

Postby KL Dubey » 13 Apr 2017 10:18

All good points only, except:

shiv wrote:
[*]The "youngest" dates for the Vedas (accepted by gora scholars whose truths most of us subscribe to) is older than 1200 BC (>3200 years old). Dates that can be gleaned from within the Vedas go as far back as 8000 BC


The Veda has no internal dating in it since it does not and cannot contain any historical statements at all.

KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 214
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

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

Postby KL Dubey » 13 Apr 2017 10:24

peter wrote:
shiv wrote:...The exact origins of Sanskrit, which interest me are still murky and I will continue to work on that - but effort put in to diss linguists is wasted effort because linguistic theories about language connected with AIT are dead. Further arguments about "How to argue against Invasionsists" is a waste fo time IMO


The Sanskrit language originated from thousands of years of attempts by the Indians to make something intelligible out of the mass of Vedic 'data' accumulated. This would include reproduction, cataloging, pattern analysis, and finally etymology (assigning meanings). A small set of the products of these efforts still remains with us in the form of pratishakhyas, nirukta-nighantu, etc. This activity completely disappeared among the Indians in the last 2000 years, probably due to the lack of technology (informatics, data sciences) to go beyond what could be done "manually". In the last 150 years, the most well-known attempts to 'understand' the meaning of the Veda' are from these damn Indologists (AIT, AMT, OIT etc) who see history and geography in the Veda.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2652
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 13 Apr 2017 11:28

So how does one explain that Russian and other Balto-Slavic languages sound so much like Sanskrit and also have so many common words ? Indo-European?

KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 214
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

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

Postby KL Dubey » 14 Apr 2017 09:12

Dipanker wrote:So how does one explain that Russian and other Balto-Slavic languages sound so much like Sanskrit and also have so many common words ? Indo-European?


Don't be obtuse. You know the answer and it has been explained already before. One more time and I will have to place you on the ignore list.

Other languages contain corrupted versions of Sanskrit words, originally gained during "out of india" diffusion of Sanskrit (and many other inventions/discoveries arising from Indians trying to make sense of the Veda and exploit it for human needs).

Meanwhile Sanskrit itself continued to evolve within India. The so-called "Vedic Sanskrit" (the language of the brahmanas and Upanishads) is the earliest Sanskrit that is usable for daily parlance. It is the language 'discovered' by humans from the Veda. After that we can assign names such as Late Vedic Sanskrit, Epic Sanskrit, Classical Sanskrit, and modern Sanskrit (containing neologisms required for modern parlance).

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 14 Apr 2017 12:21

Anybody having any information on the possible dates when the paper on Rakhi garhi DNA will be out

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20086
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 22 Apr 2017 06:54

http://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/04/20/aryan-ma ... -they-did/
Aryan Marauders From The Steppe Came To India, Yes They Did!

Same old crap by Abrahamics experts.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4944
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 22 Apr 2017 08:03

Prem wrote:http://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/04/20/aryan-marauders-from-the-steppe-came-to-india-yes-they-did/
Aryan Marauders From The Steppe Came To India, Yes They Did!

Same old crap by Abrahamics experts.


We already know that ANI isn't indigenous to the subcontinent.

What you have to pay attention to is the dating.

If it goes past 1700 BC, OIT wins b/c it means our Vedic culture went out after ANI established itself.

Remember, there are no Hittite loan words in the old books. They are only found in the new books.

Razib Khan unknowingly demolishes AIT with this:

In sum, the balance of evidence suggests male mediated migration into South Asia from Central Asia on the order of ~4-5,000 years ago.


"Maurader" believing idiots depend on the 1700 BC date for AIT. They always forget it though.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 747
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 24 Apr 2017 05:12

I think the debate of AMT/OOI is more complicated than simple 'either or' scenario. I definitely lean towards OOI, though it is hard to substantiate non-Persian migration out of Indian subcontinent.

Now, the two decisive elements of data that need to be analyzed are these :

1. The Brahmanas make it clear that the Rig Veda is composed in 'Brahmavarta' and 'Brahmavarta' is defined as a region of Northern/North-eastern Rajasthan. That is the territory that would border Kuru, Matsya, Panchala and Surasena janapadas and would also lie between Saraswati & Drishadvati. Brahmavarta is also called the holiest region of Aryavarta.
Now, interestingly enough, this is also location of two very interesting sites of the Indus Valley Civilization: Bhirrana and Rakhigarhi. Bhirrana is the oldest pre-IVC site found in the region, pre-dating Mehrgarh by 500-1000 years. Rakhigarhi is also the oldest **and** largest 'mega-city' of the Indus Valley : it is older than Mohenjo-Daro by a solid 1000 years and its bigger than Mohenjo Daro by 30%

So it is interesting, that the region of Rig vedic composition/holiest site of the Vedic world' and the origin point of Indus Valley both align so neatly to each other.


2. The Persians show a clear east-to-west movement in their history. Though it is patchy and we rely on Greek records of early Persians, what is clear, is that the Achaemenid dynasty is mentioned to've first ruled the city of Anshan only and much later ( 2-3 generations before Cyrus the great) to've also included Fars region. This is also borne out of archaeology, where the Elamite civilization shows 'shortening' around its eastern portion, with the western portion surviving another few hundred years. Now, Anshan is in Kerman, close to Baluchistan (Iranian part). This clearly shows an east-to-west movement of the Persians, who are originally from the Helmand valley region (as the Greek mention the Persians going west and taking over Anshan), who move west , progressively first to Kerman, then to Fars, which they make their 'home base'.


However, how do we justify the spread of Indo-European languages in northern Eurasia, is a mystery, as we have very little evidence of OOI going in the direction of central Asia. The only 'smoking gun' we have, is that of the city of Shortugai, an IVC site found on the Amu Darya in Afghanistan-Tajikistan border region, that is a relatively new IVC city and shows the first decisive archaeological evidence of civilization crossing the Hindu Kush, only in this case, its from south to north.
Last edited by SriJoy on 24 Apr 2017 23:53, edited 1 time in total.

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1944
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 24 Apr 2017 23:46

SriJoy: read Talageri or watch his 3 videos on YouTube

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 747
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 24 Apr 2017 23:52

Prem Kumar wrote:SriJoy: read Talageri or watch his 3 videos on YouTube


Thank you, sir.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9563
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Apr 2017 06:23


Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9749
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 30 Apr 2017 00:11

SriJoy wrote:1. The Brahmanas make it clear that the Rig Veda is composed in 'Brahmavarta' and 'Brahmavarta' is defined as a region of Northern/North-eastern Rajasthan. .


Reference for the above claim please.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 747
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 30 Apr 2017 00:16

Vayutuvan wrote:
SriJoy wrote:1. The Brahmanas make it clear that the Rig Veda is composed in 'Brahmavarta' and 'Brahmavarta' is defined as a region of Northern/North-eastern Rajasthan. .


Reference for the above claim please.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavarta

This is the only reference i could find. It doesn't say explicitly that the region of Brahmavarta = northern/north-eastern Rajasthan, but by saying this area is 'adjacent' to Kuru, Matsya, Panchala and Surasena, who's locations we know with fair degree of accuracy, it makes it an arc of North & North-east Rajasthan.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atmavik, Chinmay, chola, Iyersan, Jayan Menon, L Ram and 59 guests