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.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 08 Dec 2017 07:53

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

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

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

Plausible

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we are probably looking at a Vedic culture that started developing 10,000 years ago. In fact I would suggest that there is no point looking for evidence of Vedic lifestyle in Harappa, Its like looking for that in modern Bengaluru.

If you were to look at the woods hole study published sometime back it says that saraswati river started breaking up around 3000 BC. That is when the lakes started forming according to this paper.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 08 Dec 2017 08:21

peter wrote:If you were to look at the woods hole study published sometime back it says that saraswati river started breaking up around 3000 BC. That is when the lakes started forming according to this paper.

There are so many studies that speak of drying up long before that. But because of heavy rainfall huge lakes were forming. There is unequivocal evidence of Saraswati-like river reaching sea around 10,000 BC. It may have continued later as overflowing desert lakes spilled into the sea. But isotope findings in that case only show desert like signature not Ghaggar-Hakra signature. Nevertheless - all pollen and tree fossil studies show that forests were gone by 5000 BC and was replaced by dry scrub and grassland. The species are also named

Vedas clearly mention forest and meditation in Forest (Aranyakas) AND Saraswati going to sea. Vedas mention silk, but not cotton. Cotton is 7000 BC. Manu smriti mentions cotton and silk and forest - probably 7000-5000 BC. There was no dense forest in that area no mater what Woods Hole people say. There are dozens and dozens of modern studies from India as scientific papers which you ought to look at, which you do not appear to be doing.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 08 Dec 2017 08:28

peter wrote:Haraxavati the river in Iran never reaches the sea. And drains into inland lakes. Both Saraswati and Haraxavati are supposed to be cognates according to "experts" and derive from the same root which denotes lakes. I don't believe them but that is the consensus today.

Balls consensus.

Since you give so much weight to dubious western "consensus" sources, and worry so much about them, kindly answer this one for me:

The quote I have taken is from "Index of Vedic Names" of Macdonell and Keith. You can download the book if you search
Madhya­desa, the ‘Middle Country,' is, according to the Manava Dharma Sastra, the land
between the Himalaya in the north, the Vindhya in the south, Vinasana in the west, and
Prayaga (now Allahabad) in the east that is, between the place where the Sarasvati
disappears in the desert, and the point of the confluence of the Yamuna (Jumna) and the
Ganga (Ganges)


Now please explain to me the relationship between "consensus river" Haraxvati and
a. Vindhya mountains
b. Allahabad
c. Himalaya "to the north"

Haraxvati and consensus my left ball. We are a bunch of mentally colonized sepoys

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 08 Dec 2017 08:30

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

If you have not read Nilesh Oak's book - kindly stop talking and start reading.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10016
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 08 Dec 2017 08:41

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

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


Just an FYI.
The Sea of Galilee (about 167 square kilometers in size).

Per Wiki:
All Old and New Testament writers use the term "sea" (Hebrew יָם yam, Greek θάλασσα), with the exception of Luke who calls it "the Lake of Gennesaret"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Ga ... _etymology

This despite the fact that the western coast of the Sea of Galilee seems to be within 30 kilometers of the real sea.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 08 Dec 2017 08:51, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 08 Dec 2017 08:45

Here is another one for you Peter from a beloved respected western source
The Baudhayana Dharma Sutra defines Aryavarta as the land east of Vinasana ; west of
the Kalaka­vana, ‘ Black Forest,' or rather Kanakhala, near Hardvar; south of the Himalaya;
and north of the Pariyatra or the Paripatra Mountains.


Please indicate places in Iran which correspond to Kalakavana, Hardvar, South of Himalayas, Paripatra mountains

If you cannot answer do not ever mention Haraxvati to me again. Or "western consensus". Your western masters are liars.

I am amazed at how so many Indians blindly swallow western sourced poop without doing independent research of our own and instead vehemently argue and support the "old consensus" view every time a fellow Indian sticks his head out of our dungheap of ignorance to question our western masters. My anger is because it is disgusting. It's time we grew independent uncolonized minds

syam
BRFite
Posts: 273
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 08 Dec 2017 12:55

Self delete.
Last edited by syam on 08 Dec 2017 21:26, edited 1 time in total.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 08 Dec 2017 21:20

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:If you were to look at the woods hole study published sometime back it says that saraswati river started breaking up around 3000 BC. That is when the lakes started forming according to this paper.

There are so many studies that speak of drying up long before that. But because of heavy rainfall huge lakes were forming. There is unequivocal evidence of Saraswati-like river reaching sea around 10,000 BC. It may have continued later as overflowing desert lakes spilled into the sea. But isotope findings in that case only show desert like signature not Ghaggar-Hakra signature. Nevertheless - all pollen and tree fossil studies show that forests were gone by 5000 BC and was replaced by dry scrub and grassland. The species are also named

Vedas clearly mention forest and meditation in Forest (Aranyakas) AND Saraswati going to sea. Vedas mention silk, but not cotton. Cotton is 7000 BC. Manu smriti mentions cotton and silk and forest - probably 7000-5000 BC. There was no dense forest in that area no mater what Woods Hole people say. There are dozens and dozens of modern studies from India as scientific papers which you ought to look at, which you do not appear to be doing.


Where are you getting the forest information from? Arjun had to clear a massive forest to build indraprastha and this was in the period when saraswati was breaking up circa 3000 BC that is. I do not understand what is the logic of cotton not being mentioned?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 08 Dec 2017 21:23

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:Haraxavati the river in Iran never reaches the sea. And drains into inland lakes. Both Saraswati and Haraxavati are supposed to be cognates according to "experts" and derive from the same root which denotes lakes. I don't believe them but that is the consensus today.

Balls consensus.

Since you give so much weight to dubious western "consensus" sources, and worry so much about them, kindly answer this one for me:

The quote I have taken is from "Index of Vedic Names" of Macdonell and Keith. You can download the book if you search
Madhya­desa, the ‘Middle Country,' is, according to the Manava Dharma Sastra, the land
between the Himalaya in the north, the Vindhya in the south, Vinasana in the west, and
Prayaga (now Allahabad) in the east that is, between the place where the Sarasvati
disappears in the desert, and the point of the confluence of the Yamuna (Jumna) and the
Ganga (Ganges)


Now please explain to me the relationship between "consensus river" Haraxvati and
a. Vindhya mountains
b. Allahabad
c. Himalaya "to the north"

Haraxvati and consensus my left ball. We are a bunch of mentally colonized sepoys

Come on. This is not even a trick question. Aryans had a break up in India and some of them left and settled in Iran. They named the river that they settled around in Iran Sarasvati. Since they couldn't pronounce S they used H and hence Haraxavati.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 08 Dec 2017 21:24

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

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


Just an FYI.
The Sea of Galilee (about 167 square kilometers in size).

Per Wiki:
All Old and New Testament writers use the term "sea" (Hebrew יָם yam, Greek θάλασσα), with the exception of Luke who calls it "the Lake of Gennesaret"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Ga ... _etymology

This despite the fact that the western coast of the Sea of Galilee seems to be within 30 kilometers of the real sea.

Thanks. What is the relevance?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 08 Dec 2017 21:25

shiv wrote:Here is another one for you Peter from a beloved respected western source
The Baudhayana Dharma Sutra defines Aryavarta as the land east of Vinasana ; west of
the Kalaka­vana, ‘ Black Forest,' or rather Kanakhala, near Hardvar; south of the Himalaya;
and north of the Pariyatra or the Paripatra Mountains.


Please indicate places in Iran which correspond to Kalakavana, Hardvar, South of Himalayas, Paripatra mountains

If you cannot answer do not ever mention Haraxvati to me again. Or "western consensus". Your western masters are liars.

I am amazed at how so many Indians blindly swallow western sourced poop without doing independent research of our own and instead vehemently argue and support the "old consensus" view every time a fellow Indian sticks his head out of our dungheap of ignorance to question our western masters. My anger is because it is disgusting. It's time we grew independent uncolonized minds

See above.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 08 Dec 2017 21:27

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

If you have not read Nilesh Oak's book - kindly stop talking and start reading.

I have read it. Nilesh's scheme does not match many observations from Mahabharata.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10016
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 08 Dec 2017 23:29

peter wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:
Just an FYI.
The Sea of Galilee (about 167 square kilometers in size).

Per Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Ga ... _etymology

This despite the fact that the western coast of the Sea of Galilee seems to be within 30 kilometers of the real sea.

Thanks. What is the relevance?


That even though the ancient Hebrews had a word for "sea" and for "lake" they termed a lake as a sea, even though the real sea was some 30 km away. With the Vedics it is being postulated they apparently had no word for "sea" and they later turned a synonym for "lake" (samudra) into one for a "sea".

syam
BRFite
Posts: 273
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 08 Dec 2017 23:40

peter wrote:Come on. This is not even a trick question. Aryans had a break up in India and some of them left and settled in Iran. They named the river that they settled around in Iran Sarasvati. Since they couldn't pronounce S they used H and hence Haraxavati.

If Aryans had break up, that means some of the brahmans and others did break up with each other. So that means, some brahmins left india and settled in Iran.

That means Brahmins established their evil caste system in Iran too. Damn those Aryans. I wonder how many places they set up their caste systems.

Mind you Aryans already chanting Vedic hymns at the time.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10016
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 09 Dec 2017 02:24

If you thought you've seen all of the possible theories about Aryans in India, you're wrong.
Here's AOT: the Aryan Outsourcing Theory. :rotfl:

In the latter days of the Indus civilization,the townspeople may have hired Indo-Aryan charioteers to fight their wars. After the eventual demise of the Indus civilization pulled these Indo-Aryan warriors with their families and their livestock through to the Indus-Ganga plains, where they are of different kingdoms founded. They brought Y-DNA haplogroup R1a1a with them, today one of the biggest haplogroups in India. The customs of these Indo-Arian migrants would form the basis for the Vedic religion.


From here, with google translate:
http://sargasso.nl/indische-oceaan-2-ee ... netwerken/

What is this web-site: using google translate again:
Sargasso exists since 2001 and is one of the oldest weblogs in the Netherlands. In the rich history of Sargasso you will find the introduction of the live blog in the Netherlands, the coins of the term reaguurder, putting data journalism on the map and the struggle for more transparency in public administration (witness the many Wob procedures that Sargasso conducted has).
Last edited by A_Gupta on 09 Dec 2017 23:20, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48785
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 09 Dec 2017 02:34

Bhaiwood will make a new movie with that wooden Hrithik Roshan leading a band of charioteers to Allahabad just like Nehru ancestors.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2920
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 09 Dec 2017 02:41

:mrgreen: Did the Indus Civilization provide the chariots, which they built exclusively with tall, fair-skinned riders in mind? Or was it that the Indo-Aryans mastered the technology and resource management for chariot building, but somehow no other industrial or economic activity at all, while watching sheep mount each other on the steppe?

How about the horses? Did the charioteers bring their own, eating some (and ritually burying their bones) on the way, over campfire sing-alongs of Rig Vedic shlokas?

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6231
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 09 Dec 2017 02:55

peter wrote:Come on. This is not even a trick question. Aryans had a break up in India and some of them left and settled in Iran. They named the river that they settled around in Iran Sarasvati. Since they couldn't pronounce S they used H and hence Haraxavati.


I will show you populations in interior India who cannot pronounce 'S' and they use 'H' - the nasal 'H'. Now just because of that, do not go claiming that they are descendants of the Aryans.

The linguistic based theory is such a bunch of bollocks and to make it plausible an entire dictionary was invented where you have words like "*ke'klos" that does not have any basis other than as a fart from a gora musharraf. That is proto-bollocks. And to make the dictionary plausible chariots were invented in places where it was not found and with wood that did not grow and with technology that did not exist. And a gori's wet dreams were used as a way to create the AIT.

At this stage, there is no AIT, Aryan Tourist Theory, Aryan Outsourcing Theory, Aryan Migration Theory. All of them have been discredited substantially. Given Occam's razor., the only theory that thus stands is OIT.

And here is the proto-indo-european word for bollocks - "*pe'sklos". The "k" is like the hindi first alphabet 'k' however said with a rolled tongue with heavy guttural like a shepherding tall fair and tight assed aryan (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/SB_-_Kazakh_man_on_horse_with_golden_eagle.jpg) from the steppes of central asia. This indicates the invasion of aryans into India and subsequent demise of saraswati valley civilization.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6231
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 09 Dec 2017 03:08

Something for the AIT proponents to consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Manas

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6231
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 09 Dec 2017 03:26

Depiction of an Aryan invading Indus Valley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coach_driver_Indus_01.jpg

And short dark rice eating Indus valley inhabitants trying to flee in terror due to Aryan Invasion on chariots (see image of aryan invasion above). The Indus valley inhabitants never know of anything called wheel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indus_Valley_Diorama_-_Indian_Science_and_Technology_Heritage_Gallery_-_National_Science_Centre_-_New_Delhi_2014-05-06_0806.JPG

Image showing successful campaign by Aryans. See the swastikas by Herr Aryans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation#/media/File:IndusValleySeals.JPG

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 09 Dec 2017 07:07

peter wrote:
shiv wrote:
Now please explain to me the relationship between "consensus river" Haraxvati and
a. Vindhya mountains
b. Allahabad
c. Himalaya "to the north"

Haraxvati and consensus my left ball. We are a bunch of mentally colonized sepoys

Come on. This is not even a trick question. Aryans had a break up in India and some of them left and settled in Iran. They named the river that they settled around in Iran Sarasvati. Since they couldn't pronounce S they used H and hence Haraxavati.

:rotfl: That is not an answer

Explain what your Iranians were thinking about the grographical coordinates, not the name. Or were they just stupid? Heck you can name Danube as saraswati but you won't get those geographical coordinates. But thanks for the non answer. It only shows that this Haraxwati story can be safely discarded - knowing that its supporters cannot come up with a remotely credible explanation of the geography. I do regret thinking that I could discuss something with you. I apologise to myself.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 09 Dec 2017 07:14

disha wrote:
peter wrote:Come on. This is not even a trick question. Aryans had a break up in India and some of them left and settled in Iran. They named the river that they settled around in Iran Sarasvati. Since they couldn't pronounce S they used H and hence Haraxavati.


I will show you populations in interior India who cannot pronounce 'S' and they use 'H' - the nasal 'H'. Now just because of that, do not go claiming that they are descendants of the Aryans.

Forget this guy. He has simply cooked up an explanation of why he thinks the name was given. That has nothing to do with the question. The question was "Why did the people who spoke of the drying area of Saraswati river say it was South of Himalayas, north of Vindhyas and west of Prayaga. All coordinates must fit . He is trying to wriggle out with a non answer. Not serious - timepass onlee.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 09 Dec 2017 07:17

peter wrote:
shiv wrote:If you have not read Nilesh Oak's book - kindly stop talking and start reading.

I have read it. Nilesh's scheme does not match many observations from Mahabharata.

Anyone can say that. You are less credible than Nilesh Oak given your obfuscation and habit of making silly explanations for laughably gross errors that you make.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 09 Dec 2017 08:26

A_Gupta wrote:
peter wrote:Thanks. What is the relevance?


That even though the ancient Hebrews had a word for "sea" and for "lake" they termed a lake as a sea, even though the real sea was some 30 km away. With the Vedics it is being postulated they apparently had no word for "sea" and they later turned a synonym for "lake" (samudra) into one for a "sea".


The issue is that even in modern india samudra is used for non sea/ocean.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 09 Dec 2017 08:27

disha wrote:
peter wrote:Come on. This is not even a trick question. Aryans had a break up in India and some of them left and settled in Iran. They named the river that they settled around in Iran Sarasvati. Since they couldn't pronounce S they used H and hence Haraxavati.


I will show you populations in interior India who cannot pronounce 'S' and they use 'H' - the nasal 'H'. Now just because of that, do not go claiming that they are descendants of the Aryans.

Last sentence is your conclusion. I did not say this. And FYI i do know of indians who can't say S and use H.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 09 Dec 2017 08:31

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:Come on. This is not even a trick question. Aryans had a break up in India and some of them left and settled in Iran. They named the river that they settled around in Iran Sarasvati. Since they couldn't pronounce S they used H and hence Haraxavati.

:rotfl: That is not an answer

Explain what your Iranians were thinking about the grographical coordinates, not the name. Or were they just stupid? Heck you can name Danube as saraswati but you won't get those geographical coordinates. But thanks for the non answer. It only shows that this Haraxwati story can be safely discarded - knowing that its supporters cannot come up with a remotely credible explanation of the geography. I do regret thinking that I could discuss something with you. I apologise to myself.

I am amazed. Let me try again.
1 The aryans of India had a split. One branch, the major branch, remained in India and for them the aryavarta was bounded by Haridwar .... what you wrote.

2. Another branch got pushed out. Infact Rigved alludes to this in the battle of ten kings. The branch that got pushed, the minor branch, moved west and settled in Iran and named their life giving river the same name from which they migrated from India, saraswati or in their dialect Haraxavati. This branch in Iran named their entire country "Aryan" which got morphed into the word Iran.

Hope this clarifies.
Last edited by peter on 09 Dec 2017 08:40, edited 1 time in total.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 09 Dec 2017 08:32

peter:Last sentence is your conclusion. I did not say this. And FYI i do know of indians who can't say S and use H.


peter: They named the river that they settled around in Iran Sarasvati. Since they couldn't pronounce S they used H and hence Haraxavati.


So how do you know the Aryans could not pronounce 'S' if other non-aryan Indians cannot also not pronounce S, and thus rubbishing the proclamation that "Aryans could not pronounce X".

How on earth can anyone make a claim that X people who lived 1000s of years ago could not pronounce 'S' or some other letter? you just pull out random nonsense out of your butt and pretend that it is all irrefutable. effing clown.
Last edited by periaswamy on 09 Dec 2017 08:39, edited 2 times in total.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 09 Dec 2017 08:33

shiv wrote:
disha wrote:
I will show you populations in interior India who cannot pronounce 'S' and they use 'H' - the nasal 'H'. Now just because of that, do not go claiming that they are descendants of the Aryans.

Forget this guy. He has simply cooked up an explanation of why he thinks the name was given. That has nothing to do with the question. The question was "Why did the people who spoke of the drying area of Saraswati river say it was South of Himalayas, north of Vindhyas and west of Prayaga. All coordinates must fit . He is trying to wriggle out with a non answer. Not serious - timepass onlee.

No. The questions I was answering is why are saraswati and Haraxavati cognates. They are two rivers in different parts of the world.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 09 Dec 2017 08:39

periaswamy wrote:
peter:Last sentence is your conclusion. I did not say this. And FYI i do know of indians who can't say S and use H.


peter: They named the river that they settled around in Iran Sarasvati. Since they couldn't pronounce S they used H and hence Haraxavati.


So how do you know the Aryans could not pronounce 'S' if other non-aryan Indians cannot also not pronounce H, and thus rubbishing the claim that "Aryans could not pronounce X, just because".

How on earth can anyone make a claim that X people who lived 1000s of years ago could not pronounce 'S' or some other letter? you just pull out random nonsense out of your butt and pretend that it is all irrefutable. effing clown.

Iraninans can't pronounce S. Some People in western India can't pronounce S. More west you go..... These are all known facts. And you can easily look them up.

Follow the decorum of this site. Do not indulge in ad hominem attacks.
I hope the admins are looking.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

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

Postby peter » 09 Dec 2017 08:41

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:I have read it. Nilesh's scheme does not match many observations from Mahabharata.

Anyone can say that. You are less credible than Nilesh Oak given your obfuscation and habit of making silly explanations for laughably gross errors that you make.

Which errors?

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2993
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 09 Dec 2017 08:42

So what happened to the Andronovo => Sintashta => BMAC people? Did some of them make it India or not? Were they the carriers of R1a1* to India? Did some of these people also end up in Tarim basin in China( Tocharian mummies carrying R1a1* DNA )?

Why is it that other than the commonality of R1a1* between Indians and Central Asians no other non-R1a1* Indian DNA is found in Central Asia/Europe ( sans the recent migration)? This particular evidence pretty much rules out any out of India migration to Europe unless and until R1a1* went out of India instead of being brought in by Andronovo=>Sintashta=>BMAC=>Swat-culture=>Cemetry H migration? So far no evidence has been provided.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 09 Dec 2017 08:44

peter wrote:
shiv wrote:Anyone can say that. You are less credible than Nilesh Oak given your obfuscation and habit of making silly explanations for laughably gross errors that you make.

Which errors?

Imagining the history and geography of the Helmand river

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 09 Dec 2017 08:45

peter: Iraninans can't pronounce S. Some People in western India can't pronounce S. More west you go..... These are all known facts. And you can easily look them up.


Iranians not pronouncing S maybe a known fact that is not relevant to the questions that were asked of you, which is not related to linguistics, but about geography. You are trolling this thread by making random assertions that you cannot back up and you have the nerve to demand "decorum"? How about you demonstrating that you are not intent on trolling people here by answering the questions put to you first?
Last edited by periaswamy on 09 Dec 2017 08:46, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 09 Dec 2017 08:45

Dipanker wrote:So what happened to the Andronovo => Sintashta => BMAC people?

Cooked up stuff. My talk in Chennai will deal with this. I will link the video in due course

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 09 Dec 2017 08:51

^^However I can post this here:

The translation of a Rig Veda verse (10:18) by a Veda scholar versus AIT historian

Veda scholar: RV 10:18
For you I heap up this earth and heap it around you; In placing this clod of earth may I not harm you; May the fathers sustain this monument for you; May Yama make an abode for you here
-RigVeda 10.18: (RL Kashyap-2012)


AIT historian RV 10:18
One hymn (Rigveda 10.18) describes a covered burial chamber with posts holding up the roof, walls shored up, and the chamber sealed with clay—a precise description of Sintashta and Andronovo grave pits.
-“Horse, Wheel and Language” - David Anthony

In one word. LIES!

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 926
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 09 Dec 2017 09:11

A small query:- What date is Nilesh Oak giving to Vedas? Also is he saying Vedas, Ramayan, Mahabharat, refers to events pre Harappa?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 09 Dec 2017 09:22

Nilesh Oak is not trying to date the Vedas. Not yet at least. Only I have been working on it AFAICT

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 09 Dec 2017 09:44

peter wrote:
Where are you getting the forest information from? Arjun had to clear a massive forest to build indraprastha and this was in the period when saraswati was breaking up circa 3000 BC that is. I do not understand what is the logic of cotton not being mentioned?


"circa 3000 BC" - that is a lump of bullshit inserted by you

Mahabharata does not say 3000 BC. It only speaks of forest.

"Break up of Saraswati" is also new bullshit. From you. The only references to Saraswati are "Saraswati" disappearing in the desert. Not "break up". It used to flow up to the desert and sink underground there. Dozens of academic papers that deal with pollen studies of the Harappan area speak of dry desert scrub and not forest after 4000 BC. Except in Gujarat area that had "riverine forests"


But there was heavy rainfall from 8000 BC to 4000 BC and increase in forests that shows up in the pollen record. The most likely era for all Vedic texts that speak of Saraswati area/Aryavarta/Madhyadesa as well as dense forest has to be prior to 4000 BC. The likely areas are not Rajasthan but Haryana/Delhi area and subhimalayan range.

The only unequivocal evidence of Nd/Sr deposits corresponding to Ghaggar Hakra river but found in the Arabian sea (Rann of Kutch cores taken down to represent dates as far back as 17,000 years before present) is 10,000 ybp. That means Saraswati did reach sea 10,000 years ago. We know it had dried up by 5000 ybp (as per geologic and pollen records). Saraswati could possibly have reached the sea even after 10,000 BP. It is likely that for some time thereafter the water simply inundated the desert in the rainy season and excess water overflowed into the gulf carrying desert sand and this could explain the isotopic picture of Rajasthan desert sand in the sea after 10,000 ybp. But this needs further elucidation
Last edited by shiv on 09 Dec 2017 09:47, edited 1 time in total.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 273
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 09 Dec 2017 09:45

shiv wrote:^^However I can post this here:

The translation of a Rig Veda verse (10:18) by a Veda scholar versus AIT historian

Veda scholar: RV 10:18
For you I heap up this earth and heap it around you; In placing this clod of earth may I not harm you; May the fathers sustain this monument for you; May Yama make an abode for you here
-RigVeda 10.18: (RL Kashyap-2012)


AIT historian RV 10:18
One hymn (Rigveda 10.18) describes a covered burial chamber with posts holding up the roof, walls shored up, and the chamber sealed with clay—a precise description of Sintashta and Andronovo grave pits.
-“Horse, Wheel and Language” - David Anthony

In one word. LIES!

No more thee thou thow. I don't know why we are still depending on english translations done by British scholars.

Sometimes I think we can debunk this Aryan thing by employing minimum common sense. For all the fertile lands on all over the earth, Aryans chose only India as their final destination. They didn't follow spice route. They didn't go to Ukraine. They didn't go to Germany. They settled only in India and established caste and everything. And Aryans were those warrior class people who rode chariots. No mention of brahmins despite brahmins being the one who hymns vedic manthra.

My only request to any historian, please construct whole life style and everything about this Aryan race. Then talk about their migration.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34425
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 09 Dec 2017 09:49

syam wrote:
Sometimes I think we can debunk this Aryan thing by employing minimum common sense. For all the fertile lands on all over the earth, Aryans chose only India as their final destination. They didn't follow spice route. They didn't go to Ukraine. They didn't go to Germany. They settled only in India and established caste and everything. And Aryans were those warrior class people who rode chariots. No mention of brahmins despite brahmins being the one who hymns vedic manthra.

Lets get this straight.
THERE_WERE_NO_ARYANS

Read this
https://swarajyamag.com/culture/aryans- ... y-scholars


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 39 guests