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

[Lalmohan]

and the bible was a group think editorial effort over some time where a lot of 'unhelpful' material was just left out...
plenty of what is in the bible as ROL/ROG* was already prevalent amongst the cultures of the mid east


* Guilt

[csaurabh]

So what exactly is 'Indo-European' about a language like English? It seems to have almost no Sanskrit content at all. It's grammer is totally rigid ( unlike Indian languages in which sentences can be written in many different ways ), orthographically shallow (eg. no and know have the same pronunciation ), non phonetic script, lots of ambiguous words and illogical rules.

On those criteria Dravidian languages score much better.

IMO the British made really good use of the AIT to tell the Indians - hey look, we are like the original Aryan invaders, so that's all good. But this was not based on any facts at all. We know this, even those of us who know English very well, that deep down English is really alien to India, 'Indo-European' or otherwise.

[shiv]

and the bible was a group think editorial effort over some time where a lot of 'unhelpful' material was just left out...
plenty of what is in the bible as ROL/ROG* was already prevalent amongst the cultures of the mid east


* Guilt

Looking at it from the lens of objectivity and archaeological evidence. there is no evidence that a Jesus Christ ever existed. The oldest copy of the Bible dates from 400 years after the man allegedly lived his life. His date of birth is acknowledged fake, and that 3 stars business stretches credulity.

But it is supposed to be beyond question..

The point really is - if you can accept the Bible as true document then older Indian traditions and narratives are equally true. One must not be allowed to be discarded and derided while the other is taken as, well, gospel. Even the language is weighted in such a way that Gospel=truth in the same way as Islam=peace.

Talk about mental conditioning..

[Lalmohan]

to be fair to the ROL scholars, there is an increasing body that says 'the christ of history =/= the christ of the bible'; there seems to be some evidence for the existence of jesus the nazarene, and there is a lot more for his disciples, e.g. st peter appears to have been actually found (he's under the vatican); of course whether he did what is claimed is highly debatable, especially since many of the 'miracles' are traditional stories that have done the rounds of the middle east for many years and are documented elsewhere...

[shiv]

So what exactly is 'Indo-European' about a language like English? It seems to have almost no Sanskrit content at all. It's grammer is totally rigid ( unlike Indian languages in which sentences can be written in many different ways ), non phonetic script, lots of ambiguous words and illogical rules.

On those criteria Dravidian languages score much better.

That is exactly the point. In order to claim a great ancient history for European languages, a connection must be made with Sanskrit. That connection is made by claiming the existence of a very very ve-ery old mother language called "Proto Indo European" (PIE in the sky?)from which Sanskrit and all European languages have descended. Now that this old old language has been conjured up, everyone is cooking up proof for that hypothetical language.

Now they are not bothered so much about the grammar because lingusists have cooked up rules at ever step. the amount of cooking up is extraordinary and all based on conjecture that even linguists and students of linguistics are not convinced.

[shiv]

to be fair to the ROL scholars, there is an increasing body that says 'the christ of history =/= the christ of the bible'; there seems to be some evidence for the existence of jesus the nazarene, and there is a lot more for his disciples, e.g. st peter appears to have been actually found (he's under the vatican); of course whether he did what is claimed is highly debatable, especially since many of the 'miracles' are traditional stories that have done the rounds of the middle east for many years and are documented elsewhere...

Like the shia-sunni divide, the catholic-protestant divide starts here. I think you are giving the Protestant viewpoint

[A_Gupta]

Some skeletal remains from Rakhigarhi are in the process of being analyzed for DNA by an Indian-South Korean collaboration. Results, if any, are due by August.
Any predictions on what they will find?

PS: news-item link:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/haryan ... 67080.html

[csaurabh]

So what exactly is 'Indo-European' about a language like English? It seems to have almost no Sanskrit content at all. It's grammer is totally rigid ( unlike Indian languages in which sentences can be written in many different ways ), non phonetic script, lots of ambiguous words and illogical rules.

On those criteria Dravidian languages score much better.

That is exactly the point. In order to claim a great ancient history for European languages, a connection must be made with Sanskrit. That connection is made by claiming the existence of a very very ve-ery old mother language called "Proto Indo European" (PIE in the sky?)from which Sanskrit and all European languages have descended. Now that this old old language has been conjured up, everyone is cooking up proof for that hypothetical language.

Now they are not bothered so much about the grammar because lingusists have cooked up rules at ever step. the amount of cooking up is extraordinary and all based on conjecture that even linguists and students of linguistics are not convinced.

As far as the origin of Sanskrit is concerned, we already have an explanation from our texts. The Vedic rishis did meditations, and 'heard' the cosmic sounds of the universe, which they chanted, and these sounds came to be interpreted as Vedic Sanskrit. This passed into common language and was further refined when Panini came up with his Ashtadhyayi and formalized the rules of language. And since then, Sanskrit has been used for every literary activity as well as 'religious' activities.

This is MUCH more reasonable than some horse riding Aryans arriving from Central Asia or Iran or 'PIE' speakers in Europe. The latter just sounds nonsensical now.

I think we also need to analyze the other two language families in India at some point - the 'Australo-Asiatic' languages ( central India tribes ) and 'Tibeto-Burman' languages ( tribes of North East ). I think there's probably a good deal of Sanskritic content in those as well.

[Pulikeshi]

Any predictions on what they will find?

^^^Definitely alien!

It is going to be a long hard fought battle this one - several generations will be lost on this...
don't bet on one data point!

[shiv]

Some skeletal remains from Rakhigarhi are in the process of being analyzed for DNA by an Indian-South Korean collaboration. Results, if any, are due by August.
Any predictions on what they will find?

Indian genes so far are very clear.
1. There are unique subcontinental features that extend from Afghanistan to the peninsula and to the east
2. There is a clear mix of two broad sets of ancestral genes in all Indians though proportions vary. But thye mix is there in Indians and not in Europeans or central Asians or for that matter east Asians
3. Everything suggests that this mix took place more than 10-12,000 years ago

As regards Harappa - it was a civilization that started about 6000 years ago and lasted about 2000 years. The timeline does not in any way create any surprises for the expected genetic picture - because the "Indian subcontinent" has been peopled for very long and the Saraswati river that hosts the Harappan civilization gets prominent mention in Indian tradition.

Chances are that the skeletons will simply show Indian genes.

If the genetic material is more than 5000 years old and not clearly Indian it might show genes of visitors, travellers, traders or even raiders that have known links with Harappa - and that is Tajikistan/Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Oman, Arabia

Whatever the genetic picture of any remains, the current genetic picture of Indian cannot change and the current picture does not support any AIT as envisioned by linguists. I think we are beyond that.

Whatever is found will be disputed.

[A_Gupta]

Whatever is found will be disputed.

Now that is a prophecy!

[svenkat]

to be fair to the ROL scholars, there is an increasing body that says 'the christ of history =/= the christ of the bible'; there seems to be some evidence for the existence of jesus the nazarene, and there is a lot more for his disciples, e.g. st peter appears to have been actually found (he's under the vatican); of course whether he did what is claimed is highly debatable, especially since many of the 'miracles' are traditional stories that have done the rounds of the middle east for many years and are documented elsewhere...

OT:Theres no evidence whatsoever for jesus and much less for 'st peter'

[JE Menon]

Slowly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbh5-GkGeMM (Mata Amritanandamayi at Stanford)

Slowly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS3_v2nBoAk (Swami Sadhguru at Stanford) - watch in particular between 1:07 hrs and 1:15 hrs, specifically the very first question at question time and his answer. Billiant phrase about "synthetic leadership"!!!

Out of India is not just from the past.

[A_Gupta]

https://www.genomeweb.com/microarrays-m ... oups-india

"A study appearing online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests present-day populations in India may carry twice as many distinct ancestral components as previously estimated.

Based on array-based genotyping data for hundreds of individuals from 20 populations on mainland India and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands — including representatives from diverse tribal populations — researchers from India they concluded that populations on their mainland are descended from at least four main ancestral groups.

"Our study … has provided a more robust explanation of the genomic diversities and affinities among extant populations on the Indian subcontinent, elucidating in finer detail the peopling of the region," senior author Partha Majumder, a researcher affiliated with the National Institute of BioMedical Genetics and the Indian Statistical Institute's Human Genetics Unit, and co-authors wrote.

Based on these findings, the study's authors argued that prior genetic research — in particular, a 2009 study by researchers in the US and India describing Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian groups — underestimated the number of ancestral components comprising current populations in India."

PS:
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594.abstract

India, occupying the center stage of Paleolithic and Neolithic migrations, has been underrepresented in genome-wide studies of variation. Systematic analysis of genome-wide data, using multiple robust statistical methods, on (i) 367 unrelated individuals drawn from 18 mainland and 2 island (Andaman and Nicobar Islands) populations selected to represent geographic, linguistic, and ethnic diversities, and (ii) individuals from populations represented in the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP), reveal four major ancestries in mainland India. This contrasts with an earlier inference of two ancestries based on limited population sampling. A distinct ancestry of the populations of Andaman archipelago was identified and found to be coancestral to Oceanic populations. Analysis of ancestral haplotype blocks revealed that extant mainland populations (i) admixed widely irrespective of ancestry, although admixtures between populations was not always symmetric, and (ii) this practice was rapidly replaced by endogamy about 70 generations ago, among upper castes and Indo-European speakers predominantly. This estimated time coincides with the historical period of formulation and adoption of sociocultural norms restricting intermarriage in large social strata. A similar replacement observed among tribal populations was temporally less uniform.

Quoting from the abstract and the main paper:

"Analysis of ancestral haplotype blocks revealed that extant mainland populations (i) admixed widely irrespective of ancestry, although admixtures between populations was not always symmetric, and (ii) this practice was rapidly replaced by endogamy about 70 generations ago, among upper castes and Indo-European speakers predominantly. "

"We have inferred that the practice of endogamy was established almost simultaneously, possibly by decree of the rulers, in upper-caste populations of all geographical regions, about 70 generations before present, probably during the reign (319–550 CE) of the ardent Hindu Gupta rulers. The time of establishment of endogamy among tribal populations was less uniform."

[shiv]

https://www.genomeweb.com/microarrays-m ... oups-india

After a brief read of original paper at url below
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594.full

ASI/ANI ancestry not disputed, but adds what is missing. Indian populations also have a mix of what they call "Austro-Asiatic speaker" genes (from central Indian populations including Gonds) and "Tibeto-Burman" populations from East India.

Northern, western and Southern Indian populations have mainly ANI/ASI mix with a definite percentage of AustroAsiatic genes - seen in Gujarat, Maharashtra, and peninsular India apart from central India. Both Far East Tibeto Burmans and Central India Austro Asiatic have some ANI/ASI mix. But to my eyes it appears that the ANI/ASI mix is predominant all across India as shown in the Reich paper.

Jati rigidity in mixing started about 1500 years ago in Gupta empire long long loooong after imagined Aryan invasion. No connection whatsoever.

[Prem Kumar]

Shiv: I think Reich is a Western AIT snake. He tried to challenge the Gupta-period claim by saying that "time period of each generation was underestimated". He wants that date closer to 1200 BC

[RajeshA]

Quoting from the abstract and the main paper:

"Analysis of ancestral haplotype blocks revealed that extant mainland populations (i) admixed widely irrespective of ancestry, although admixtures between populations was not always symmetric, and (ii) this practice was rapidly replaced by endogamy about 70 generations ago, among upper castes and Indo-European speakers predominantly. "

"We have inferred that the practice of endogamy was established almost simultaneously, possibly by decree of the rulers, in upper-caste populations of all geographical regions, about 70 generations before present, probably during the reign (319–550 CE) of the ardent Hindu Gupta rulers. The time of establishment of endogamy among tribal populations was less uniform."

Imperial Guptas ruled from Pāṭaliputra from 335 BCE to 92 BCE.

Around 319-550 CE we had other dynasties:

Pāramara, Chāhamānas, Pālas, Kalachuris, Chalukyas, Silāhāras, Senas, etc.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ not the Maurya, but the Gupta empire:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire

[RajeshA]

^^^ not the Maurya, but the Gupta empire:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire

I request all here to read Vedveer Arya's book regarding Indian chronology. There is a high-level of clarity about the exact dates after 1189 BCE, which is considered as the Mahavira-Nirvāṇa Era.

Maurya Era is

* 1516 BCE - 1217 BCE, as per Vedveer Arya, and

* 1534 BCE - 1218 BCE, as per Kota Venkatachelam.

[shiv]

Shiv: I think Reich is a Western AIT snake. He tried to challenge the Gupta-period claim by saying that "time period of each generation was underestimated". He wants that date closer to 1200 BC

Actually most genetics researchers are AIT promoters because AIT is established as something that actually happened by historians and linguists. The only genetics papers that are against AIT are the ones that specifically state that their findings are against AIT. It is up to us to follow up research and show what is wrong and what is right.

Genetics researchers do not give a flying fuk about the truth or otherwise of AIT. Only we care, so its up to us. If a researcher supports AIT but his findings go against it (as Reic's paper) then it is up to us to point that out.

I think we need to recall what is meant by AIT when genetics or archaeology papers talk about it. AIT means that Indo European language conquerors/migrants carrying language came from North and west to India via Iran and then settled in Punjab to create RiG Veda by 1200 BC. These migrants then created the caste system to keep themselves pure. So caste system and Rig Veda are dated to about 1200 BC

Given the vast amount of genetic work that has gone on I think every single one of us should be able to make a bullet points list of things that disprove AIT. I want to add here that I dislike the term ASI and ANI. I actually wrote to the authors a year or two ago but they did not reply. Be that as it may, it is clear that Indians show a unique set of "Indian genes" that are spread all over India - i.e from Pashtunistan via Pakistan to east and South India. There is almost no admixture of current Central Asian or European genes in this Indian gene soup, and the gene soup itself dates back to about 10 to 12000 years or more. It is important to note that this "gene soup" contains some genes from tribals like Onge and Andamanese which are present even in North India including Punjab, the proportion is less than in South India. Even in South India there are all these unique Ancestral North Indian genes present in Kashmiris and Pashtuns - but in smaller percentages. If you go west and north into Iran, Central Asia and Europe, you do not find these Indian genes. there are genes in Europe and central Asia that have developed in the last 5000 years and they have not come to India. That only means that there has been no significant migration in the last 5000 years to support an invasion of "Aryans" starting 3200 years ago.

There is a further spoke in the AIT wheel here. Those who insist on claiming that an AIT took place 3200 years ago wil not be able to explain how Indian Tribal genes got into Pashtuns and how "ANI genes got into deep south after 1200 BC (3200 years ago) if the caste system was set up at that time. If the caste system was not set up at that time but only the Rig Veda existed then there is no connection between caste and Rig Veda.

For those who claim that AIT occurred earlier, the Saraswati question comes up. Even today there is a link to Saraswati drying up 4000 years ago (2000 BC) (will post later). So Saraswati was Harappan/pre-Harappan. That means Rig Veda was Harappan/pre-Harappan. That means Sanskrit could not have come in 1200 BC and is older than Mitanni texts of 1800 BC and Avestan of 1200 BC (as per AIT theory). If Rig Veda was created and kept by Brahmins and Brahmins created caste system - we now have 2 genetics papers that say caste system is 1500 years old. But Rig Veda is 3200 years old as per AIT people and actually much older than 2000 BC looking at other proof.

If Caste system was created and preserved by Brahmins to maintain purity one also needs to look at the following genetics findings
1. Proportion of ANI genes is higher among Brahmins whether in South India or North India. But both South and North Indian Brahmins show a mix of unique ASI "Ancestral South Indian genes" - whose proportion is higher in Southern Brahmins and lower in northern Brahmins. In the far East of India the tribes people show "TibetoBurman genes" but Manipuri Brahmins show a mix of ancestral north Indian genes.
2. Practices related to a Vedic lifestyle go all the way to the far East of India. In fact even Witzels "Munda" (Tibetoburman language) speakers have a narrative of Deva defeating Asura

This suggests that the Vedic practices and Vedas developed around the Sapta Sindhu region. Even AIT people do not dispute this. Those Vedic practices were probably carried to the rest of India by people who carried old Ancestral North Indian genes from the Sapta Sindhu region. Tamil Iyers and Manipuri Brahmins show a high proportion of Ancestral North Indian genes, but Iyers have bigger ASI mix than in North and Manipuris have bigger TibetoBurman mix than North or South Indians. This could mean that Vedas were carried by men who intermarried locally but kept the tradition alive. That is not the caste system that we are taught. The caste system was made rigid only 1500 years ago. That means that there was free mixing before that, but the carriers of the Vedas mixed with local people in the South and East long before that.

I think we need to stop worrying about AIT and its supporters and start searching for true Indian history based on our own narratives and correlating that with science, archaeology and genetics in a sensible way. It is a waste of time fighting a dead AIT

[johneeG]

Ok, this is my current understanding or theory:

- Vedhik civilizations started in 2600 BCE in Saraswathi valley I.e Punjab, Haryana & Rajasthan.
- Then, it spread to Sindhu system I.e. Sindh & Gujarath around 2400 BCE.
- Then, it spread to Ganga system I.e UP, Bihar & Bengal around 2200 BCE. Another branch spread to Afghanistan, iran & syria. This branch called themselves Asuras or Assyrians.
- Then, Saraswathi dried up in 2100 BCE sparking migrations to south & west from Gujarath & Rajasthan. The first settlements in south near Trayambakeshwar on banks of Godavari by Gautama. Migrations from Gujarath to Iran & iraq. Wars between Indians (Dhevas) & Assyrians (Asuras). Mahabharatha written around this time during the last days of Saraswathi river.
- Then, settlement in deep south around 2000 BCE near kaveri by Agasthya. Ramayana written around this time. Vedhantha & Buddhism started in this period.

[RajeshA]

AIT-Model vs. OIT-Model

I think we need to stop worrying about AIT and its supporters and start searching for true Indian history based on our own narratives and correlating that with science, archaeology and genetics in a sensible way. It is a waste of time fighting a dead AIT

India has had several ethnic groups which were at the periphery of India, come into India and establish their own kingdoms here. This is something that everybody can agree upon. These have been Yavanas, Kambojas, Śakas, Huṇas, Kiratas, Tukhāras, Pārthavas, Parasikas, Turuṣkas, Ahom etc. I am restricting myself to pre-Islamic invasions.

Many are termed as Mlechchhas, which probably derives from "malina icchā", i.e. those "having dirty desires" or "base desires", meaning uncultured. In certain texts they are called as "degraded Kṣatriyas".

Indian texts refer to these tribes as being descendants of sons of Yayati, in the Chandravaṁṣī lineage, or as being born from the cow of Vaśiṣṭha, in both cases giving these both tribal and spiritual roots in Bharata. Some tribes however may indeed have had non-Bharatiya origins like the Turuṣkas.

Another point to remember is that as these tribes came to conquer Bharatiya land, it gave them the opportunity to reaffirm their Indian roots and beliefs and they became less 'Mlechchha' and more 'Arya'. When they were shunted out, they became less 'Arya' and more 'Mlechchha', even if they continue to formally claim themselves as 'Arya'.

It was always the proximity to Bharat which lent these tribes the privilege of calling themselves 'Arya', the noble and the civilized. Historically seen, there is no concept of 'Arya' which can exist independent of Bharat.

What we have are Bhāratiyas and Peripheral Bhāratiyas, and incidentally these Peripheral Bharatiyas have been quite successful in their own endeavors far from Indian shores, but that should not change the historical fact that their civilizational journey began in Bharat.

Now Bharat itself may have about 4 major ancestral populations, and the Peripheral Bharatiyas, themselves may share some part of this gene pool, in some variation, but may also have assimilated other gene pools away from Indian shores, both from other civilizations and other tribes, but they have still retained their tribal identities which point back to India.

So the migrations have mostly been Out-of-India for most of these tribes with occasional 'visits home' to replenish civilizational bonds to origin, possibly leaving behind some genetic trinkets they may have picked up elsewhere.

Question is what is there to fight about?

The model of AIT-Nazis is simply flawed. Better model (OIT-Model) is:

1. All Bharatiya and Peripheral Bharatiya tribes have India as origin and civilizational reference point.
2. There were never high genetic walls between Bharatiyas and Peripheral Bharatiya people.
3. 'Visits Home' to India by Peripheral Bharatiyas does not constitute Aryan invasions or Aryan migrations.
4. "Indo-European languages and mythology" originated among Bharatiyas and Peripheral Bharatiyas, who spread out in the world.
5. There has been demographic churning among various Bharatiya and Peripheral Bharatiya tribes due to internal migrations and conquests.
6. Indians and Europeans share genetic bonds with Peripheral Bharatiyas, who left Indian periphery and migrated further away, e.g. into Europe, thus giving rise to Europeans who were tertiary beneficiaries of "Arya" civilization.

What European colonial historians have been trying to do is (AIT-Model):

1. to inverse the primary-secondary ownership of 'Arya' civilization, making Peripheral Bharatiyas as primary 'Arya' civilization, and Bharatiyas as secondary beneficiaries of it, then
2. to take ownership of Peripheral Bharatiyas through cultural theft and brute-force scholarship, made easy by the fact that their identities have been rewritten by understandable tribal pride, Islam, European colonialism, leading to destruction of history of these people, and thereby
3. to relegate Bharatiyas to an accidental, undesired and indeed corrupting beneficiary of the 'Arya' civilization.

[RajeshA]

Ok, this is my current understanding or theory:

- Vedhik civilizations started in 2600 BCE in Saraswathi valley I.e Punjab, Haryana & Rajasthan.
- Then, it spread to Sindhu system I.e. Sindh & Gujarath around 2400 BCE.
- Then, it spread to Ganga system I.e UP, Bihar & Bengal around 2200 BCE. Another branch spread to Afghanistan, iran & syria. This branch called themselves Asuras or Assyrians.
- Then, Saraswathi dried up in 2100 BCE sparking migrations to south & west from Gujarath & Rajasthan. The first settlements in south near Trayambakeshwar on banks of Godavari by Gautama. Migrations from Gujarath to Iran & iraq. Wars between Indians (Dhevas) & Assyrians (Asuras). Mahabharatha written around this time during the last days of Saraswathi river.
- Then, settlement in deep south around 2000 BCE near kaveri by Agasthya. Ramayana written around this time. Vedhantha & Buddhism started in this period.

In 2742 BCE, Aryabhatta was born!

[vinod]

Ok, this is my current understanding or theory:

- Vedhik civilizations started in 2600 BCE in Saraswathi valley I.e Punjab, Haryana & Rajasthan.
- Then, it spread to Sindhu system I.e. Sindh & Gujarath around 2400 BCE.
- Then, it spread to Ganga system I.e UP, Bihar & Bengal around 2200 BCE. Another branch spread to Afghanistan, iran & syria. This branch called themselves Asuras or Assyrians.
- Then, Saraswathi dried up in 2100 BCE sparking migrations to south & west from Gujarath & Rajasthan. The first settlements in south near Trayambakeshwar on banks of Godavari by Gautama. Migrations from Gujarath to Iran & iraq. Wars between Indians (Dhevas) & Assyrians (Asuras). Mahabharatha written around this time during the last days of Saraswathi river.
- Then, settlement in deep south around 2000 BCE near kaveri by Agasthya. Ramayana written around this time. Vedhantha & Buddhism started in this period.

Wasn't Ramayana written much before Mahabharatha. Even Mahabharata says so...

[shiv]

Note that Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Herman Jacobi independently arrived at a date of 4000BC for an astronomical reference in the Mahabharata.

That aside, AIT has a very narrow timeline in which it can work - that that is about 1200 BC. Anything that upsets the timeline screws AIT because too many things have been linked to that timeline

[johneeG]

Ok, this is my current understanding or theory:

- Vedhik civilizations started in 2600 BCE in Saraswathi valley I.e Punjab, Haryana & Rajasthan.
- Then, it spread to Sindhu system I.e. Sindh & Gujarath around 2400 BCE.
- Then, it spread to Ganga system I.e UP, Bihar & Bengal around 2200 BCE. Another branch spread to Afghanistan, iran & syria. This branch called themselves Asuras or Assyrians.
- Then, Saraswathi dried up in 2100 BCE sparking migrations to south & west from Gujarath & Rajasthan. The first settlements in south near Trayambakeshwar on banks of Godavari by Gautama. Migrations from Gujarath to Iran & iraq. Wars between Indians (Dhevas) & Assyrians (Asuras). Mahabharatha written around this time during the last days of Saraswathi river.
- Then, settlement in deep south around 2000 BCE near kaveri by Agasthya. Ramayana written around this time. Vedhantha & Buddhism started in this period.

In 2742 BCE, Aryabhatta was born!

Nah, saar. I think Ved Veer Arya's model is wrong... very wrong. His ideas about two Shakhas may be right. I don't know. But, his model and dates are just wrong as far as I can see.

He is using eclipses to date based on inscriptions. But, I dont know why he is coming up with such old dates. Surely, there would have been eclipses during 400 ce to 800 ce timeframe. I think he was searching for total eclipse in the inscription region. That is not required. Even partial eclipse is an eclipse.

----
Vinod,
I meant Jaya, not Mahabharatha.
my understanding:
jaya (war episodes) - 2100 BCE
Ramayana & Bhaaratha(udyoga & sthree parva) - 2000 BCE
Bhaagavatham 10th skandha - 1900 BCE
Mahabhaaratha(Adhi, vana & sabha) & Bhaagavatham. - 1800 BCE
Harivamsam - 1700 BCE
Shaanthi & Anushaasana parvas - 1600 BCE

[RajeshA]

Ok, this is my current understanding or theory:

- Vedhik civilizations started in 2600 BCE in Saraswathi valley I.e Punjab, Haryana & Rajasthan.
- Then, it spread to Sindhu system I.e. Sindh & Gujarath around 2400 BCE.
- Then, it spread to Ganga system I.e UP, Bihar & Bengal around 2200 BCE. Another branch spread to Afghanistan, iran & syria. This branch called themselves Asuras or Assyrians.
- Then, Saraswathi dried up in 2100 BCE sparking migrations to south & west from Gujarath & Rajasthan. The first settlements in south near Trayambakeshwar on banks of Godavari by Gautama. Migrations from Gujarath to Iran & iraq. Wars between Indians (Dhevas) & Assyrians (Asuras). Mahabharatha written around this time during the last days of Saraswathi river.
- Then, settlement in deep south around 2000 BCE near kaveri by Agasthya. Ramayana written around this time. Vedhantha & Buddhism started in this period.

In 2742 BCE, Aryabhatta was born!

Nah, saar. I think Ved Veer Arya's model is wrong... very wrong. His ideas about two Shakhas may be right. I don't know. But, his model and dates are just wrong as far as I can see.

He is using eclipses to date based on inscriptions. But, I dont know why he is coming up with such old dates. Surely, there would have been eclipses during 400 ce to 800 ce timeframe. I think he was searching for total eclipse in the inscription region. That is not required. Even partial eclipse is an eclipse.

What exactly is wrong with old dates?

______

Each eclipse given in an inscription has a detailed description of it,
- moon phase
- moon nakśatra
- sun nakśatra
- location
etc.

Then there are several such eclipses, solar and lunar, which are used to arrive at a date for the epoch. It is like solving many equations to arrive at a single answer for x.

One can't just take arbitrary eclipses.

[shiv]

200-Year Drought Doomed Indus Valley Civilization

The decline of Bronze-Age civilizations in Egypt, Greece and Mesopotamia has been attributed to a long-term drought that began around 2000 BC. Now paleoclimatologists propose that a similar fate was followed by the enigmatic Indus Valley Civilization, at about the same time. Based on isotope data from the sediment of an ancient lake, the researchers suggest that the monsoon cycle, which is vital to the livelihood of all of South Asia, essentially stopped there for as long as two centuries.

The Indus Valley, in present Pakistan and northwest India, was home to a civilization also known as the Harappan Civilization. It was characterized by large, well-planned cities with advanced municipal sanitation systems and a script that has never been deciphered. But the Harappans seemed to slowly lose their urban cohesion, and their cities were gradually abandoned.

The link between this gradual decline and climate has been tenuous because of a dearth of climate records from the region. So Yama Dixit, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Cambridge, UK, and her colleagues examined sediments from Kotla Dahar, an ancient lake near the northeastern edge of the Indus Valley area in Haryana, India, that still seasonally floods.

The team assigned ages to sediment layers using radiocarbon dating of organic matter. In various layers, they collected the preserved shells of tiny lake snails (Melanoides tuberculata), which are made of a form of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) called aragonite. The team also looked at the oxygen in the argonite molecules, counting the ratio of the rare oxygen-18 isotope to the more prevalent oxygen-16.

Two-hundred-year hiatus
Kotla Dahar is a closed basin, filled only by rain and runoff and without outlets. Thus precipitation and evaporation alone determine its water volume. During drought, oxygen-16, which is lighter than oxygen-18, evaporates faster, so that the remaining water in the lake and, consequently, the snails' shells, become enriched with oxygen-18. The team's reconstruction showed a spike in the relative amount of oxygen-18 between 4,200 and 4,000 years ago. This suggests that precipitation dramatically decreased during that time. Moreover, their data suggests that the regular summer monsoons stopped for some 200 years.

The result, reported last week in Geology, supports the idea that monsoon failure led to the civilization’s decline, although David Hodell, a co-author of the study and a paleoclimatologist also at the University of Cambridge, hastens to add that uncertainties in the shell and archaeological records mean that the dates could be off by some 100 years in either direction.

Anil Gupta, the director of the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology in Dehradun, India, says that the work fills a gap in the geographic record of ancient droughts. But large questions remain. “What drove this climate change 4,100 years ago? We don’t see major changes in the North Atlantic or in the solar activity at that time.”

Recently, another team, led by paleoclimatologist Sushma Prasad of the German Research Center for Geoscience in Potsdam, Germany, did a similar analysis on a sediment core from Lonar Lake in central India. They found that in that area, drought began as many as 4,600 years ago. But the results are consistent with those of Dixit’s group, Prasad says. “We see a drying event starting earlier, but at about 4,200 years ago it became very intense.”

If a lack of monsoons did spell the end of the Indus Valley civilization, says Hodell, “it is an example — and there are other examples of this — of how ancient societies have had to contend with climate. There are some lessons for us and our future, in which we will have to deal with anthropogenic climate change”.

When the Saraswati was drying up there was an area called "Vinasana" where the Saraswati disappeared into the desert sands. This area gets a mention in the Mahabharata. That only means that Harappa was post Vedic - leading to the Vedic civilization being from a time well before 2000 BC when the Saraswati was a mighty river

In order to make AIT true we have to
1. Discard and disbelieve all dates in Hindu literature, folklore and inscriptions (eg Aihole inscription)
2. Imagine that the Rig Veda is a historiograph made by half wits

For Indians, only an education in an Indian school ensures these things

[johneeG]

What exactly is wrong with old dates?

But, why old dates when any dates would suffice for that? But, I agree with him that colonial historians may have blundered with the dates of Shakha era.

[shiv]

When I look at Aurobindo's commentary on the Rig Veda - it makes eminent sense. He speaks of a time when language was just developing - using words for actions and sounds. In later generations these same words acquired more specific meanings leading to words with multiple meanings as one finds in Sanskrit. That is how the Rig Veda can be interpreted in many ways and is fundamentally untranslateable. Translated Rig Veda is bullshit.

Over centuries the content of the Rig Veda has been explained in the the Upanishads and as Aurobindo points out, the Rig Veda would long ago have been discarded as gibberish had it not been held as the source of Vedantic meaning in a continuous tradition from time immemorial. Its origins and authors were forgotten but not its deeper sense.

A fixed date like 2500 BC for Rig Veda - seems unlikely to me. I suspect a continuous refinement of human knowledge maintained by oral tradition starting perhaps 7-8000 years ago. Tell me 5000 BC and I am more likely to accept it.

[RajeshA]

What exactly is wrong with old dates?

But, why old dates when any dates would suffice for that? But, I agree with him that colonial historians may have blundered with the dates of Shakha era.

Well for one thing, old dates help fit in a large amount history!

Secondly, you yourself have spoken out about puranic chronology not being followed, and mentioned e.g. that Andhra-bhrityas were not properly given appropriate time period. How can one give appropriate time-slots for the history mentioned if we are using a late chronology?

Thirdly, if he arrives at -
- Mahavira-nirvāṇa (22nd October, 1189-1188 BCE)
- Kṛta Era / Mālava-Gaṇa Era / Kārttikādi Vikrama Era (719-718 BCE)
- Śaka Era (583 BCE)
- Sri Harsha Era (457 BCE)
- Gupta Era (335 BCE)

then obviously all the rest of the history, e.g. what is in the Puranas and Epics gets pushed back.

He is using eclipses to date based on inscriptions. But, I dont know why he is coming up with such old dates. Surely, there would have been eclipses during 400 ce to 800 ce timeframe. I think he was searching for total eclipse in the inscription region. That is not required. Even partial eclipse is an eclipse.

Each eclipse given in an inscription has a detailed description of it,
- moon phase
- moon nakśatra
- sun nakśatra
- location
etc.

Then there are several such eclipses, solar and lunar, which are used to arrive at a date for the epoch. It is like solving many equations to arrive at a single answer for x.

One can't just take arbitrary eclipses.

[johneeG]

Each eclipse given in an inscription has a detailed description of it,
- moon phase
- moon nakśatra
- sun nakśatra
- location
etc.

Then there are several such eclipses, solar and lunar, which are used to arrive at a date for the epoch. It is like solving many equations to arrive at a single answer for x.

One can't just take arbitrary eclipses.

RajeshA saar,
I have seen his site. I know you gave the link to the book. And thanks for that. But, I havent been able to access it properly, so I havent gone through it.

I think he is mainly depending on two inscriptions based on the info from site: hyderabad inscription of Pulikeshin 2 & kurtaketi inscription of chalukya vikramaditya.

I dont know what those inscriptions say. I dont know if he means Aihole inscription when he talks of Hyderabad inscription of Pulikeshin.

Now, lets say he has the following info from the inscription:
- eclipse occurred.
- kings name and reigning age.
- moon phase
- month
- year.

Now, he is trying to find the year. He is using a window of 1500 BCE to 1500 CE to find a probable year. So, right now, year is unknown. Solar eclipse can only happen during New Moon phase. So, moon phase is also redundant.

So, really, he has only the info that eclipse happened in a particular month. I think he is wrongly assuming that its a total eclipse. If the inscriptions say that its a total solar eclipse then his case is strong.

----
Shiv saar,
vedhantha does not explain Vedhas. Some Upanishadhs criticize Vedhas and Vedhik ritual.

[member_29350]

It appears that IVC dates back to 7.5K years going by the oldest settlement in Haryana. So shouldn't the timelines of a lot of things move back correspondingly?

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

Even if the RC dating is off by a 1000 years, it's still 5.5K to 6K years back.

[shiv]

vedhantha does not explain Vedhas. Some Upanishadhs criticize Vedhas and Vedhik ritual.

The Vedas do not explain themselves either. Vedas as ritual was Sayana's interpretation (as per Aurobindo) and he is critical of that. Unfortunately it appears that only Sayana's work exists in full and that was what was used by people Max Muller to "translate" the Veda. This translation was then converted to English by William Jones.

According to Aurobindo - Sayana is wrong on many counts and lays too much emphasis on ritual. Aurobindo has his own interpretations and has written on Vedanta. He tends to agree with Yaska, whose work apparently does not survive in full.

Here is an article I had posted earlier which sums up a lot of things in a way that ignorant people like me can understand. It is a keeper
http://trivenijournalindia.com/somethou ... yjan78.htm
A quote:

From what has been said, it follows that it is wrong to take Yaska and Sayana or anyone else as sacrosanct and infallible. Yaska was not the first to interpret Vedic words as he did. He referred to a Nighantu with Samamnaya which he cited and explained. He had predecessors like Sakapuni, Audumbarayana, Aupamanyava and others, He referred to alternate ways of understanding Vedic words and passages. While his was the Nairuktika (etymological-definitional) tradition, he was aware of other traditions of Vedic interpretation such as the Aitihasika (historical, e.g., those who take Indra – Vritra battles as real incidents) and the Yajnika (sacrificial). The Brihaddevata pointed out many errors in Yaska. Yaska, for example, interpreted the phrase “pancajanah” as the four Varnas (castes) and the Nishadas. Saunaka’s Brihaddevata (67-77) informs us that it is possible to understand it as: (1) The five fires, (2) the four chief priests and the Yajamana (sacrificer), and (3) the eye, ear, mind, speech and breath. It says the spiritualists accept the third meaning.16 Coming to Sayana, Western and many contemporary Indian scholars accepted his interpretation, as it was complete and accessible. So, for them the Veda appeared to be polytheistic and ritualistic only, or at least mainly, while such is not its purport (Tatparya). They forget that Sayana’s is just one possible way of interpretation, and that he himself was a Vedantin who believed that the Samhita-Brahmana portion was sublated by the Upanishads which taught Advaita (monism). Pace Sayana, Venkata Madhava and others, it is possible to argue that the purport of the Samhita-Brahmana portion is also spiritual, monotheistic and mystical. Let students of Vedabhashyas in Pathasalas be exposed to those of Madhva, Dayananda and Kapali Sastri also. Let it be also remembered that while the Purva and Uttara Mimamsas claim to systematise, harmonise and interpret the Veda, the Itihasas and Puranas claim to amplify and supplement the meaning of the Veda.17 It is for scholars to decide how far these claims are justified.

[shiv]

It appears that IVC dates back to 7.5K years going by the oldest settlement in Haryana. So shouldn't the timelines of a lot of things move back correspondingly?

.

Yes. Absolutely.

The Western method is to completely ignore what they don't like or what does not fit in with their theories. We cannot continue to be mental slaves and keep arguing with them hoping they will change and make us happy. The only way forward is to completely discard what they say and base our judgement on what we know from our traditions, narratives and texts

[member_29218]

and the bible was a group think editorial effort over some time where a lot of 'unhelpful' material was just left out...
plenty of what is in the bible as ROL/ROG* was already prevalent amongst the cultures of the mid east


* Guilt

The whole Jesus thing is nothing but a repeat of many such 'hero myths' popular in not only Eastern but also Greek mythology and epics. The issue is dealt with very well in this documentary that I've posted about before. It is really worth watching.



Note, there is also a youtube video on 'debunking' this movie. Not surprising, considering that even today, almost half of Americans believe in Creationism.

[member_29218]

It appears that IVC dates back to 7.5K years going by the oldest settlement in Haryana. So shouldn't the timelines of a lot of things move back correspondingly?

.

Yes. Absolutely.

The Western method is to completely ignore what they don't like or what does not fit in with their theories. We cannot continue to be mental slaves and keep arguing with them hoping they will change and make us happy. The only way forward is to completely discard what they say and base our judgement on what we know from our traditions, narratives and texts

It is all happening slowly. A nation can only enforce its belief system on another nation or the rest of the world when it has the economic or military clout to do so. Just having the facts on your side is not enough, sadly. Which is why it has been the White Man's tale and the White Man's world for so long. Respect (sorely lacking in the Western attitude towards anything Indic) for the 'purva paksha' comes only when it is seen as something better, something more desirable, something more powerful than oneself.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'

Thank you, Bob.

[johneeG]

Shiv saar,
Sayana himself being Vedhanthin would have had great temptation to interpret Vedhas using Upanishadhs. But, he didnt do it. Instead, he gave a ritualustic interpretation, so that should carry some weight.

[johneeG]

Primus saar,
creationism is not same as christianity. Even Vedhas and Puraanas preach creationism.

[svinayak]

Shiv: I think Reich is a Western AIT snake. He tried to challenge the Gupta-period claim by saying that "time period of each generation was underestimated". He wants that date closer to 1200 BC

Actually most genetics researchers are AIT promoters because AIT is established as something that actually happened by historians and linguists. The only genetics papers that are against AIT are the ones that specifically state that their findings are against AIT. It is up to us to follow up research and show what is wrong and what is right.

Genetics researchers do not give a flying fuk about the truth or otherwise of AIT. Only we care, so its up to us. If a researcher supports AIT but his findings go against it (as Reic's paper) then it is up to us to point that out.

I think we need to recall what is meant by AIT when genetics or archaeology papers talk about it.

Indians should not be playing the western game in this genetics research. They are exploiting the ignorant Indians and trying to get the elite to trust the western system of reason and logic for the human evolution. Lot of garbage over several decades can make even the most perceptive thinker to believe the garbage.

AIT is for the western European people to reconstruct their history which is absent. Ignorant Indians have been fools to adapt it for the narrative in the last 100 years. Genetic archaeology and genetic research is the latest and new field in the same domain and search for western history. Indians should bring out Bharat historical narrative and extend it to the modern times with all the available data.

To get out of the western narrative thinking we need to start reading facts. There is shock treatment.
Links such as this will bring Indians out of western bubble - http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/