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.
Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 09 Sep 2014 20:59

Doctor

Secularism is so ingrained in their hearts and minds they have become timid. I have seen renowned archaeologists thanking gora sahebs for whatever they have done to archaeology of India. However, I don't think there is any archaeologist who has contributed positively in India except John Hubert Marshall.

However, they can be persuaded by pizza effect quoting white-skinned archaeologists who are contributing in modern archaeology of India. If you say this is as said by B B Lal or R C Majumdar they call them archaeologists with RSS background.

Earlier gora archaeologists and historians and their Indian chamchas maintained

1) Saraswati is a myth
2) IVC (Now it is called Indus Saraswati Civilization - ISC, thankfully) was influenced by Mesopotamians
3) Rigvedic civilization (!) and It is 1200-1500 years old
4) Aryan Invasion
5) Aryan Migration
6) Iron age is everything and it started in India around 600-700 BC
7) Greek Influence
8) Dravidian Aryan Divide


The material found at ISC sites are blowing early BS about sociology, archaeology, town planning, water management, sanitation backwardness in India to smithereens. Now Mohan-jo Daro is no more the biggest city of Harappan civilization, it is Rakhigarhi in Haryana. And none can match the efficacy of Dholavira.

The new ISC sites are confirming that there are more sites on banks of Saraswati (Ghaggar-Hakra dried up bed) then on Indus. Eventually this will be called Saraswati Civlization only

They need to grow b@lls, of course, and assert rightfully
Last edited by Murugan on 09 Sep 2014 21:03, edited 1 time in total.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Sep 2014 21:02

shiv wrote:the language that Indian scholars need to learn is to say:
Recent excavations in Uttar Pradesh have turned up iron artefacts, furnaces, tuyeres and slag in layers radiocarbon dated between c. BCE 1800 and 1000. This comprehensively trashes earlier theories of the Iron age starting in India after 1000 BC.


This program on the mystery of the Viking sword is interesting on where they got the iron and craftsmanship from. Later in time frame than origins of iron age but tells you a story.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 09 Sep 2014 21:14

Moreover, these archaeologists are still waiting for some outsiders to tell them that IVC script is indeed a script. There are many Indians/non-indians who have tried to decipher the script but they want to maintain that it has not been deciphered, not even ready to say "not been satisfactorily deciphered". Ultimately students also carry this impression. They are so afraid of 'Dravidian' politics behind it they don't want to offend anyone.

Lastly, they ask for peer reviewed papers even for pioneering work !!! I ask them, 'hour' ko hindi mein kya kahete hai?

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21037
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 10 Sep 2014 06:47

Mahabhrat War ended 3140BC and LK left his body in 3102 BC


johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

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

Postby johneeG » 10 Sep 2014 08:40

There are certain things that I can't wrap my mind around. One such concept is: iron age, bronze age, ...etc.

So, I decided to check out how it came about.

So,
wiki wrote:The three-age system in archaeology and physical anthropology is the periodization of human prehistory into three consecutive time periods, named for their respective tool-making technologies:

The Stone Age
The Bronze Age
The Iron Age

wiki wrote:Origin

The concept of dividing pre-historical ages into systems based on metals extends far back in European history, but the present archaeological system of the three main ages: stone, bronze and iron, originates with the Danish archaeologist Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (1788–1865), who placed the system on a more scientific basis by typological and chronological studies, at first, of tools and other artifacts present in the Museum of Northern Antiquities in Copenhagen (later the National Museum of Denmark). He later used artifacts and the excavation reports published or sent to him by Danish archaeologists who were doing controlled excavations. His position as curator of the museum gave him enough visibility to become highly influential on Danish archaeology. A well-known and well-liked figure, he explained his system in person to visitors at the museum, many of them professional archaeologists.

wiki wrote:In his poem, Works and Days, the ancient Greek poet Hesiod between 750 and 650 BC, defined five successive Ages of Man: 1. Golden, 2. Silver, 3. Bronze, 4. Heroic and 5. Iron.[1] Only the Bronze Age and the Iron Age are based on the use of metal:[2]

wiki wrote:The progress of Lucretius

The moral metaphor of the ages of metals continued. Lucretius, however, replaced moral degradation with the concept of progress,[4] which he conceived to be like the growth of an individual human being. The concept is evolutionary:[5]


So, who is this Lucretius?
wiki wrote:Titus Lucretius Carus (/ˈtaɪtəs lʊˈkriːʃəs/; c. 99 BC – c. 55 BC) was a Roman poet and philosopher. His only known work is the epic philosophical poem De rerum natura about the tenets and philosophy of Epicureanism, and which is usually translated into English as On the Nature of Things.

Very little is known about Lucretius's life; the only certain fact is that he was either a friend or client of Gaius Memmius, to whom the poem was addressed and dedicated.[1]

The De rerum natura was a considerable influence on the Augustan poets, particularly Virgil (in his Aeneid and Georgics, and to a lesser extent on the Satires and Eclogues) of Horace.[2] The work virtually disappeared during the Middle Ages but was rediscovered in 1417 in a monastery in Germany[3] by Poggio Bracciolini, and it played an important role both in the development of atomism (Lucretius was an important influence on Pierre Gassendi[4]) and the efforts of various figures of the Enlightenment era to construct a new Christian humanism. The book The Swerve: How the World Became Modern (2011) by Stephen Greenblatt is a narrative of the discovery of the old Lucretius manuscript by Poggio.[5]


Link
Most probably, the rediscovered thing is just a cover for the knowledge flowing in from the Muslims who were looting it from the Bhaarath and other ancient civilizations.

Anyway, coming back to three ages system:
wiki wrote:Lucretius envisioned a pre-technological man that was "far tougher than the men of today ... They lived out their lives in the fashion of wild beasts roaming at large."[7] The next stage was the use of huts, fire, clothing, language and the family. City-states, kings and citadels followed them. Lucretius supposes that the initial smelting of metal occurred accidentally in forest fires. The use of copper followed the use of stones and branches and preceded the use of iron.


wiki wrote:The three-age system of C. J. Thomsen
Thomsen explaining the Three-age System to visitors at the Museum of Northern Antiquities, then at the Christiansborg Palace, in Copenhagen, 1846. Drawing by Magnus Petersen, Thomsen's illustrator.[16]

An important step in the development of the Three-age System came when the Danish antiquarian Christian Jürgensen Thomsen was able to use the Danish national collection of antiquities and the records of their finds as well as reports from contemporaneous excavations to provide a solid empirical basis for the system. He showed that artifacts could be classified into types and that these types varied over time in ways that correlated with the predominance of stone, bronze or iron implements and weapons. In this way he turned the Three-age System from being an evolutionary scheme based on intuition and general knowledge into a system of relative chronology supported by archaeological evidence. Initially, the three-age system as it was developed by Thomsen and his contemporaries in Scandinavia, such as Sven Nilsson and J.J.A. Worsaae, was grafted onto the traditional biblical chronology. But, during the 1830s they achieved independence from textual chronologies and relied mainly on typology and stratigraphy.[17]

In 1816 Thomsen at age 27 was appointed to succeed the retiring Rasmus Nyerup as Secretary of the Kongelige Commission for Oldsagers Opbevarung[18] ("Royal Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities"), which had been founded in 1807.[19] The post was unsalaried. Thomsen had independent means. At his appointment Bishop Münter said that he was an "amateur with a great range of accomplishments." Between 1816 and 1819 he reorganized the commission's collection of antiquities. In 1819 he opened the first Museum of Northern Antiquities, in Copenhagen, in a former monastery, to house the collections.[20] It later became the National Museum.

Like the other antiquarians Thomsen undoubtedly knew of the three-age model of prehistory through the works of Lucretius, the Dane Vedel Simonsen, Montfaucon and Mahudel. Sorting the material in the collection chronologically[21] he mapped out which kinds of artifacts co-occurred in deposits and which did not, as this arrangement would allow him to discern any trends that were exclusive to certain periods. In this way he discovered that stone tools did not co-occur with bronze or iron in the earliest deposits while subsequently bronze did not co-occur with iron - so that three periods could be defined by their available materials, stone, bronze and iron.

To Thomsen the find circumstances were the key to dating. In 1821 he wrote in a letter to fellow prehistorian Schröder:[22]

"nothing is more important than to point out that hitherto we have not paid enough attention to what was found together."

and in 1822:

"we still do not know enough about most of the antiquities either; ... only future archaeologists may be able to decide, but they will never be able to do so if they do not observe what things are found together and our collections are not brought to a greater degree of perfection."

This analysis emphasizing co-occurrence and systematic attention to archaeological context allowed Thomsen to build a chronological framework of the materials in the collection and to classify new finds in relation to the established chronology, even without much knowledge of their provenience. In this way, Thomsen's system was a true chronological system rather than an evolutionary or technological system.[23] Exactly when his chronology was reasonably well established is not clear, but by 1825 visitors to the museum were being instructed in his methods.[24] In that year also he wrote to J.G.G. Büsching:[25]

"To put artifacts in their proper context I consider it most important to pay attention to the chronological sequence, and I believe that the old idea of first stone, then copper, and finally iron, appears to be ever more firmly established as far as Scandinavia is concerned."

By 1831 Thomsen was so certain of the utility of his methods that he circulated a pamphlet, "Scandinavian Artifacts and Their Preservation, advising archaeologists to "observe the greatest care" to note the context of each artifact. The pamphlet had an immediate effect. Results reported to him confirmed the universality of the Three-age System. Thomsen also published in 1832 and 1833 articles in the Nordisk Tidsskrift for Oldkyndighed, "Scandinavian Journal of Archaeology."[26] He already had an international reputation when in 1836 the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries published his illustrated contribution to "Guide to Scandinavian Archaeology" in which he put forth his chronology together with comments about typology and stratigraphy.
Reconstructed Iron Age home in Spain

Thomsen was the first to perceive typologies of grave goods, grave types, methods of burial, pottery and decorative motifs, and to assign these types to layers found in excavation. His published and personal advice to Danish archaeologists concerning the best methods of excavation produced immediate results that not only verified his system empirically but placed Denmark in the forefront of European archaeology for at least a generation. He became a national authority when C.C Rafn,[27] secretary of the Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab ("Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries"), published his principal manuscript[21] in Ledetraad til Nordisk Oldkyndighed ("Guide to Scandinavian Archaeology")[28] in 1836. The system has since been expanded by further subdivision of each era, and refined through further archaeological and anthropological finds.

Link

In 1816, at the age of 27, Christian Jürgensen Thomsen created a system called three-age system which is followed religiously by the archeologists till today. Strictly speaking, it was not a completely new system. Some kind of devolution or evolution theories were already afloat. The pre-Islamic ideologies espouse devolution theories because they rely on being the ancient systems. The post-Islamic ideologies espouse evolution theories because they are based on the concept of jahilya which practically means that latest is best and best is latest.

Ok. But, there is a basic doubt: how did the archeologists determine the dates in 1816?
Apparently, two 'sciences' are used for this purpose by Christian Jürgensen Thomsen in 1816.
They are:
Typology
Stratigraphy.
So, what are they?
They sound pretty big, but they seem to be pretty crude and silly systems.

Typology:
wiki wrote:In archaeology a typology is the result of the classification of things according to their physical characteristics. The products of the classification, i.e. the classes, are also called types. Most archaeological typologies organize artifacts into types, but typologies of larger structures, including buildings, field monuments, fortifications or roads, are equally possible. A typology helps to manage a large mass of archaeological data. According to Doran and Hodson, "this superficially straightforward task has proved one of the most time consuming and contentious aspects of archaeological research".

So, in simple terms, it means grouping ancient antiques into certain pre-defined categories by the archeologist. Anyone can see that this grouping will be based on the prejudice of the archeologist. This is not an objective method but a subjective method. Each person or ideology can come up with their own definitions and groups.

So, the basic idea itself is flawed. How can this be useful to know the chronology?

Now, the second 'science':Stratigraphy
wiki wrote:Stratigraphy is a branch of geology which studies rock layers (strata) and layering (stratification). It is primarily used in the study of sedimentary and layered volcanic rocks. Stratigraphy includes two related subfields: lithologic stratigraphy or lithostratigraphy, and biologic stratigraphy or biostratigraphy.

Ok, this sounds like a more objective method. Not perfect, but definitely far better than Typology.

So, essentially, what they are saying is:
a) we dig around
b) if we find something, then
c) the deeper it is found, the older it must be.
d) the older it is, the more primitive it must be.
e) if we don't find anything, then nothing exists.

If there are exceptions or outliers in the above system, then they are explained away in someway or the other. If the exceptions start to mount then a new law has to be invented.

I started off with a doubt:
Carbon dating was invented in 1940s. Then, how did these archeologists before that time decide on the chronology?

So, the simple answer is: we dig, and the deeper we find something, the more older it is.

Now, there are several aspects here:
- the more you dig, the more chances that you will find something. So, countries that focus on digging, are likely to find something. The less you dig, the less chances that you will find something. So, countries that don't focus on digging, are less likely to find something.
- If you dig deep regularly, then there are more chances that you will find something deeper. Countries which dig deeper regularly, are likely to find something deeper. If you don't dig deep regularly, then there are less chances that you will find something deeper. Countries which don't dig deeper regularly, are less likely to find something deeper.
- the archeologist is just a human being with his ideologies, biases, agendas and prejudices. This is not some objective fact but rather a subjective opinion.


Now, Bhaarath was under a direct colonial rule till 1947. And these 'sciences' were being developed in 1816. In 1816, there was almost no culture of digging around in Bhaarath or most of the world. Archeological Survey of India was founded by the British in 1861. That means, it was founded after these theories about three ages were already developed.

So, all findings were fitted into these ideologies of three ages. And it was called Typology. This is a circular system.
a) The ideology(three age system) is used to divide ancient artifacts into groups based on this ideology(three age system).
b) And these groups are then used to justify the system(three age system).
(a) depends on (b). And (b) depends on (a). Neither of them have any independent corroboration.

While, the Stratigraphy thingy sounds objective i.e. "we dig around, and deeper we find something, the older it must be." ideology sounds objective. But, the devil is in details.

In 1816, when this three age system was created: how much digging happened in how many places and how deep?
Was there a uniform digging in all places for uniform depths?

These theories were created by the europeans. The non-europeans did not believe in these theories. So, they would not be likely to dig around or to concentrate on what depth an artifact was found.

During colonial age, there are good chances that the colonies would be shown as lesser than the imperial europe by fudging(i.e. falsifying the records).

So, in 1816,
- there was very less digging in most of the world. So, how did they reach these grand conclusions?
- there was no carbon dating at that time.
- archeologist has prejudices like these which influence his opinions. And most of these theories seem to be opinions paraded as facts.
- in colonial age(i.e. until 1947), there are good chances that the records would be falsified by the imperial Europe(specially in colonies and dependencies).

This three age system is used as a basis for almost all nonsense which gets peddled about archeology.
Then, there is linguistics. Linguistics is a straight-forward system. And realizing this, the colonial europe has muddied the waters in this field.

Using these two fields, they have tried to construct following picture:
a) Europe is the height of civilization. At the most, they might concede that the humanity was born in Central Asia, or nordic countries or Africa. But, it attained its glory in Europe. It started off with Greece. Then, it was Rome. Then, it was European colonization. Then, its Pax Amirkhan.
b) Rest of the world begged, borrowed or stole from the Europe.
c) Genetically, Europe is superior to the non-Europeans.
d) So, everyone must bow down to the Europeans and allow them to rule.

Obviously, to construct this picture, they had to target the real ancient civilizations like Bhaarath. Linguistics and Archeology were used as fields to do this.

----
What exactly do ancient artifacts look like?
Image

Suppose, you find a piece of this in your backyard. Are you likely to think that its an ancient artifact, or are you likely to throw it away thinking its piece of junk?

How many people must have found such items all over the world and thrown it away thinking they are junk? How can the archeologists claim that only those artifacts that they found are valuable without realizing all the artifacts which might not be coming into their view ever? The point I am making is that they are trying to reach their conclusions based on incomplete data even if their methods were correct. The methods itself seem to be based on prejudices.

So, its incomplete data coupled with prejudices. How can this be an objective science?

This raises a fundamental point:
How long does an object survive? For example, any object will have a manufacture date and an expiry date.
Now, there are three types of expiry dates:
a) date before which the object will perform at its optimum.
b) date after which the object will not be useful.
c) date after which the object will perish i.e. it will not be recognizable anymore.

The (c) is important. So, what is the date after which an object will perish, when it is not maintained in anyway?

How long will iron objects survive?
How long will bronze objects survive?
How long will golden objects survive?
How long will silver objects survive?
How long will steel objects survive?
How long will stone objects survive?
...etc.

If iron objects cannot survive after say 6000 yrs, then obviously one won't find any iron object which is older than 6000 yrs. Simple. That means all theories about three ages would have to first find out how long an object will survive(and be recognizable) when it is disposed into the earth.

This leads to the next point:
if there are objects which are able to survive. Then, it is likely that those objects will be recycled by the people in someway. If people recycle these objects, then one is not likely to find them in the earth by digging around.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 10 Sep 2014 17:46

Early 'Indologists' maintained that gold of gold ornaments found at Indus Saraswati sites (harappan sites) were of foreign origin. The new lab analysis has not only proved that it is of indigenous origin but has established that the gold in all probability was brought from Kolar in Karnataka. This proves multiple issues.

In archaeology pottery/clay wares are very important in stratigraphy and relative dating. Starting from OCP (Ochre Coloured Pottery) (associated with 'Rigvedic' (!) culture of 1500-1000 BC, ROFL),

Painted Gray Ware (PGW) represented Mahabharata period, though secular archaeologists call it mythology, archaeologists still believe that Mahabharata happened, when? they do not know, but they like to give reference to unknown Mahabharata period !! And PGW is dated in the time period 1100-600 BC.

Northern Black Polished Ware or NBPW, The most striking feature of NBPW is use of gold and silver in making of the pottery, this is unique to Indians and is found from present day pakisatan to easternmost banglades in east, and Punjab/Jammu region to South India but main concentration in middle gangetic valley of Allahabad - Patna region. They are found with Punch Marked Coins known as PMC and dated 600 BC and afterward.

Another striking feature where gora archaeologist, especially Mortimer Wheeler and his chamcha descendants of independent India faltered is Rouletted Ware. It is a distinctive ceramic. first found near Pondicherry and Wheeler linked it to Indo-Roman trade and to Romans. This pottery has 2 or 3 dotted lines (rouletted). But this is now controverted as it has been found from the stratum Mauryan period of 3rd Century BCE at various places other than Pondi. Trace element analysis of mineral contents indicates that the clay is mainly from Tamluk-Chandraketugarh region of WB. It is and Indian invention and it went to the Mediterranean region rather than vice versa.
Last edited by Murugan on 10 Sep 2014 18:06, edited 1 time in total.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 10 Sep 2014 18:02

Out-of-India Primates/Indigenous origin of Indian Primates

One time the peninsular India was joined together with South America, Africa and Australia in a supercontinent or a landmass called Gondwana land which supposedly began to drift apart during the geological time-period called the Mesozoic era (225mya-65mya). The geological evidence for this land connection between currently separated continents comes from a study of glacial deposits indicating similarities in flora and fauna found in northern hemisphere. It is thus not improbable that early humans and their tool-technologies might have evolved in Indian tropical or sub-tropical regions independently of the African species. But this view needs further investigation.


Excavations are going on at many prehistoric sites in India and results are encouraging.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 10 Sep 2014 18:36

Carbon dating was invented in 1940s. Then, how did these archeologists before that time decide on the chronology?


There are other types of of dating. Carbon dating was introduced in 1949 by American Physicist W F Libby, is only applicable to organic material like wood, bones etc. Also be informed that after nuclear tests, Carbon C14 isotopes turned into C12 and made carbon dating difficult but now it is calibrated keeping this in mind. With introduction of Accelerated Mass Spectrometry (AMS) C14 dates can be safely used for organic objects upto 1 lac year

Also archaeology digs up 'people' and not 'things', this should be the motto of archaeologists but human bias is very dangerous and lurk in anybody's mind especially in the minds of agenda driven archaeologists.

Various dating methods

Traditional dating known as Relative Chronology


This is based on twin principles of stratigraphy and typology of tools, implements and other material remains. Stratigraphy means lowest layer is earlier in date.

Dendrochronology

Dating based on the growth of yearly rings on certain long lasting trees, sometimes as old as 9000 years.

TL or Thermoluminescence Dating

Used for dating inorganic material, mostly pottery which is abundantly available in archaeological sites. a sample is heated and electrons entrapped in certain mineral, which releases accumulated energy in the form of light and that is measured to find out when that piece of pottery was first fired or baked.

Potassium-argon or K-AR Dating

Trapped argon K40 is analysed in volcanic ash/rock containing prehistoric material or remains. This can measure dates upto 5,000 Million Years Ago (mya)

Palaeomagnetic Dating


Uranium Thorium (U-TH) Dating


Optical Emission Spectrometry

This is used to analyse trace elements in artifacts, particularly beads, pottery and metals.

Micro-wear Use Wear analysis

Optically stimulated luminescence or OSL

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_22872 » 10 Sep 2014 23:04

For what it's worth Talageri ji on AIT :

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby svinayak » 19 Sep 2014 04:22

Europeans drawn from three ancient 'tribes'

Image

This reconstruction shows the dark skin and blue eyes of a 7,000-year-old hunter from northern Spain


The agricultural transition was a period of momentous cultural and demographic change

If you look at all the reconstructions of Mesolithic people on the internet, they are always depicted as fair skinned... This shows the opposite”

Prof Carles Lalueza-Fox
Institute of Evolutionary Biology (CSIC - UPF)

Pigmentation genes carried by the hunters and farmers showed that, while the dark hair, brown eyes and pale skin of the early farmer would look familiar to us, the hunter-gatherers would stand out if we saw them on a street today.

"It really does look like the indigenous West European hunter gatherers had this striking combination of dark skin and blue eyes that doesn't exist any more," Prof Reich told BBC News.

Dr Carles Lalueza-Fox, from the Institute of Evolutionary Biology (CSIC - UPF) in Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved with the research, told BBC News: "If you look at all the reconstructions of Mesolithic people on the internet, they are always depicted as fair skinned. And the farmers are sometimes depicted as dark-skinned newcomers to Europe. This shows the opposite."

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9894
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

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

Postby Vayutuvan » 19 Sep 2014 11:03

Svinayak: I was thinking of posting this. Heard it on NPR this afternoon. Blue eyes and dark skin meet (mate with quite obviously) white skin and brown eyes from the west Asia resulting in "sup-e-rear" blue eyed blonde Aryans of the turd reich.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 21 Sep 2014 09:32

Today is a bright Sunday and would be better with this:

Horse/Chariot/Spoked Wheel

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

***

We still need fore-nar as our people who can play well in this game of debates are so timid and they fear to assert publicly

***

IVC (Indus Valley) for Civilization is a misnomer. It is Saraswati River civilization as most of the sites are found in Ghaggar-Hakra Saraswati dried up bed on Indian side, few also in choli;)stan of pakiland where Saraswati once flowed.

This term "Saraswati River Civilization" will destroy tattered Pakee Echendee forever :)

***

After all IVC's Indus River is a South Asian river ;)


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 21 Sep 2014 19:33

^^^

We're only days away from Durga pooja

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11117
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 21 Sep 2014 20:29

venug wrote:For what it's worth Talageri ji on AIT :


Boils down then to the horse and chariot :)

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11117
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 21 Sep 2014 21:22

Part 2 of Talageri: the textual and archaeological evidence

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21037
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 28 Sep 2014 04:20

As Correctly Noted in Veda/Upanishads
Up to half of Earth's water is older than Sun – study
WASHINGTON - Up to half the water on Earth is likely older than the solar system, raising the likelihood that life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, according to a study Thursday.The research in the journal Science found that "a significant fraction" of the water on Earth was inherited from interstellar space, and was there before the Sun was formed some 4.6 billion years ago.Researchers can tell where the water comes from by examining the ratio of hydrogen to deuterium, a heavy isotope of hydrogen, in water molecules.Water or ice that comes from interstellar space has a high ratio of deuterium to hydrogen, because it forms at such low temperatures.But scientists have not known how much deuterium was removed in the process of the Sun's birth, or how much deuterium-rich water-ice the solar system would have produced when it was first born.Scientists simulated the origin of a planet under conditions where all the deuterium from space ice has already been eliminated.They found they could not reach the ratios of deuterium to hydrogen that are found in meteorite samples or Earth's ocean water.Their findings suggests that at least some of the water in the solar system comes from outer space, and that water -- an essential element for life on Earth -- is not unique to our solar system."This is an important step forward in our quest to find out if life exists on other planets," said co-author Tim Harries, from the University of Exeter's Physics and Astronomy department."It raises the possibility that some exoplanets could house the right conditions, and water resources, for life to evolve."

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

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

Postby johneeG » 01 Oct 2014 16:18

The 'sa' sound of Sanskruth is frequently mispronounced in persian. Generally, it seems to become 'ha'.
For example,
Sapthah (Sanskruth) -> Hapthah (Persian) -> Haftha -> Aftha (Urdu).
Sindhu -> Hindhu

Similarly, Ahura Mazda could be actually, Asura Mazda.

But,

johneeG wrote:Shiv saar,
the author of the above pdf makes the same argument that the word 'Hindu' is as ancient as Hapta Hindu, which is a distortion of Sapta Sindhu. And, 'Sindhu' is found in Vedas.

The author also raises another interesting point: If Persians could not pronounce 'sa' and distorted it as 'ha', then what about the 'sa' in Persia. So, the author concludes that the habit of pronouncing 'sa' as 'ha' is not from Persia(originally), but from Gujarat where Somnath(is called Homnath...etc).


Link to a related post

So,
maybe this can be traced to Gujarath. There is even direct hint.
Zorashtrian may be a distortion of Saurashtra.

johneeG wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote:The word Zorashtra sounds an abbreviation of Saurashtra(Gujarati: સૌરાષ્ટ્ર, Hindi: सौराष्ट्र).
Saurashtriya then became Zorashtrian?

So, it should be no wonder that Shrikirshna is mentioned in their literature.

Link to post

Agnimitra wrote:
sameer ji, Shri Krishna is not mentioned in any primary Zoroastrian text. This book linked above was written last century, and the author is reconstructing history based on some of his primary references.
-------------

Vegetarianism in the poetic gathas and the primary Zoroastrian Texts
Highly discourages all meat eating. Especially and explicitly eating the flesh of the cow.

Link to post

So,
Saurashtra -> Zorashtra
Saura -> Zora
Maybe the greek name Zeus also is the corruption of Saura.

According to Wiki etymology of Zeus is connected to Dheva.

Now, 'Dheva' may refer to 'Indhra' while 'Surya' refers to Sun. So, Zeus could be a combination of both.

It seems to me that the Greek god Zeus is the combination of Surya and Indhra. Even in Bhaarathiya literature, Surya and Indhra are presented as alter-egos of each other.

Link to post

So, who is Asura Mazda?

Since, this is navarathri days, the first connection that I think of is Asura Mahisha or Mahisha-Asura.

Mahisha-Asura was killed by Dhurga and this is described in Dhurga Sapthashathi or Dhurga Mahatmyam.

The Assyrian kingdom may have been called 'Assyrian' because they worshiped 'Asuras'. In contrast, Syrians seems to have worshipped 'Suras'.

About Mahisha-Asura and his father Rambh:
wiki wrote:The two demon brothers Rambh and Karambh came on the throne of the Underworld. Their Mother Danu instructed them to do penance and obtain desired boons. Hence, Rambh and Karambh did penance to please Agni and Varun (Fire/Water) respectively. Rambh started doing penance in Agni chakra whereas Karambh was being half immersed in river water while doing penance. Lord Indra took disguise of a crocodile and killed Karambh while Rambh successfully comepletely his penance and got a boon from Agni that he will obtain an extremely powerful son, who will rule over the three worlds in this universe. Rambh fell in love with Mahishi (buffalo woman) and got married to her. Mahishi soon got pregnant by Rambh. Once her lover, a Mahish, tried to abduct her. Rambh came in forefront to protect his wife. It happened so that Rambh got killed by the Mahish. In the cremation process of Rambh, Mahishi jumped into the fire, to sacrifice her life to express her love for her husband. Hence, Yama was stopped from taking away the soul of Rambh. Hence, Rambh got retained into the womb of Mahishi.

From the cremation fire emerged two demons namely Raktabeej (rebirth of Rambh) and Mahishasur (the child of Rambh), the demon Mahishasur obtained a boon from Lord Brahma indicating that no man will kill him, he gathered strong powers from Lord Brahma as a reward for his penance.

Mahishasur also gathered a large demon army to win for the heavens, in heaven, Indra learnt about the boon that Mahishasur got from Lord Brahma, he sent in a large heavenly army, Mahishasur came to the battlefield with his army as well with Indra's. The demons were chanting for Mahishasur while the heavenly army was chanting for Indra. Indra warned Mahishasur to go back where he belongs, Mahishasur didn't want to. A severe battle began, the heavenly army failed to kill Mahishasur's army, Mahishasur's army was so powerful and strong, Mahishasur defeated Indra by obtaining the heavens.

Link

The word Spitama in Zorashtrianism may just be a distortion of Pithamaha or great father.

Yasna Haptanghaiti seems to be an important bit in Zorashtrianism.

wiki wrote:The Yasna Haptanghaiti[pronunciation?] (Yasna Haptaŋhāiti), Avestan for "Worship in Seven Chapters," is a set of seven hymns within the greater Yasna collection, that is, within the primary liturgical texts of the Zoroastrian Avesta.

Link
Yasna seems like a distortion of Yajna or Yagnya.
Haptanghaiti can be divided into two parts: Hapta and ghaiti.
Hapta is obviously distorted form of Sapta i.e. seven.
but what is ghaiti?
Maybe ghaiti is distortion of shathi.
So, Haptanghaiti is Sapthashathi.

So, Yasna HaptanGhaiti maybe a variant of Yagnya(or Dhurga) SapthaShathi. As I previously mentioned, Dhurga Sapthashathi describes the war between Dhurga and Asura Mahisha(or Ahura Mazda).

Why would someone make a god out of Mahisha-Asura?
This is similar to glorifying Ravana. And indeed it is. Which ideology did this? It must be a anti-Hindhu ideology and its chief reason must be to undermine Hindhuism. When Ravana is glorified the main idea is to undermine Raama. When, Asura Mahisha is glorified, the idea is to undermine Dhurga.

Buddhism is known to have distorted many Hindhu scriptures by creating all sorts of variations which undermine the Hindhu scriptures. This also involves glorification of Ravana.

In Lankavatara Sutra, Buddhism created a story that Thathagatha(Buddha) instructed Ravana and gave him the knowledge. So, Ravana is presented as a good guy. In Jataka tales, there is a story of Rama and Seetha being brother and sister. Such distortions by Buddhism are common. The legend of Buddha itself seems to be just copied from Raamayana, Mahabhaaratha and Bhaagavatham.

Keeping this in mind, it can be speculated that glorification of Asuras, Dhaityas and Dhanavas may also have been the handiwork of Buddhism or proto-Buddhism.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

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

Postby johneeG » 01 Oct 2014 17:01

Ahuna Vairya is also interesting.

wiki wrote:Ahuna Vairya[pronunciation?] (also known as Ahunavar, Ahunwar, and Yatha Ahu Vairyo) is the Avestan language name of the most sacred of the Gathic hymns of the Avesta, the revered texts of Zoroastrianism.

The hymn, which appears in Yasna 27.13, is named after its opening words yatha ahu vairyo, which cannot be translated without significant loss of meaning. Humbach refers to the Ahuna Vairya and the Artem Vohu (Ashem Vohu, Yasna 27.14, the second most sacred invocation), as "very cryptic formulas, of a pronounced magical character." (Humbach, 1991:1) The Ahunavaiti Gatha (chapters 28-34 of the Yasna), is named after the Ahuna Vairya hymn.


Link

I think Ahuna Vairya is related to Asura Virochana.

Who is Virochana?
Virochana is the son of Prahladha and father of Bali. Prahladha story is famous because he is the one who was the reason for the Nrusimha avathara of Lord Vishnu according to Hindhuism.

Virochana is apparently mentioned in Chandogya Upanishad.

The King of Gods, Indra, and the King of Demons, Virochana

KA2_092-7167011-52055_650x250

The greater teacher Prajapati said, ‘The Self is pure, free from decay and death, free from hunger and thirst and free from sorrow. This is Atman, the Spirit in man. The only thing this Spirit desires is truth. This is the Spirit that we must seek and know: we must each find our own Self. When we have found our Self and got to know it, we have reached the ultimate, and there is nothing more to desire.’

The King of Gods, Indra, and the King of Demons, Virochana both heard what Prajapati said and thought, ‘We must find that Self, that Spirit, so that we can obtain all our desires.’

So Indra, the godly, and Virochana, the demonic both went independently to Prajapati, carrying gifts as a sign that they wanted to be his pupils, and for thirty-two years they lived as religious students with him. At the end of the thirty-two years, Prajapati asked why they had stayed with him for so long.

Indra and Virochana answered, ‘We have heard your inspiring words: the Self is pure and beyond old age and death, free from hunger, thirst and sorrow; a Spirit who desires only truth, and whose thoughts are truth. You say that we must find this Spirit and understand it because when we do all of our desires will be met. This is why we have become your pupils.’

Prajapati said to them, ‘When you look into another person’s eyes what you see is the Self, fearless and deathless. That is the Higher Spirit, Brahman, the Supreme.’

They asked, ‘What is it we see reflected when we look in a mirror?’
‘It is the Self that you see in all of these. That same Self is seen in all. Go and look at yourself in a bowl of water and tell me what you see.’
They did, and responded, ‘We see ourselves clearly, our doubles, even our hair and our nails.’
‘Then dress up, put on beautiful clothes and jewellery, and look at yourselves again and tell me what you see this time.’
They did, and answered, ‘We see ourselves as we are, all dressed up.’
‘That is also the Self, fearless and deathless.’

Indra and Virochana went away satisfied, but Prajapati said to himself, ‘They have seen the Self, but they have not understood. They have not yet found the Self. They mistake the Self as the body. If you think that the Self is the body then you lose your way in life.’

Virochana, certain that the Self is the body, went back to the demons and began to teach them that the body alone is to be saved and adored. He taught them that if you live with indulgence of the senses you will find joy in this world and the next.

Even today, we lack faith, love and charity, we are called godless.

Before Indra returned to the godly, he could see the danger of this teaching and thought, ‘If our Self is the body and it is dressed in beautiful clothes, then when the body is blind, the Self must also be blind, and when the body is lame, then the Self must be lame, and when the body dies, our Self dies also. I don’t understand the spiritual benefits of this teaching.’ So he went back to Prajapati with gifts in hand as a sign that he wanted to be his pupil again.

‘Why have you come back?’ asked Prajapati. ‘You left here satisfied.’
Indra replied, ‘Lord, if the body is all adorned, so is its reflection; but if the body is blind, lame or crippled, the Self would be blind, lame or crippled; if the body is dead, the Self would be dead. I don’t see any benefits to this understanding.’

‘You are correct. Stay with me for a further thirty-two years and I will teach you more about the Self.’ So Indra lived with Prajapati for a further thirty-two years, and after this time said to him, ‘The Self is that which moves about in joy in the dreaming state, fearless and deathless.’

Indra went away satisfied, but later began to question this knowledge and went back a third time to Prajapati. ‘Why have you returned? Aren’t you satisfied?’ the sage asked Indra.

Indra replied, ‘In the dreaming state, the Self is not blind when the body is blind, nor lame when the body is lame; yet in this sate the Self may seem to be killed and suffer and even weep. I can find no joy in this teaching.’

Then Prajapati said to him, ‘Live with me for a further thirty-two years and I will teach you more about the Self.’ So Indra lived with him for another thirty-two years, and at the end of this time his teacher said, ‘When a person is fast asleep, at peace with himself, serene and dreamless, that is the Self, the Immortal beyond fear. That is the Supreme Reality, called Brahman.’

Now Indra left with peace in his heart, thinking he was ready to start teaching about the Self, but before be reached his pupils, he saw the danger of this teaching and he returned once more to Prajapati. Again Prajapati asked why he had returned and Indra replied, ‘When you are in a state of deep dreamless sleep, you are not aware of yourself or of anyone else. I think that in this state you are very close to extinction. I don’t see any knowledge in this teaching either.’

‘You are thinking very clearly, Indra’ said Prajapati. ‘Live with me for a further five years and I will teach you to realize the Self.’ So Indra lived with Prajapati for another five years, making a total of 101 years that he lived with his teacher. People often said that the great Indra lived with Prajapati the pure life of a spiritual student for 101 years in order to learn to master the Self.

After this time Prajapati revealed the highest truth of the Self to Indra: ‘It is true that the body will die, but within the body lives the imperishable Self. The body experiences pleasure and pain, so no one that is ruled by his body can ever be free from pleasure and pain. But those that know they are not the body can pass beyond pleasure and pain to live in a state of joy.

‘The wind, clouds, thunder and lightning have no body, but when they rise up and reach the light, they show their own shapes. Likewise when the Self is in silent quietness it arises, leaves the body and, becoming the Spirit Supreme, it finds body of light. This is the land of infinite liberty where, beyond the mortal body, the Spirit of man is free. There he can laugh and sing and forget that while he was on earth, he was attached to his body. As a beast is attached to a cart, so on earth the Self is attached to a body.

‘When we see, smell, speak, hear or think, it is the Self that sees, smells, speaks, hears and thinks, The senses are only the instruments of the Self. It is because of the light of the Spirit that the human mind can see and think and enjoy this world. When you know your own Self in truth and light, you experience peace and joy.’

Chandogya Upanishad


Link

Wiki gives a summary:
wiki wrote:According to the Chandogya Upanishad (VIII.7.2-8.5), he and Indra went to Prajapati to learn about the atman (self) and lived there, practising brahmacharya for thirty-two years. But at the end, he misunderstood Prajapati's teachings and preached the asuras to worship the sharira (body) as the atman. Thus, asuras started adorning the body of a deceased with perfumes, garlands and ornaments.[2]

Link

So, Virochana taught Asuras to worship the body including dead bodies with perfumes, dresses, ornaments, garlands...etc. One can see that this is found in ancient Egyptian custom of mummies.

Is Virochana mentioned in Buddhism? Of course.

In Buddhism, Virochana is the greatest of the "Dhyanibuddhas", the Five Great Buddhas of Wisdom. He encompasses the principle of "Absolute". In Tibet, he is said to ride a snow leopard as his mount. He is also said to have introduced the Yogacara school of Mahayana Buddhism to humans. He is called Dainichi Nyorai in Japan. His wrathful emanation is called Acala (or Fudou Myouou).

In Hinduism, Vairocana is the name of the king of Asuras who, together with Indra, went to Prajapati for guidance towards enlightenment.


Link

So, one can clearly see a pattern.
All the figures who are presented as negatives in Hindhuism are presented as positives in Buddhism. The same is seen in the glorification of Asuras, Dhanavas(descendents of Dhanu), and Dhaithyas(descendents of Dhithi).

Asura Mahisha(Ahura Mazda) and Ahuna Vairya(Asura Virochana) also seem to follow same pattern.

So, Ahuna Vairya seems to be claiming that they are teachings of Asura Virochana.

----
wiki wrote:Asha (/ˈɑːʃə/; aša) is the Avestan language term (corresponding to Vedic language ṛta) for a concept of cardinal importance[1] to Zoroastrian theology and doctrine. In the moral sphere, aša/arta represents what has been called "the decisive confessional concept of Zoroastrianism."[2] The opposite of Avestan aša is druj, "lie."

The significance of the term is complex, with a highly nuanced range of meaning. It is commonly summarized in accord with its contextual implications of 'truth' and 'right(eousness)', 'order' and 'right working'.[3][4] For other connotations, see meaning below.

Its Old Persian equivalent is arta-.[c] In Middle Iranian languages the term appears as ard-.[a]

Link

This seems to be wrong. How can Asha be connected to Artha or Rutha? I think a more straight-forward connection is that Asha is connected to Aasha. Aasha is Sanskruth means desire or inspiration. The same meaning must be assumed in the zorashtrian context also.

----
Notice that the father of Mahisha, Rambh practiced penance for Agni(Fire) and became successful. Therefore, the Spitama(father i.e. Rambh) worshipped Fire. Therefore, Zorashtrianism asks its followers to worship fire.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2014 19:25

JohneeG there are many connections between Gujarat and Zoroastrianism and I am not referring to the return of the Parsees to Gujarat after persecution in Iran

I think we have discussed much of this in the past, but let me summarize:
1. The town of Bharuch in Gujarat was "Bhrighu-kaksah" or town of Rishi Bhrigu
2. The Bhargavas, descended from Bhrigu were fire worshippers like Zoroastrians
3. The hold book of the Zoroastrians, the so called "Zend Avesta" is the same as the "Chhand upastha" - or the "Bhargava Atharva Veda" the lost half of the Atharva veda - where the existing one is the Angirasa AAtharva veda

You are right that the "Sa->Ha" mispronunciation may have occurred in Gujarat. It went to Persia with the Zoroastrians. It is my theory that it went to Greece from Persia. Greek has the same sa-ha change "heptahlon" (hepta) and "Hindu" (Sindhu)

Most of the language "Avestan" is cooked up from Sanskrit sources.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 01 Oct 2014 20:02

Rakesh Tewari who excavated iron age implements dated early 2nd millennium BCE is now Director General Archaeological Survey of India.

Rakesh Tewari is available on Facebook and known to be a very simple and approachable person.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 907
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

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

Postby sivab » 02 Oct 2014 06:08

http://m.economictimes.com/news/politic ... 838590.cms

DU's Sanskrit dept kickstarts project to prove Aryans were not foreigners

Delhi University's Sanskrit department has thrown its weight behind a project that could possibly rewrite history to fit the Sangh Parivar's view of India's past — a move that's likely to gain political colour considering the resounding victory of the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party in the general election.

Here's what most history books tell us — first there was the Indus Valley Civilization that flourished in places such as Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. Then, around 3,500 years ago, this went into decline as the Aryan nomadic tribes crossed the mountains and entered India.

Sanskrit dept to rope in YS Rao

But the Hindu nationalist narrative, as espoused by the Sangh Parivar and its affiliates, disputes what they call a European-imposed narrative. They say the Aryans were an indigenous people — not migrants.

The project was announced last week by Delhi University's Sanskrit department in the presence of OP Kohli -- a BJP leader recently appointed Gujarat governor -- and vice-chancellor Dinesh Singh at an event marking 60 years of Sanskrit research.Sanskrit department head Ramesh Bharadwaj strongly denied that this was an attempt to validate a particular party line and that he was only interested in putting forward a convincing academic argument. Singh for his part has come under intense criticism for implementing a four-degree undergraduate programme that's been withdrawn after the new government was formed.

The project is unlikely to find the support of the university's history department. "This is a meaningless debate. We all now know that the entire human race can trace its ancestry back to Africa. So how does it matter whether Aryans were indigenous to our country or were outsiders? There are far more serious issues of archaeological and scientific research that need to addressed in our country," said Nayanjot Lahiri, a professor of archaeology in the history department at Delhi University.

There's no evidence to back the claim, said renowned historian DN Jha, who specialises in ancient and medieval Indian history.

"This debate is not new, but I can say that at present there is no scientific evidence to prove that Indo-Aryans were indigenous to our subcontinent. But since the political ambience in the country has changed, there will be many such attempts to prove this," said Jha, who used to be a Delhi University professor. "I have no comment to offer except that a serious historian will only dismiss such research.

Moreover, the Sanskrit department of Delhi University is not at all competent to go into such questions." The idea is to disprove the Aryan migration theory, proposed by German linguist and Sanskrit scholar Max Mueller, using scientific facts.

"There are two schools of thought as far as the origin of the Indo-Aryans is concerned. We want to collate archaeological and new scientific evidence along with the Sanskrit department's own research of ancient manuscripts and texts to prove that Indian culture was not a foreign import," said Bharadwaj, who argued that the opposite was true.

"In fact, the Aryans belonged to the subcontinent and migrated from here and influenced cultures abroad," he said.


The last NDA government had made an attempt to disprove the Aryan migration theory by changing the history textbooks in 2004, the year in which it lost the general election. Human resource development ministry officials declined to comment on the matter.

The Sanskrit department will soon seek the help of YS Rao, recently appointed head of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) by the BJP government, to collate historical evidence. Rao did not respond to ET's calls and emails. Rao is a controversial figure, having once written in support of the caste system besides blaming Muslim rule for India's social ills.

His stand on a strongly divisive issue was made clear by his support for the contention that the Babri Masjid was built on the site of a temple.Nationalistic scholars have argued that there are several linguistic, archaeological, literary and, more recently, genetic pieces of evidence to support the belief that Aryans originated in the Indian subcontinent. The issue was one of the most hotly contested debates in Western and Indian academic circles throughout the 1990s.

Bharadwaj pointed to the pattern of similarities between ancient Sanskrit words and ancient words in classical Western languages as one of the linguistic examples of Indian influence on cultures abroad.

He also cited similarities between the architecture and culture of the Indus Valley Civilization and Mesopotamian Civilisation, the latter considered the cradle of civilization in the West.

As for genetic evidence, a study published by scientists from the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad said that the origin of genetic diversity found in South Asia is much older than 3,500 years, when the Indo-Aryans were said to have begun migrating to India.

The study had appeared in the American Journal of Human Genetics in 2011. "Many phonetic laws of French language are the same as the one formulated by ancient Sanskrit grammarian Panini. The German language is also similar to Sanskrit.

So when there is so much evidence in favour of our view, then there must be an effort to bring some finality to this debate. Why should we continue teaching the European theory to our children?" Bharadwaj said.

According to Bharadwaj, the Sanskrit department will start holding workshops with different scholars in January next year in pursuit of its project.


The sad part about this effort is that Bharadwaj is conceding that Aryans are a race (an European construct of imperialism). Nothing useful will come out this and will perpetuate Aryan/Dravidian non-sense.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

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

Postby johneeG » 02 Oct 2014 11:04

shiv wrote:JohneeG there are many connections between Gujarat and Zoroastrianism and I am not referring to the return of the Parsees to Gujarat after persecution in Iran

I think we have discussed much of this in the past, but let me summarize:
1. The town of Bharuch in Gujarat was "Bhrighu-kaksah" or town of Rishi Bhrigu
2. The Bhargavas, descended from Bhrigu were fire worshippers like Zoroastrians
3. The hold book of the Zoroastrians, the so called "Zend Avesta" is the same as the "Chhand upastha" - or the "Bhargava Atharva Veda" the lost half of the Atharva veda - where the existing one is the Angirasa AAtharva veda

You are right that the "Sa->Ha" mispronunciation may have occurred in Gujarat. It went to Persia with the Zoroastrians. It is my theory that it went to Greece from Persia. Greek has the same sa-ha change "heptahlon" (hepta) and "Hindu" (Sindhu)

Most of the language "Avestan" is cooked up from Sanskrit sources.


It seems that the word 'Persia' was created by the Greeks. So, its a greek word. I am presently trying to understand what is the native word(i.e. what is the word used by the persians themselves to refer to the persia)?
- One possibility is Iran. But, Iran seems to be based on Irinam(Sanskruth) i.e. barren land. This seems like a generic word rather than specific name for a country.
- Another possibility is Khorasan. But, it seems that word 'Khorasan' was used for places east of Persia. And it was mostly popularized during the Islamic rule of Persia.
- Then, another possibility is Khaambhoja. This word is used by the Bhaarathiyas to refer to Persia. But, is this word used by the persians themselves?

The word Persia itself is quite interesting.

Anyway, it seems that the Iran/Persia was part of the larger Bhaarathiya. So, there is nothing called Indo-Iran. Saying Indo-Iranian is similar to saying Indo-Kashmiri or Indo-Punjabi or Indo-Thamilian or Indo-Maraati or Indo-Manipuri...etc. At that time, those areas were part of Bhaarath's cultural and civilizational sphere.

Coming to Zorashtrianism: it seems to be connected to Saurashtra. Zorashtra - Saurashtra.
Rather than Atharvana Vedhas, it seems to be related to Chaandhogya Upanishadh. Chaandhogya Upanishadh contains the story of Virochana and Indhra going to Brahma(Pithamaha or Spitama) for knowledge of self. Virochana learns it wrongly and starts teaching glorification of the body(even dead bodies) to Asuras. Chaandhogya Upanishadh is part of Saama Vedha.

Ahura Mazda seems to be connected to Asura Mahisha.

Shiv saar,
you seem to have done lot of work on zorashtrianism. So, if you can give some info connected to Ahura Mazda, it would be appreciated. I'll see if it can be connected to Asura Mahisha.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

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

Postby Agnimitra » 02 Oct 2014 11:15

johneeG wrote:I am presently trying to understand what is the native word(i.e. what is the word used by the persians themselves to refer to the persia)?

Currently Faars. From Paars. From Paarshava (Sanskrit). From Parshu.
Indians called them Paarshavas earlier. Later they were called Paarasika and then just Paarasi/Parsi.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 02 Oct 2014 20:03

johneeG wrote:Ahura Mazda seems to be connected to Asura Mahisha.

Shiv saar,
you seem to have done lot of work on zorashtrianism. So, if you can give some info connected to Ahura Mazda, it would be appreciated. I'll see if it can be connected to Asura Mahisha.

Yes I have put in a lot of work as part of a book that I actually wrote but the work has been arrested because the book had no single purpose or aim. I will have to compile and use the material elsewhere. One of the chapters is about Zoroaster. Unfortunately I have not found too much about Ahura Mazda perhaps because I was not looking for infor about Ahura Mazda. It seems certain that "Ahura" is the same as "Asura"

The name Persia is not of Greek origin. The Persian Zoroastrians themselves called their land Persia. The 500 BC Behistun inscription has the Emperor Darius (Daravayus) saying "I am Daravayus, Kshatriya of Kshatriyas, king of Persia" in ancient Persian that reads like Sanskrit "Adam Daravayus kshayatiya khsyatiya Persiayi - etc "

See here for the translation
http://www.livius.org/be-bm/behistun/behistun-t01.html

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_20317 » 02 Oct 2014 20:08

How about Persia begin some kind of cross between Pur and Si-ah - Pur of the Si-ah with Si-ah going to become Shia and onto to Shite today. :P

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 02 Oct 2014 20:10

sivab wrote:http://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/dus-sanskrit-dept-kickstarts-project-to-prove-aryans-were-not-foreigners/articleshow/43838590.cms

The sad part about this effort is that Bharadwaj is conceding that Aryans are a race (an European construct of imperialism). Nothing useful will come out this and will perpetuate Aryan/Dravidian non-sense.

If we look at this in a different way it could make sense.

Everything I have read suggests that in later Vedic times there was big rift among Vedic people and one branch of "Fire worshippers" broke off from the Sindhu region and migrated west. They were Zoroastrians and they called themselves Arya or noble people - carrying with them a version of the Atharva Veda which is all but lost and survives in fragmentary form as the Zend Avesta. They were known for Astronomy and Astrology and for magic medications and potions. the name "magi" and now "magic" comes from that tradition. I personally believe that they dcarried language to Greece and influenced Greek with the curious changes of Sa to Ha. "sapta" - "Hepta", "Sarpa" - "Herpes" (creeper), Sindhu-Hindu. Note that the sa-ha sound change exists only in Western Gujarat, Iran and Greece.

In my view the real connection between India and Greece and the real OIT is the Zoroastrians - who broke off and went west.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 02 Oct 2014 20:11

There needs to be an indigenous project to translate that inscription and my feel is that it may actually end up being not "like" Sanskrit but indeed Sanskrit. Daravayus may end up being Dharmaraj. There are clear reference that they belong to Kuru Vansh and the way the inscription introduces the king and describes his actions makes you feel that you are reading MahaBharat and other indic puranas. JMHO.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 02 Oct 2014 20:12

Satya_anveshi wrote:There needs to be an indigenous project to translate that inscription and my feel is that it may actually end up being not "like" Sanskrit bit indeed Sanskrit. Daravayus will be Dharmaraj. There are clear reference that they belong to Kuru Vansh and the way the inscription introduces the king and describes his actions makes you feel that you are reading MahaBharat and other indic puranas. JMHO.

In the first version of the thread I had a huge argument with someone about this - I now forget his name - he was a firm shishya of Witzel and co.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 02 Oct 2014 20:38

Yes Shiv, I am familiar with discussion on this topic since page 1. I know you brought that out and I totally agree. ManishH was the handle I suppose.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 02 Oct 2014 20:46

My reading suggests to me that the Zoroastrians created such a powerful empire in Persia that access to India from Europe was "blocked" by Persia until the Persian empire was defeated. Hence you only have some vague ancient inkling of very very Indian thought coming from Greek scholars' records about 1000 or more years after the Saraswati Sindhu civilization faded and went east.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 02 Oct 2014 21:01

^^ in the above context there was further discussion about communication between Persian king and Indian king Purushottama (condescendingly referred even by Indians as Porus), where in Persian king asked for help from Indian counterpart when facing the onslaught from Alakshendra. Unfortuantely (in the hindsight), it proved to be fatal mistake not defeating Alakshendra prior to Persian defeat and inviting him all the way to the western edges of Indus.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 03 Oct 2014 09:25

One of the descendant of King Pururava (many generations before Pandavas.. and thus long before 5561 BCE and also frankly before Ramayana and thus 12000 BCE, .. more likely 13000 BCE - 15000 BCE) Amavasu migrated from India to the West. His descendants are known as known as Gandharas, Parashu and Arratas. The reference to this migration appears in late work - Baudhayana Srautasutra.. even then .. this can be and should be dated to no later than ~2000 BCE.

So, Parashu (Persian) were known long before 500 BCE and 1000 BCE.

--

Also note Bhrigu and ParashuRama (Parashu) connection. Ancient history refers to members of Bhrigu dynasty roaming around everywhere.. however many specific references of them in the NW part of India (Punjab, Afganistan, Iran, etc.)

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21037
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 08 Oct 2014 09:22

5,000-year Harappan stepwell found in Kutch, bigger than Mohenjo Daro's

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/5000-ye ... 638220.cms

ASHVMEDABAD: A 5,000-year-old stepwell has been found in one of the largest Harappan cities, Dholavira, in Kutch, which is three times bigger than the Great Bath at Mohenjo Daro. Located in the eastern reservoir of Dholavira by experts from the Archaeological Survey of India working with IIT-Gandhinagar, the site represents the largest, grandest, and the best furnished ancient reservoir discovered so far in the country. It's rectangular and 73.4m long, 29.3m wide, and 10m deep. Another site, the ornate Rani ki Vav in Patan, called the queen of stepwells, is already on Unesco list. "This is almost three times bigger than the Great Bath of Mohenjo Daro that's 12m in length, 7m in width, and 2.4m in depth," said V N Prabhakar, visiting faculty at IIT and superintending archaeologist, ASI. "We will conduct spot analysis in December as various surveys have indicated other reservoirs and stepwells may be buried in Dholavira," Prabhakar told TOI. "We also suspect a huge lake and an ancient shoreline are buried in the archaeological site that's one of the five largest Harappan sites and the most prominent archaeological site in India belonging to the Indus Valley civilization," he added. Experts will investigate the advanced hydraulic engineering used by Harappans for building the stepwell through 3D laser scanner, remote sensing technology and ground-penetrating radar system."We will study how water flowed into the well and what was the idea behind water conservation," said Prabhakar. The IIT Gandhinagar team and ASI officials will also excavate various tanks, stoneware, finely furnished brick blocks, sanitation chambers and semi-precious stones hidden at the site. Precious stones like carnelian were in great demand during the Harappan era. Gujarat was the hub of bead and craft manufacturing industries. "Agate carnelian beads were also coveted," Prabhakar said. Siddharth Rai and V Vinod of IIT-Gn are working on characterization of internal structures of various forms of pottery unearthed from the site to identify the diet followed by Harappans. "Through pottery typology, we'll find out whether different communities lived in Dholavira," Rai said. The team will also analyze precious copper and bronze artefacts.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11117
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 09 Oct 2014 15:34

FYI, 40K year-old cave paintings in Indonesia:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1335278/54686744#c12

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21037
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 23 Oct 2014 01:41

Bengal just got older by 22000 yrs
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1141021/j ... EgYLvl4on4

ulti-disciplinary research led by a city-based archaeologist has confirmed the presence of humans in the Ayodhya hills of Purulia about 42,000 years ago, a finding that pushes Bengal’s archaeological calendar 22,000 years back.Bishnupriya Basak, who teaches archaeology at Calcutta University, sealed the findings after more than 12 years of intensive exploration and excavation of 25 stone-age sites she had discovered between 1998 and 2000 while working with the Centre for Archaeological Studies & Training, Eastern India.The breakthrough came when Basak, 47, returned to the forests of the Ayodhya hills in 2011 to build on her findings using a technique called Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) that establishes the antiquity of tools of a particular age.Before Basak’s discovery, the earliest evidence of human presence in Bengal was at Sagardighi, in Murshidabad. The tools found there were dated to approximately 20,000 years ago.“This is an extraordinary development and a breakthrough in the otherwise hazy chronology of eastern India. It marks a welcome trend in research. In this day and age, multi-disciplinary initiatives are indispensable,” said Gautam Sengupta, former director-general of the Archaeological Survey of India.In the subcontinent, the earliest evidence of microlith-using cultures — hunter-gatherer populations that made and used the types of light stone implements found in the Ayodhya hills — is in Metakheri, Madhya Pradesh. They date back to 48,000 years ago.Microlithic tools found at Jwalapuram, in Andhra Pradesh, are from 35,000 years ago and those discovered in Sri Lanka are from 25,000 years ago.
Basak’s discovery was reported recently in the fortnightly research journal Current Science (Vol. 107, No. 11687).The 47-year-old had conducted part of her research under police protection in the midst of Maoist insurgency in the region, her bold quest yielding 4,000-odd microlithic tools from excavation sites at Mahadebbera and Kana alone. Mahadebbera is located 500 metres northwest of Ghatbera village, in the catchment area of the Kumari river. Kana is around the same distance northwest of Ghatbera.“From 2007 to 2011, I couldn’t even go near the sites because Maoist insurgency had escalated. But I returned in 2011 and with the help of the police camping there, I managed to finish my work. It was very difficult and not something people expected of a woman, but I am well rewarded,” Basak told Metro.Current Science states that the microlithic tools excavated from the colluvium-covered pediment surface in Kana are from “42,000 (plus or minus 4,000) years before the present” and “between 34,000 (plus or minus 3,000) and 25,000 years before the present in Mahadebbera”.In the subcontinent, most microlithic sites are reported from alluvial context, sand dunes or rock shelters. There are very few late Pleistocene colluvial sites. Colluvium is the material that accumulates at the foot of the hill ranges — a mix of sediment, gravel and pebbles, all brought down the hill slope through natural gravitational flow. When they form a stable surface, as in the Ayodhya hills, they are a good location for prehistoric populations to settle.According to geoarchaeologists, the Ayodhya discoveries hold the key to research in several fields, from environmental studies to palaeontology.
The samples had been first sent for pre-treatment and chemical analysis to the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, where senior scientist Pradeep Srivastava dated them as belonging to the Late Pleistocene period, roughly in the bracket of “42,000-25,000 years before the present”. The rocks from which these tools had been made were identified by the Geological Survey of India as “chert and felsic tuff”.At Sagardighi, a team led by the late Amal Roy had found microliths made of agate, chert, chalcedony and quartz. They were not scientifically dated, though. The antiquity of the tools was assumed to be 20,000 years ago on the basis of geological factors.Subrata Chakraborty, professor of prehistory at Visva-Bharati, said accurate dating had long been a problem in Bengal because of inadequate infrastructure.“There is no institutional set-up for accurate scientific dating in Bengal.”The 4,000-odd Ayodhya microliths include blades and backed tools. Micro blades are small — maximum length up to 4cm — parallel-sided tools that are very sharp and suitable for cutting. Backed microliths are those that are further retouched and attached to bows, arrows and spears to hunt small animals and birds.An intriguing facet of the discovery is that no trace of the raw material used in these tools was found in the near vicinity, suggesting that the early hunter-gatherers had travelled quite a distance to get their stones. Such instances are, of course, not uncommon even among living hunter-gatherers.Geo-archaeologist Rajguru said the Ayodhya discoveries had opened a whole new chapter in Bengal’s history.“We can, for instance, assert that Bengal was very much a part of the climatic changes during the last glacial period. So far it had been assumed that Bengal was always humid with plenty of rainfall. Now we have evidence that the whole of the Rahr region also experienced the dry climate that was caused by the period’s peak in glaciation. We also know that the sea level must have been lower by about 100 metres.”

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52432
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 23 Oct 2014 21:08

Scientific American Article

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... sequenced/


45,000-Year-Old Man's Genome Sequenced

An analysis of the oldest known DNA from a human reveals a mysterious group that roamed northern Asia

October 23, 2014 |By Ewen Callaway and Nature magazine

Ust’-Ishim

The Ust’-Ishim femur.

A 45,000-year-old leg bone from Siberia has yielded the oldest genome sequence for Homo sapiens on record — revealing a mysterious population that may once have spanned northern Asia. The DNA sequence from a male hunter-gatherer also offers tanta­li­zing clues about modern humans’ journey from Africa to Europe, Asia and beyond, as well as their sexual encounters with Neanderthals.

His kind might have remained unknown were it not for Nikolai Peristov, a Russian artist who carves jewellery from ancient mammoth tusks. In 2008, Peristov was looking for ivory along Siberia’s Irtysh River when he noticed a bone jutting from the riverbank. He dug it out and showed it to a police forensic scientist, who identified it as probably human.

The bone turned out to be a human left femur, and eventually made it to the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, where researchers carbon-dated it. “It was quite fossilized, and the hope was that it might turn out old. We hit the jackpot,” says Bence Viola, a palaeo­anthropologist who co-led the study of the remains. “It was older than any other modern human yet dated.” The luck continued when Viola’s colleagues found that the bone contained well-preserved DNA, and they sequenced its genome to the same accuracy as that achieved for contemporary human genomes (Q. Fu et al.Nature 514, 445–449; 2014).

The researchers named their find Ust’-Ishim, after the district where Peristov found the remains. They dated him to between 43,000 and 47,000 years old, nearly twice the age of the next-oldest known complete modern-human genome, although older, archaic-human genomes exist.

DNA may be the only chance to connect the remains to other humans. “This guy came out of nowhere — there’s no archaeology site we could connect it to,” says Viola, suggesting that his group roamed far and wide.

The Ust’-Ishim man was probably descended from an extinct group that is closely related to humans who left Africa more than 50,000 years ago to populate the rest of the world, but later went extinct, Viola says.

The most intriguing clue about his origin is that about 2% of his genome comes from Neanderthals. This is roughly the same level that lurks in the genomes of all of today’s non-Africans, owing to ancient trysts between their ancestors and Neanderthals. The Ust’-Ishim man probably got his Neanderthal DNA from these same matings, which, past studies suggest, happened after the common ancestor of Europeans and Asians left Africa and encountered Neanderthals in the Middle East.

Until now, the timing of this interbreeding was uncertain — dated to between 37,000 and 86,000 years ago. But Neanderthal DNA in the Ust’-Ishim genome pinpoints it to between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago on the basis of the long Neanderthal DNA segments in the Ust’-Ishim man’s genome. Paternal and maternal chromosomes are shuffled together in each generation, so that over time the DNA segments from any individual become shorter.

The more precise dates for Neanderthal–human mating pose a challenge for scientists who have proposed that modern humans left Africa before 100,000 years ago and reached Asia more than 75,000 years ago, says Chris Stringer, a palaeoanthropologist at London’s Natural History Museum. Those researchers, who include Michael Petraglia, an archaeologist at the University of Oxford, UK, have pointed to H. sapiens-like bones from the Levant that are older than 100,000 years and to 70,000-year-old stone tools found in India as evidence for an early human exodus to Asia along a southern coastal route that eventually reached Oceania and Australia.

But Petraglia sees Ust’-Ishim’s genome differently. “I think this is part of a population boom that’s going on around 45,000 years ago, which means modern humans got to the ends of the world by 45,000 years ago,” he says. Their numbers might have swamped human populations that arrived in earlier migrations.

Petraglia expects that ancient DNA and other fossil finds will paint a much more complicated picture of the peopling of Asia. “This is just a random find in a Siberian river deposit,” Stringer says. “What else could be there when they start looking systematically?”

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on October 22, 2014.



Note stone tools found around 70,000 years ago in India.

Population boom 45,000 years ago leading to migrations swamping local populations.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Postby RajeshA » 24 Oct 2014 02:07

Continuing from "West Asia News and Discussions" Thread

Muppalla wrote:The Yazidi Deception: An Overview
A good read.


Good Article, but the author is looking at things too literally.

The Yazidi religion professes belief in a singular “supreme” god [similar to the biblical god] who manifests in the form of “Seven Great Angels”, the leader of which is a peacock named Tawsi Melek.


“Seven Great Angels” clearly point to Saptarishi! According to Talageri, the Greek word Angelos derives from ANgirases.

Another angle is that the word Melek itself points to Murugan who rides a Peacock. Tawusê Melek is supposed to have the form of Peacock.

What one cannot deny is that the Peacock is native to India. And North Iraqis would not just be making some foreign bird into their god, unless they had some close experience of the foreign land or its people and ultimately imbibed the relevance of peacock from there, which again reinforces the argument that Murugan had become a main deity for many peoples in the region. Tawusê Melek seems to have a similar position as Murugan, as the latter is the general of the Devas and son of Shiva, much as Tawusê Melek is the main angel.

Of course there is also a lot of difference in the creation mythology of Yazidis from that of the Hindus. But we also have to consider that Yazidis have had to live in an hostile world for the last 1400 years, surrounded by Muslims, and earlier by Christians, and soo they have had to project their mythology into the Abrahamic conceptual framework. By calling themselves as the progeny of "Shehid bin Jer" who was a direct and spontaneous generation of Adam, and thus not a son of Eve, they have in fact cleverly deflected the Christian stance that we all share the "Original Sin". So some parts of Yazidi mythology may simply be there to avoid having to submit themselves to other religions.

The author of the article seems to be not aware that the Ārya Sabhyata may have extended over wide areas of Asia, with its center of gravity in Bharat.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7021
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 24 Oct 2014 12:27

>>According to Talageri, the Greek word Angelos derives from ANgirases. Another angle is that the word Melek itself points to Murugan who rides a Peacock. Tawusê Melek is supposed to have the form of Peacock.

We are stretching it to breaking point here. Talageri may claim Angelos derives from Angirases (in fact it is only a single reference in the link and it is not really a claim of derivation), but really it is purely speculative. (This link
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2584139 argues both ways).

So is the notion that Melek "points to" Murugan. It more likely is a derivative from Malak in Hebrew which means "messenger" or "angel" I suppose.

I will not be in the least bit surprised if "Malaka" is one of the words for "Angel" or "Fairy" in Sanskrit, because that is basically what it means in Malayalam - which is either a derivative language or has a hell of a lot of borrowed words. Also peacock may be only in India now, but a couple of thousand years ago, things would have been quite different.

Interestingly, today "malaka" means wanker in Greek.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7021
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 24 Oct 2014 12:56

Another site which has info in chewable format, and easily brings out some interesting insights and talking points is this:

http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/europe ... lly-pagan/


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balaji, punitrpatel, Shakthi and 35 guests