Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[Vayutuvan]

I am not a vedic scholar, I am learning myself, but Rig Veda appears to be divided into roughly 10 books or sections or Mandalas.

venug garu

We are all learning. Thanks for the explanation and pointers.

Regards

[svinayak]

Folks lies upon lies upon lies have been built into very strong foundations here. It will decades before the lies can be cleared out and the truth can be assessed. Don't expect quick resolution. People have to live out their lives and die before things can move on.

If People who ask me I would just say that these are colonial history created during the colonial period. There are bias and there is need for revision and review. So dont really beleive that they are true.
I usually say that all colonial period history of the India and Indian studies are suspect. It is a blanket statement but it clears the confusion and starts the process of self study. They stop reading all the history directly.

[abhischekcc]

>>If People who ask me I would just say that these are colonial history created during the colonial period. There are bias and there is need for revision and review. So dont really beleive that they are true.
I usually say that all colonial period history of the India and Indian studies are suspect. It is a blanket statement but it clears the confusion and starts the process of self study. They stop reading all the history directly.

This is the right way to counter that propoganda. You can also add that the colonial history is written from a Xian perspective, and is naturally biased against Hindu acheivements. Xian history is based on the the un-intellectual need to confine history to 6,000 years, and a lot of chronology of history has been twisted to accomodate it.

[ManishH]

The fact that this river is so important in RV should make us think esp. about the impossibility of Talageri's OIT hypothesis which makes almost all the rest of IE group leave India during RgVeda, but carries no rememberance of this river; not even as a Goddess.

Just reverse this argument. By the same logic, AIT is trash. Since the steppeland or steppeland hinterland "mighty" rivers, and their names linked solidly to PIE by the PIE lobby, carries no remembrance by the steppeland origin PIE speakers coming to India. Not even as a goddess.

Nope B-ji. There is a difference. In AIT, the dispersal of IE groups happened even before RgVeda was composed. In this theory, there is no need for Indian theological concepts to be present in other branches. Theology and cultural beliefs keep developing.

However, if you read Sh. Talageri's book, he is proposing that RgVeda documents emigrating tribes from Gangetic valley, to Indus, Kashmir etc and out of India. If his theory, the dispersals are happening while the RV is being composed; and different mandalas of RV correspond to different stages of the dispersal. That's why I said, it's very unlikely for an emigrating group not to carry that memory.

On the topic of rivers, the IE root 'danu' is often used for rivers - right from Danube, Don, Dniepr (danu-para: the river away), Donetz (danu-nazdya: the river closeby). In RgVeda, the mother of demons is called दनु who is in form of waters and from which दानव are born. Looks quite probable that might be some contact between the IE group that associated 'danu' with rivers and another group that treated them as enemies.

An invading culture with thousands of mounted warriors and war-chariots forgets its own goddesses [who are typically connected strongly with

The armada of charioteers and mounted riders is a myth. Theology is not a static characteristic of a culture, and esp. not 'natural' religions that derive from a 1-book and 1-god concept. Such development in 'natural' religions can be seen even post Vedic. Eg. does modern Hindu religious practice give the same importance to 'mitra', 'apām napāt', 'pūṣan' etc. Notice how the mightly RgVedic indra who released the rivers from the mountains and rides two brown horses is transformed to pauranic indra who rides an elephant and runs to other deities for help when in trouble.

Most natural religions evolve and forget Gods which are no longer relevant to them.

corresponding male partners - and the AIT/Steppe/Kurganites are supposed to be also patriarchal

Again, Kurgan culture is just one material culture in steppes. Steppes have multiple material cultures - some of which are very matriarchal too - we know that because prestige objects and objects which priests/shamans use were placed in graves of women too.

If there was no previous name attached to this river when the steppelanders arrived in India, they must have called it by some name?

Not a claim I make. You should ask the person who claims that.

Migrants typically rename rivers/places if they can [if a pre-existing culture does not make it infeasible]- in a way that reminds them of their point of origin.

They may remember them but faintly. The example of RgVedic demon mother 'दनु' is case in point.

Ultimately, it seems the only memory that counted to the PIE speakers was horse, horse, and horse. What is tied to the horse or attached to the horse.

In this post, I've given the list of Gods in RgVeda which ride the horse. Pretty significant if you ask me.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1282030

It includes Agni - central to RgVedic ritual, Indra - largest number of hymns devoted to him. Surya - creator of life on earth. The horse is not just a creature of commercial or warring use. It's integral of the theology of RgVeda.

There is nothing to indicate exogamy as a general practice either.

I agree - there is neither endo-, nor exo- gamy mentioned in RgVeda. So can't make any claims here.

The "incremental" term comes from your linguistic claims - that sound changes are limited in their scope. It cannot go from the back of the mouth to the front at one quick kick.

But that is the nature of phonetics. And not a special case for IE language family. You can read the wiki on palatalization for that.

Do you see the problems in reconciling your conclusion that there was [or could not be?] any PIE equivalent for Saraswati?

This has nothing to do with S. Talageri's chronology. So, just to confirm, you see no problems with all the above with AIT claims?
[/quote]

I don't see any issues because a) the dispersal happened before RgVeda; b) I do not consider theology as static in natural religions.

No, the burden of proof lies with those who claim that the word "aswa" in RV stood for modern horse. It is after all an ancient text, with possible different uses of words from what their supposed derivatives are used as in modern times.

Ok, let's not place burden of proof on each other. Maybe you can lay some possibilities on the table without committing to any of them. At least we can see which fits better.

[I fail to see why you have to be so blindly defensive about the Myc. inscription. The dilemma is not the proof.

I think it is. Eg. if someone misspells quality as 'kwality' in certain ambiguous words; and spells other non-ambiguous words as 'kw' too, we can be reasonably sure the sound is a velar + labial or velar + glide + labial.

The dilemma in my post refers to the possibility in the inscriber or the scribe using/developing the script in how to represent what seemed to him like a sound pair separated or pronounced in quick succession in different contexts.

Very unlikely. If you have some references from specialists, please do share.

A quick paired pronunciation could be interpreted by someone not aware of the origins of the pair and its usage logic, to try and represent them by a single symbol.

Not single symbols, but distinct symbols are being used to represent what appears as a single ć sound in Sanskrit. That I think is very unlikely.

But if we see what is predicted as a labiovelar sound by theory of sound change, this syllabogram matches the prediction all the time. Uncanny.

[ManishH]

And the severity of winter gives another important advantage to a people who have domesticated horse. The horse will remove snow with it's hooves and get at the grass below. But cattle don't do that - an attested behaviour

.

First of all sir, please do not make off-the-cuff remark to defend your position and tarnish your reputation.

It's not an 'off-the-cuff' remark. This is from an equestrian specialist - David Anthony in the book 'Horse, Wheel and Language'

Horses are easier to feed through the winter than cattle or sheep, as
cattle and sheep push snow aside with their noses and horses use their
hard hooves. Sheep can graze on winter grass through soft snow, but if the
snow becomes crusted with ice than their noses will get raw and bloody,
and they will stand and starve in a field where there is ample winter forage
just beneath their feet . Cattle do not forage through even soft snow if they
cannot see the grass, so a snow deep enough to hide the winter grass will
kill range cattle if they are not given fodder. Neither cattle nor sheep will
break the ice on frozen water to drink. Horses have the instinct to break
through ice and crusted snow with their hooves, not their noses, even in
deep snows where the grass cannot be seen. They paw frozen snow away
and feed themselves and so do not need water or fodder. In 1245 the Fran-
ciscan John of Plano Carpini journeyed to Mongolia to meet Guyuk Khan
(the successor to Genghis) and observed the steppe horses of the Tartars,
as he called them, digging for grass from under the snow, "since the Tar-
tars have neither straw nor hay nor fodder." During the historic blizzard of
1886 in the North American Plains hundreds of thousands of cattle were
lost on the open range. Those that survived followed herds of mustangs
and grazed in the areas they opened up.' Horses are supremely well
adapted to the cold grasslands where they evolved. People who lived in
cold grasslands with domesticated cattle and sheep would soon have seen
the advantage in keeping horses for meat, just because the horses did not
need fodder or water.

I looked at your video too and the cow is not using it's hooves to remove snow. The cow uses the snout - this is prone to injury in the cold snow which might have hardened. The horse however, uses it's hooves to remove snow. This is exactly what I've claimed.

Bottomline: There is no point in having a horse in the eurasian steppe to control the cattle.

The horse doesn't control cattle. The horse-mounted human can herd more cattle. Again same book quotes "Nomads and the Outside World", A. Khazanov ...

A person on foot can herd about two hundred sheep with a good herding
dog. On horseback, with the same dog, that single person can herd about
five hundred.

[shiv]

The horse is not just a creature of commercial or warring use. It's integral of the theology of RgVeda.

The horse is part of theology in the Rig Veda? Why is absence of evidence of this theologically significant animal a problem? No one looks of for Surya or Indra in graves. They are taken to exist, since they are theology, but the absence of horse bones is a problem that transports the Rig Veda to a land where there was no Sanskrit

Manishji there is inconsistency in your views in my humble opinion.

But this is not the only situation where you have stated inconsistent views. You did mention that you consider that there was some hypothetical language called "PIE". I have no disagreement with that idea. But you said that you were not claiming any particular direction of movement of the language. That I am afraid is a specious claim.

"Proto-Indo-European" refers to a language that pre dated Indian and European languages. If that proto language originated in Europe, then it has moved to India. if that language developed in India, then it has moved to Europe. If it developed in the "steppes" of central Asia, it has moved in both directions. I note that your views seem to favor the view that this hypothetical proto language originated in the steppes of central Asia. That means the hypothetical proto language PIE is being attributed a direction of movement by you - and that direction of movement is into India. So the act of making up a hypothetical language (PIE) and then claiming that no specific direction of spread is intended is a fake claim which I would like to see you back down from.

You have also stated that you do not believe that Sanskrit spread out of India, but was instead developed from a proto language that developed outside India. In other words the proto language speakers first came to India, and then created Sanskrit and after that started singing about memories of the steppes. If they had made up poems in the proto language, those poems have not survived, either in the steppes or in India. Do you believe that the conversion from PIE to early Vedic Sanskrit could have occurred in the span of 3-5 generations (100-150 years) so that strong memories of the earlier steppes were retained? Since poetry retains words well (as per an earlier statement of yours) are there any proto words from the steppes that are retained in Sanskrit?

Finally, may I ask you why you believe Greek cannot be PIE as some Greeks claim.

[ManishH]

In fact if you look at the language of the Zoroastrians (Avestan) it is almost exactly like Sanskrit.

Avestan is not a branch of Sanskrit. They are like sisters. This can be ascertained by the fact that the one has some older features not present in another. If you disagree, no issues, but please read a technical reference like:

chapter 10 and 11 of "Indo European Language and Culture - An Introduction", Ben Fortson.

Although Manishji claimed earlier in this thread that he was making no assumptions about the direction in which languages moved, there is already a pre existing assumption where a proto language is cooked up

I'm not making any assumptions about directions. The archaeological evidence of horses in chariotry is what points to central asia.

Folks lies upon lies upon lies have been built into very strong foundations here.

A lot of directionality of sound change can be inferred by phonetics. The application of sound change laws is nothing new nor special to Indo-European family.

[ManishH]

The horse is part of theology in the Rig Veda? Why is absence of evidence of this theologically significant animal a problem? No one looks of for Surya or Indra in graves.

I haven't come across mention of drawing or writing in RgVeda, so it's hard to find pictures of these Gods in Bronze Age archaeology of India. But horses leave traces in archaeological record.

Significant of horse is that an indian theological system like RgVeda uses an animal which is not native to India for the mount of it's revered Gods. No evidence in itself, but an uncanny data point, esp. when combined with the fact that some of the Gods, like Indra later in the era of purāṇa's change their mounts from a pair of horse to the elephant, which is native to India. This is an adapting culture.

Rig Veda to a land where there was no Sanskrit

RgVeda can never be transported anywhere except the greater Indus region. No one has ever claimed the authorship of RgVeda happened anywhere outside the Indian subcontinent.

Manishji there is inconsistency in your views in my humble opinion.

I believe some of the inconsistency could be due to assuming what you read of AIT on the wiki is what I'm saying; but I'm not.

But you said that you were not claiming any particular direction of movement of the language. That I am afraid is a specious claim.

There are two aspects to directionality ...
1. Direction of movement of people who speak these branches. This can only be ascertained by genetics and archaeology - but not clearly in all cases.
2. Direction of sound changes - this is substantially inferrable from sound changes. Sound change laws are derived from study of how humans utter phonemes and the observation that adjacent vowels affect phonemes. Eg. Greek cannot be the parent of all IE because it has labials where Sanskrit has palatals.

So what does that mean - the phonetic and morphological features of Iranian and Indian branches show a substantial period of co-existence. But there is no archaeological evidence to show where that was. It could be Indus, central asia, where-ever. Sometime back I posted a link to paper by Lubotsky saying the origin is near Oxus - but it's very flaky evidence.

I note that your views seem to favor the view that this hypothetical proto language originated in the steppes of central Asia.

I favour the view given the current archaeological evidence. IOW, if I forget all archaeological evidence and just read a book on linguistics, I cannot make any claim on origins.

You have also stated that you do not believe that Sanskrit spread out of India, but was instead developed from a proto language that developed outside India.

Sanskrit has spread from India - via buddhism, it spread to khotan, china, japan. Via hinduism, it has spread to SE Asia.

But the IE dispersals predate spread of Sanskrit.

In other words the proto language speakers first came to India, and then created Sanskrit

I have no idea what the language looked like when it came to India. Some things can be said - there were no retroflexes - they being an Indian feature. Some of the diphthongs were articulated disyllabic.

Do you believe that the conversion from PIE to early Vedic Sanskrit could have occurred in the span of 3-5 generations (100-150 years) so that strong memories of the earlier steppes were retained?

It's definitely a multi-stage process - one can see that palatalization occurred earlier, only then does vowel simplification e/o/a > a happen. And palatalization in Indo-Iranian is on exactly same lines. And palatalization in this branch differs from that in Slavic and Lithuaninan and to lesser extent in Greek.

Predicting rates of change of languages is very dicey - it's been discredited. To quote some extreme examples, Icelandic has a word replacement rate of only 3-4% per thousand years and English a 26% replacement rate per 1000 years.

Since poetry retains words well (as per an earlier statement of yours) are there any proto words from the steppes that are retained in Sanskrit?

RgVeda composition started after dispersal. Yet, there are some common themes - like 'fame immortal', 'slaying the snake' etc.

Finally, may I ask you why you believe Greek cannot be PIE as some Greeks claim.

One reason is the earlier example of labiovelar. Another is cognates of PIE *bhero : Sanskrit bharati, Slavic bero, Greek phero.

Slavic has voicing, Greek has aspiration. Sanskrit has both. Therefore PIE had a voiced aspirate.

[RajeshA]

The fact that this river is so important in RV should make us think esp. about the impossibility of Talageri's OIT hypothesis which makes almost all the rest of IE group leave India during RgVeda, but carries no rememberance of this river; not even as a Goddess.

Just reverse this argument. By the same logic, AIT is trash. Since the steppeland or steppeland hinterland "mighty" rivers, and their names linked solidly to PIE by the PIE lobby, carries no remembrance by the steppeland origin PIE speakers coming to India. Not even as a goddess.

Nope B-ji. There is a difference. In AIT, the dispersal of IE groups happened even before RgVeda was composed. In this theory, there is no need for Indian theological concepts to be present in other branches. Theology and cultural beliefs keep developing.

However, if you read Sh. Talageri's book, he is proposing that RgVeda documents emigrating tribes from Gangetic valley, to Indus, Kashmir etc and out of India. If his theory, the dispersals are happening while the RV is being composed; and different mandalas of RV correspond to different stages of the dispersal. That's why I said, it's very unlikely for an emigrating group not to carry that memory.

On the topic of rivers, the IE root 'danu' is often used for rivers - right from Danube, Don, Dniepr (danu-para: the river away), Donetz (danu-nazdya: the river closeby). In RgVeda, the mother of demons is called दनु who is in form of waters and from which दानव are born. Looks quite probable that might be some contact between the IE group that associated 'danu' with rivers and another group that treated them as enemies.

An invading culture with thousands of mounted warriors and war-chariots forgets its own goddesses [who are typically connected strongly with

The armada of charioteers and mounted riders is a myth. Theology is not a static characteristic of a culture, and esp. not 'natural' religions that derive from a 1-book and 1-god concept. Such development in 'natural' religions can be seen even post Vedic. Eg. does modern Hindu religious practice give the same importance to 'mitra', 'apām napāt', 'pūṣan' etc. Notice how the mightly RgVedic indra who released the rivers from the mountains and rides two brown horses is transformed to pauranic indra who rides an elephant and runs to other deities for help when in trouble.

Most natural religions evolve and forget Gods which are no longer relevant to them.

How do the two harmonize with each other - both retaining the memory and forgetting the non-relevant?

The Out-of-India migrations may indeed have taken place before the Rigveda was composed, in which case, memory of deities developed during Rigvedic times may not be there. The Out-of-India migrations, which took place during Rigvedic times or after, may not have retained the memory of those deities fully, as is the case with "natural" religions.

However some emigrations from the time during or after Rigvedic age did retain their memories of gods, possibly because they supplanted the elite completely - e.g. the Mitannis.

Migrants typically rename rivers/places if they can [if a pre-existing culture does not make it infeasible]- in a way that reminds them of their point of origin.

They may remember them but faintly. The example of RgVedic demon mother 'दनु' is case in point.

Renaming of rivers may happen if the emigration takes place into an area, which is large inhabited, but in case if it is inhabited, then the previous names would most probably be retained.

Ultimately, it seems the only memory that counted to the PIE speakers was horse, horse, and horse. What is tied to the horse or attached to the horse.

In this post, I've given the list of Gods in RgVeda which ride the horse. Pretty significant if you ask me.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1282030

It includes Agni - central to RgVedic ritual, Indra - largest number of hymns devoted to him. Surya - creator of life on earth. The horse is not just a creature of commercial or warring use. It's integral of the theology of RgVeda.

If some attribute establishes itself as prestigious or restricted to privileged few, then that attribute would indeed become quite popular in the mythology and culture of a people.

Let's say it is representation of deities with four or more arms! Once it becomes associated with power and prestige, then every deity starts to be represented similarly. It does however not mean that these four arms are real

Similarly once the horse became coveted by the royalty and came to be associated with privilege and power, this prestigious status was transferred to the deities.

The only aspect of interest is that the horse was an animal of much prestige. This prestige may have developed either because the horse was an intrinsic part of society around which everything revolved, e.g. the Mongols, or the horse was a much coveted rarity available to only the royalty.

That is the issue, that is not being addressed. Sure the horse was a animal of prestige in the Rigveda, that need not be denied. The issue is where did this prestige come from - coveted imported rarity or memory of overwhelming abundance?

The problem with the second option is simply that there is not really much of a memory of that overwhelming abundance of horses roaming around in the Steppes ready to be domesticated. All one has is prestige!

[ManishH]

Hope Manish ji could comment on one of the Bji's post (on page 20, posted @ 07 Jun 2012 17:53) on why PIE has to be based on horse instead of cow, if one has to look for PIE, shouldn't one start at the earliest point when some domestication took place?

I can't find that post. But will reply to this instead:

1. Cows have been domesticated by speakers of different language families independently.
2. A domesticated horse allowed people to move over wider region keeping the language largely intact. Archaeology of eurasian steppes shows greater prestige objects, class difference in graves, increased warfare and greater spread of pottery types in the millenium immediately following horse domesticaton.

This is very much like domination over naval technology later allowed spread of english, spanish and portuguese languages.

This is not to deny that some cultures have also spread in absence of technical impetus.

[member_22872]

Nope B-ji. There is a difference. In AIT, the dispersal of IE groups happened even before RgVeda was composed. In this theory, there is no need for Indian theological concepts to be present in other branches. Theology and cultural beliefs keep developing.

Manish ji,
Even different PIE theories assume different periods, some assume a 6000 BCE, some assume 5000 BCE and some 7000BCE, linguists too dont know when this dispersal happened, the dates again, like Abhishek ji said, seem to have been proposed to suit the blibical records, nothing scientific about the dates. How do you know Rig Veda was composed within this window? Do you mean written form? And also there was once flourished a verbal trasmission tradition, how do you date that?

It's very unlikely that an emigrating group not to carry that memory.

Manish ji, kindly see my post on river and place name analysis that could be found in Rig Veda, there is great chance you already know that, if so why does the people who composed Rig Veda remember the names of places in India and not remember any from where ever they came from the west? If you think the place name analysis is not trustworthy, you can also refer to Talageri.

[member_22872]

1. Cows have been domesticated by speakers of different language families independently.

Manish ji, that is true, however, zebu seems to have been domesticated around 7000 BCE and water baffalo around 8500 BCE and your PIE model talks about PIE to have existed before domestication of horse(5000BCE by your own estimates and none of the other PIE models say that PIE might have existed before 8500 BCE) but zebu domestication predates horse domestication. Don't you see an anamoly to base PIE on horse domestication? Domestication of cow means that a sedantry life, a level of grouping of people and mutual help which needs communication, if PIE developed around 5000BCE, that means for 2000-3500 years Indians were communicating through a proto-PIE, now we need to reconstruct proto-PIE and PIE itself might have derived from this proto-PIE that again bases proto-PIE in Indian subcontinent. Each time a new discovery of dimestication of an animal is made which predates the horse and is not based in Europe, you end up creating a proto to PIE, a recurssion.

2. A domesticated horse allowed people to move over wider region keeping the language largely intact. Archaeology of eurasian steppes shows greater prestige objects, class difference in graves, increased warfare and greater spread of pottery types in the millenium immediately following horse domesticaton.

Manish ji, kindly look at Shiv ji's earlier distance coverage analysis, if I'm not wrong in understanding his post, one doesn't get too far with horses as compared to with horses to make a difference

[harbans]

The only aspect of interest is that the horse was an animal of much prestige. This prestige may have developed either because the horse was an intrinsic part of society around which everything revolved, e.g. the Mongols, or the horse was a much coveted rarity available to only the royalty.

That is the issue, that is not being addressed. Sure the horse was a animal of prestige in the Rigveda, that need not be denied. The issue is where did this prestige come from - coveted imported rarity or memory of overwhelming abundance?

Exactly what i wanted to ask. Even animals that are rare can be and have been put on a pedestal. Fact in favors the latter. The rarer and nobler the beast the more likely it is to be put up the pedestal.

[ManishH]

Most natural religions evolve and forget Gods which are no longer relevant to them.

How do the two harmonize with each other - both retaining the memory and forgetting the non-relevant?
[/quote]

In absence of centralized authoritarian control on religion, it will be natural. Eg. the sky god 'dyaus pitar' or jupiter is an old deity. It surely dates to the period when Romance and Indian branches had not separated.

But memories remain - in Hindu marriages, 'dyaur aham, prithivi tvam' is still invoked.

Let's say it is representation of deities with four or more arms! Once it becomes associated with power and prestige, then every deity starts to be represented similarly. It does however not mean that these four arms are real

But still, they are arms, not entirely imagined pods with magnetic attachments. Even in hyperbole, the inspiration is real life. A flying horse means the horse exists, but it's swiftness is exaggerated.

Similarly once the horse became coveted by the royalty and came to be associated with privilege and power, this prestigious status was transferred to the deities.

Not just prestige but divine qualities too ...

The issue is where did this prestige come from - coveted imported rarity or memory of overwhelming abundance?

The problem with the second option is simply that there is not really much of a memory of that overwhelming abundance of horses roaming around in the Steppes ready to be domesticated. All one has is prestige!

There is no mention of untamed herds of horses, because all horse brought over and their progeny have to be domesticated.

Neither is there a mention of paucity of horses; or that horses need to be imported. The origin of horse is divine - RV 1.162 calls the horse 'devajata' (born from Gods). Prayers like these ask for cattle as well as horses from Gods :

RV_04.002.05.1 gomāṃ agne 'vimāṃ aśvī yajño nṛvatsakhā sadam id apramṛṣyaḥ

[member_22872]

Theology is not a static characteristic of a culture, and esp. not 'natural' religions that derive from a 1-book and 1-god concept. Such development in 'natural' religions can be seen even post Vedic. Eg. does modern Hindu religious practice give the same importance to 'mitra', 'apām napāt', 'pūṣan' etc. Notice how the mightly RgVedic indra who released the rivers from the mountains and rides two brown horses is transformed to pauranic indra who rides an elephant and runs to other deities for help when in trouble.

Some Gods can be demi-Gods to begin with, If you roam around on the streets of Hyderabad, you will find N-number of shrines for Goddesses, most of them aren't even mentioned in any of our puranas but they are supposed to be reincarnation of Durga nevertheless. As time goes by these demi-Gods/Goddesses may not be remembered. The importance of Gods could decrease in hierarchy as time goes by, like Indra, varuna and Ashvins, were prominent gods of Rig Vedic period. Even now during marriages, Ashvin star doublets are shown to newly wed couple, yet they are not prominent Gods. But just because their prominence decreases doesn't mean they are forgotten altogether. Even to this day actually yagnas to please Indra are conducted, though very rare. So to say they are completely forgotten is not true. Decrease in prominence is not the same as forgetting them. On the other hand many place and river names of Indian subcontinent are mentioned in the Rig veda, so I don't know why one has to think they are forgotten.

[RajeshA]

Most natural religions evolve and forget Gods which are no longer relevant to them.

How do the two harmonize with each other - both retaining the memory and forgetting the non-relevant?

In absence of centralized authoritarian control on religion, it will be natural. Eg. the sky god 'dyaus pitar' or jupiter is an old deity. It surely dates to the period when Romance and Indian branches had not separated.

But memories remain - in Hindu marriages, 'dyaur aham, prithivi tvam' is still invoked.

For Hindus it is not simply a memory. It is part of our scriptures - recorded orally, and then in written form.

Perhaps knowing when "dyaus pitar" becomes a major deity in the relative chronological order of Rigveda, it could become possible to ascertain when the Out-of-India migration which ultimately led to the birth of the Greek ethnicity (through language and cultural infusion) took place.

Let's say it is representation of deities with four or more arms! Once it becomes associated with power and prestige, then every deity starts to be represented similarly. It does however not mean that these four arms are real

But still, they are arms, not entirely imagined pods with magnetic attachments. Even in hyperbole, the inspiration is real life. A flying horse means the horse exists, but it's swiftness is exaggerated.

I agree with the the concept of hyperbole and exaggeration. My comment pertained to a different phenomenon, which is the propagation of a symbol and representation of a certain feature across the pantheon of deities. Just as multiple arms became popular across the pantheon, so did the horse.

The multiple arms represent strength, whereas a horse was supposed to represent speed, grace and strength of the movement of a deity.

What I wanted to say is that one should see the many references to horse in the Rigveda in the proper light. Once a representational form, e.g. the horse, attains popularity, it attains a life in its own right, independent from say that of the animal, which it earlier represented.

Similarly once the horse became coveted by the royalty and came to be associated with privilege and power, this prestigious status was transferred to the deities.

Not just prestige but divine qualities too ...

Well Krishna is often adorned with a peacock feather! It may be that the historical Krishna really did adorn himself thus, but considering it from an anthropological view, one can say it has something to do with the beauty of the peacock feathers. As such the beauty of the peacock is transferred to the wearer of peacock feathers.

Similarly the qualities for which the horse is coveted - speed, grace, strength, etc. - those qualities too are transferred to those deities who are associated with the horse, be it Indra or the Maruts.

In a way, the horse has been instrumentalized and used for as a symbol for representing speed, grace, strength, etc. Once it becomes a symbol the ontological reference is shifted from the animal to the symbol.

Trying to read the mulitple presence of the term "horse" in the Rigvedas then as representative of the significance of the horse in their lives, would then be a stretch.

The issue is where did this prestige come from - coveted imported rarity or memory of overwhelming abundance?

The problem with the second option is simply that there is not really much of a memory of that overwhelming abundance of horses roaming around in the Steppes ready to be domesticated. All one has is prestige!

There is no mention of untamed herds of horses, because all horse brought over and their progeny have to be domesticated.

Neither is there a mention of paucity of horses; or that horses need to be imported. The origin of horse is divine - RV 1.162 calls the horse 'devajata' (born from Gods). Prayers like these ask for cattle as well as horses from Gods :

RV_04.002.05.1 gomāṃ agne 'vimāṃ aśvī yajño nṛvatsakhā sadam id apramṛṣyaḥ

I think the demarcating line of this argumentation is getting blurred, or perhaps that is because the model of dispersal of these people is being kept vague.

You say the origin of the horse is mentioned as divine. But weren't you saying that the Rigvedic composers were wont to exaggeration and hyperbole. Calling something divine can be considered a tad hyperbole right! Some men call their women divine as well, but everybody knows it is just poetic hyperbole. One doesn't really believe that she really came down from the sky or was found beneath the Earth.

Once the deities start riding horses, then from the fact that a deity rides a horse, one would have to write an equally sensational background story for the horse too, and make them divine as well!

So as I understand, the Rigvedic composers came from the Steppes because they revere the horse as something divine. Yet they display not a shred of recollection of the Steppes because horse is found locally as they brought it along. One would have thought that for all their horse reverence, they should have kept at least some memory of its natural habitat.

Actually if there has been little evidence of the horse from times before the supposed arrival of the Aryans, then there has been little evidence of the horse from later times as well. So if one goes by the evidence, it seems India has always been a land with a paucity of horses. The supposed arrival of the Aryans did not change much there either.

[member_22872]

So as I understand, the Rigvedic composers came from the Steppes because they revere the horse as something divine. Yet they display not a shred of recollection of the Steppes because horse is found locally as they brought it along. One would have thought that for all their horse reverence, they should have kept at least some memory of its natural habitat.

RajeshA ji, I also want to stress again , that there is a mention of places and rivers from Indian subcontinent, right from places in Bihar to Afghanistan. So RigVedics remember Indian palces but don't remember those of Steppes.

[shiv]

I favour the view given the current archaeological evidence. IOW, if I forget all archaeological evidence and just read a book on linguistics, I cannot make any claim on origins.

I cannot blame you for favoring the view given the "current archaeological evidence". There are parallels in medicine where the "current evidence" says X and failure to follow X goes against current trends. In the case of medical knowledge I have observed, over decades the reversal of many "current" beliefs as new information (which might also be shown to be faulty at some future date) comes in.

My objection really is the fact that history is being conjured up by taking archaeological evidence from one place (Central Asian graves) and linguistic evidence from another place (Poems from the Rig Veda in India) and a story being cooked up to show why they are connected. The timing is very convenient indeed, especially when you consider that the "experts" who write books (which you request me to quote) are free to vary dates by several centuries this way or that way. The horse archaeology evidence is particularly laughable, even if your academic demands mean that you must accept them. The area in which those remains have been found have not, to my knowledge, shown any trace of any Indo European language that can reliably be dated back to that time. But that evidence is connected up with the Rig Veda, which itself has no dates. If this was the plot of a fictional story, it is so shaky it cannot sell, but it is being given traction by academics who are clinging on to the little archaeological evidence they have to support the theories that pre existed those archaeological finds.

Archaeological finds are always random. Archaeologists cannot choose to find something that fits earlier theories. They can either try and fit the find to the theory or change the theory. In the case of linguistics, the "into india" is deeply embedded enough for people to refuse to look at anything else. I am sure language came to India from somewhere else, but Central Asian graves being matched to the Rig Veda content is not proof that the people who composed the Rig Veda came from there. Those graves are certainly "archaeological evidence" but fitting them to the Rig Veda and saying that one came before and led to the other is arbitrary and unscientific on a huge number of counts. There are some parts of the world where conditions favor the preservation of ancient organic remains. Indian conditions do not seem to produce as much bone as we may like, but that is never quoted as evidence that humans did not exist. If you find a house in Harappa and a preserved body in Central Asia and a song about graves in India - connecting the three is romantic and attractive but scientific gibberish. I admit you are not allowed to say that, but I face no such restriction.

I have no idea what the language looked like when it came to India.

You state that language came into India. You have already imposed directionality to language (into India), but you do not know which language. But "current archaeological evidence" suggests to you that a Proto Indo European language came to India before Sanskrit was created. The same current archaeological evidence also tells you that the language, about which you admit no knowledge, was probably spoken by the people who made the graves in Central Asia. Why? because the Rig Veda has passages that refer to horses and chariots like the picture presented by those graves. Sanskrit connects you to those graves, but those graves have no connection with Sanskrit. For these reasons a connection is being made between the grave diggers and Sanskrit. But you have no idea about the language that the grave diggers spoke. If it was not Sanskrit how does anyone know this for sure? But the story is that those people came to India and created Sanskrit. This seems to be passed off as "current, state of the art science" by a body of linguists and archaeologists cooperating with each other.

Predicting rates of change of languages is very dicey - it's been discredited. To quote some extreme examples, Icelandic has a word replacement rate of only 3-4% per thousand years and English a 26% replacement rate per 1000 years.

Let me make some assumptions here that you are welcome to strike down and I will learn if you do that. Let us say PIE came from somewhere and was 10% different from Sanskrit. Assume that it became Sanskrit in 300 years and add a century for great composers to be born and start a tradition that preserved the language well. Ancient humans probably did not live beyond 40 or 50. A century would mean about 4 generations. 400 years is 16 generations. After 16 generations these composers are said to be singing about horses and chariots seen in Central Asia 16 generations earlier? Surely it would be at least as reasonable to assume that people were riding their horses up and down from Central Asia to various places. 100 years is enough time for a horse rider to travel several times around the earth. The likelihood of cultural and material exchanges between populations in Central Asia and India is proven fact. Why is it considered more likely that only old memories of horses were being sung about after 16 generations. Surely horses would be right here in India within a generation of someone domesticating/riding them in central Asia given the speed that you have yourself attested.

I accused you of inconsistency because you asserted that horses can take people far and win battles in one lifetime. But you are also saying that references to horses in the Rig Veda are "memories" of Central Asian horses and chariots which, by inference from this, could not have come to India in the many centuries it took for PIE to become Sanskrit. Maybe you are not inconsistent, but the theory that you find yourself forced to subscribe to has more holes than a dosa.

RgVeda composition started after dispersal. Yet, there are some common themes - like 'fame immortal', 'slaying the snake' etc.

Is there any evidence that the Rig Veda was not composed in central Asia? The Central Asians have evidence of all that is there in the Rig Veda, horses, chariots, fast flowing rivers, and no one has any evidence of the language. Sanskrit itself may be a foreign language that moved to India from Central Asia - after all you did say that retroflex consonants appeared later in Sanskrit.

After all you have a language and archaeological evidence to back what is recorded by the language. It just happens that the archaeological evidence was found in central Asia sans language. The language was found in India sans archaeological evidence. What is the need to cook up a proto language?

[ManishH]

estimates and none of the other PIE models say that PIE might have existed before 8500 BCE) but zebu domestication predates horse domestication. Don't you see an anamoly to base PIE on horse domestication?

I don't see it. I think if the IE dispersal had occurred after domesticaton of bovids but before domestication of horse, the phonetic relation between words for horse in different branches won't be exactly the same as that between other words. See this post for some elaboration:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1293598

Manish ji, kindly look at Shiv ji's earlier distance coverage analysis, if I'm not wrong in understanding his post, one doesn't get too far with horses as compared to with horses to make a difference

I think the horse does give a distinct advantage. From Anthony's book ...

2. Horseback riding shortened distances, so riders traveled farther than
walkers. In addition to the conceptual changes in human geography this
caused, riders gained two functional advantages. First, they could manage
herds larger than those tended by pedestrian herders, and could move
those larger herds more easily from one pasture to another. Any single
herder became more productive on horseback. Second, they could advance
to and retreat from raids faster than pedestrian warriors. Riders could
show up unexpectedly, dismount and attack people in their fields, run
back to their horses and get away quickly. The decline in the economic
importance of cultivation across Europe after 3300 BCE occurred in a
social setting of increased levels of warfare almost everywhere. Riding
probably added to the general increase in insecurity, making riding more
necessary, and expanding the market for horses

Compare to the cow for distance ...
(From Khazanov's book)

For the mobile Eurasian nomads who did not lay in fodder for future use
the cow was admittedly a valuable animal, but it was too capricious and ill
suited to being driven over long distances. Rychkov (1877:22) wrote that
cows '. . . cannot pasture in the steppes, for this reason the Kirghiz
[Kazakhs - A. K] keep few of them, and the richest man never has more
than twenty.' In a twenty-four hour period a cow will eat no more than 48
kilograms of grass; but if conditions are not ideal (the grass is too short, too
tall, or rare, or the relief of the pastures is difficult) it will eat less and have
to remain hungry, for it has no way of increasing its feeding time and the
number of mouthfuls it can tear up for itself to eat in a day is limited
(Ficlstrup, 1927:83; Baskin, 1976:114).

[Lalmohan]

there are few cultures around the world where the horse plays a central role - the nomadic cultures of the asian steppes are probably the best example - in almost all other cultures, even if the horse is highly valued and a symbol of elitism, it gets secondary billing to that of hero's and gods

and as we were saying earlier - domestication of cows and horses do not need the steppes or prairies, but certainly on the prairies and steppes - economic activity is 'best' organised around livestock - and the horse is an excellent tool for maximising a man's work capability in managing that livestock. the secondary benefit of horses is in warfare

in most farming societies, horses belonged to a few elite leaders/warriors and were not used directly as weapons but more indirectly as leaders platforms. certainly maintaining a horse is an expensive business, and not easily indulged in, unless its a critical part of our daily life as a nomad (in surroundings that favour horse breeding and upkeep) or an elite in a more sedantary society with surplus income

[ManishH]

Now check out what Wiki says about bitless bridles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitless_bridle#Origins

The earliest artistic evidence of use of some form of bitless bridle was found in illustrations of Synian horseman, dated approximately 1400 BC.[3] However, domestication of the horse occurred between 4500 and 3500 BC,[4] while earliest evidence of the use of bits, located in two sites of the Botai culture, dates to about 3500-3000 BC.[5][6] Thus there is a very high probability that some sort of headgear was used to control horses prior to the development of the bit.

RgVeda has evidence that the reins (yama) ran through the nose ...

RV_05.061.02.1 kva vo 'śvāḥ kvṛbhīśavaḥ kathaṃ śeka kathā yaya
RV_05.061.02.2 pṛṣṭhe sado nasor yamaḥ

... as well as through the mouth ...

RV_06.003.04.1{03} tigmaṃ cidema mahi varpo asya bhasadaśvo na yamasāna āsā<BR>
RV_06.003.04.2{03} vijehamānaḥ paraśurna jihvāṃ dravirna drāvayati dāru dhakṣat<BR>

So there is evidence of bitting in RgVeda. A bitted horse should leave some archaeological trace. Even an unbitted horse should leave horse furniture behind.

Regarding bones decaying in hot and humid weather of India, intact human skeletons have been found dated to 8000 BC (mesolithic) in Mahadaha in UP (which was thick forest then). With bones of stag, buffalo, cow, pigs, elephant, rhinoceros etc. But somehow, per OIT, bronze age horse remains seem to decay unusually fast.

This well-preserved mesolithic skeleton from Mahadaha (from "The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan", Allchin and Allchin)

[shiv]

If horses assist fast movement why did they not reach India from central Asia in time for the Rig Veda. The people from central Asia walked to India with memories, but not horses?

What kind of theory is that?

[ManishH]

there are few cultures around the world where the horse plays a central role - the nomadic cultures of the asian steppes are probably the best example - in almost all other cultures, even if the horse is highly valued and a symbol of elitism, it gets secondary billing to that of hero's and gods

I agree entirely with the post. The example of Egypt - horse and chariots were prized elite possessions for them. But Egyptians do not include horse in their theology.

PS: See Battle of Kadesh - first account of chariot battle in near east involving Egyptians.

[shiv]

So there is evidence of bitting in RgVeda. A bitted horse should leave some archaeological trace. Even an unbitted horse should leave horse furniture behind.

Oh of course. But there are no horse bones either. No horses were in India at the time. Isn't that what you said earlier? The horses are in central Asia. Where is the question of bits and furniture?

But I digress. I believe that you are jesting. I think you understand perfectly well that the presence of archaeological evidence is absolute proof. But the absence of archaeological evidence is not absolute proof of the absence of the horse.

But I am not the one who is saying that there were no horses in India in Rig Vedic times. You are. And you also insist that horses are so good for transport and battle that people with horses went places fast. But they could not get to India from central Asia even though the people themselves got here. Walking I presume, bringing memories of the horse. You did say that the Rig Veda was about horse memories didn't you?

Sir, I believe you are tying yourself up in knots.

[tyroneshoes]

मनीष, क्यों 'ಬಿಸಿಲು ಕುದುರೆ' पे चढ़ा रहे हैं?

[shiv]

there are few cultures around the world where the horse plays a central role - the nomadic cultures of the asian steppes are probably the best example - in almost all other cultures, even if the horse is highly valued and a symbol of elitism, it gets secondary billing to that of hero's and gods

Where are the horse bones in India?

The Rig Veda may well have been composed in Central Asia where people had horses, chariots and admired the horse. The Rig Veda and Sanskrit may well have come to India from Central Asia. That also means that Sanskrit is older than admitted and may be the "PIE" that people are looking for.

Of course there is no proof of Sanskrit in central Asia. But there is proof of horse and chariot and the experts "accept" that the Rig Veda refers to a nomadic. pastoral culture such as existed in Central Asia around 4000 BCE.

No horse in India. No Sanskrit in Central Asia. Either India had horses, or Sanskrit came from Central Asia.

[ManishH]

In the case of medical knowledge I have observed, over decades the reversal of many "current" beliefs as new information (which might also be shown to be faulty at some future date) comes in.

No doubt. When evidence reveals itself, all theories need to change.

My objection really is the fact that history is being conjured up by taking archaeological evidence from one place (Central Asian graves) and linguistic evidence from another place (Poems from the Rig Veda in India)

Well humans do move around a bit ...

The area in which those remains have been found have not, to my knowledge, shown any trace of any Indo European language that can reliably be dated back to that time.

Only spoken languages won't leave a proof.

There are some parts of the world where conditions favor the preservation of ancient organic remains. Indian conditions do not seem to produce as much bone as we may like, but that is never quoted as evidence that humans did not exist.

Bones are found and preserved even before bronze age (which RgVeda represents). But somehow, it's only the horse that is amiss.

If you find a house in Harappa and a preserved body in Central Asia and a song about graves in India - connecting the three is romantic and attractive but scientific gibberish. I admit you are not allowed to say that, but I face no such restriction.

No one prevents me from saying anything - I don't have a tenured position, chelagiri etc to defend. Nor do I have stocks in tourism companies of central asia to hoodwink large amount of HNIs to visit their "homeland".

You state that language came into India. You have already imposed directionality to language (into India),

I inferred not imposed.

but you do not know which language. But "current archaeological evidence" suggests to you that a Proto Indo European language came to India before Sanskrit was created. The same current archaeological evidence also tells you that the language, about which you admit no knowledge,

The knowledge exists of :
- phonetic features
- the sequence in which phonetic features transformed

What doesn't exist is the exact snapshot when the first speakers of the language enter the subcontinent.

Let me make some assumptions here that you are welcome to strike down and I will learn if you do that. Let us say PIE came from somewhere and was 10% different from Sanskrit.

No one can quantify a language change in percentage. But one thing to remember is that some significant changes like vowel simplification and palatalization are shared with Iranian. So in case the geographic area of the Indo-Iranian unity is out of India, a much lesser change in language is needed between RgVedic language and it's immediate predecessor (the unified Indo-Iranian).

But in case the area of Indo-Iranian unity is in the Indian subcontinent, then quite a bit of language change happened in India between PIE and separation of Iranians.

Why is it considered more likely that only old memories of horses were being sung about after 16 generations. Surely horses would be right here in India within a generation of someone domesticating/riding them in central Asia given the speed that you have yourself attested.

Not just old memories, horses were being given as gifts and part of ritual sacrifice in RgVeda too.

I accused you of inconsistency because you asserted that horses can take people far and win battles in one lifetime. But you are also saying that references to horses in the Rig Veda are "memories" of Central Asian horses and chariots

They are live memories, since the horses or their progeny surely lived amongst the composers.

Is there any evidence that the Rig Veda was not composed in central Asia? The Central Asians have evidence of all that is there in the Rig Veda, horses, chariots, fast flowing rivers, and no one has any evidence of the language.

RgVeda mentions toponyms, fauna and flora unique to India. It cannot have been composed elsewhere.

Sanskrit itself may be a foreign language that moved to India from Central Asia - after all you did say that retroflex consonants appeared later in Sanskrit.

Actually no one called the language 'Sanskrit' until pāṇini. Maybe proto-Sanskrit is a better word.

[ManishH]

But the absence of archaeological evidence is not absolute proof of the absence of the horse.

This is not the way archaeologists work. Unless they can show a faunal remains as horse, they won't claim "oh there is still the chance that horse existed here" and then express optimistic hopes of finding the remains one day.

Ditto with horse domestication. So if we look at Central Asia, horse bones have been found in human settlements 800-1000 years before Botai; but archaeologists do not know if they were merely hunted horses. Therefore, the first claim is made for Botai - because that is where unequivocal occlusion on molars is found.

Archaeologists don't clutch on straws.

But I am not the one who is saying that there were no horses in India in Rig Vedic times. You are.

Either I used unclear language or you have misunderstood the context. What I meant to say is that there is no remains of domesticated horse found in India at the time where OIT claims it (~5000 BC by conservative estimates). The earliest proof of domesticated horse in India is Surkotada at 2100 - 1700 BC.

Whereas, the Botai find is perfectly consistent with AIT claims. So is the chariot find at Sintashta.

[member_22872]

This is not the way archaeologists work. Unless they can show a faunal remains as horse, they won't claim "oh there is still the chance that horse existed here" and then express optimistic hopes of finding the remains one day.

Manish ji, there seems to be discordance in the way archeologists work then. Inspite of non existence of PIE, one goes about with a hope to find it some day, then why not this? seems like, I will have the cake and eat it too scenario, very convenient, change your own way of working as per convenience?

[tyroneshoes]

मनीष,

கற்றது கைமண் அளவு, கல்லாதது உலகளவு

Yet, you seem to be bent on making inferences and statements.
From the evidence presented so far, no conclusions can be arrived at.
AIT/AMT/OIT all remain கைமண் onlee!

So, I'll ask again:

मनीष, क्यों 'ಬಿಸಿಲು ಕುದುರೆ' पे चढ़ा रहे हैं?

[RajeshA]

As far as I have understood the theological use of horse in Rigveda has been either:

1. to symbolically endow its rider with speed, grace, mobile ferocity, etc.
2. if the rider is a deity, then there is a circular veneration for the horse, meaning first the deity is endowed with horse's traits of speed, grace, ferocity, etc. and once the horse attains the position of being the vehicle of a deity, similar to the deity, divine origins are ascribed to the horse as well.
3. the horse is used as an object of high prestige, and its sacrifice is considered similarly prestigious.

However all these types of reverence for the horse do not translate to really worship of horse. In India we have cows, bulls, elephants, monkeys, snakes, mice, etc. which have been considered sacred, but horse was never really considered sacred. Nor did the horse make an impression on a deity's appearance. Elephant has contributed to the appearance of Ganesha, for example. Vishnu has had a few animal avatars - fish, tortoise, boar, half-lion, etc. Snakes have had a prominent presence in Hindu mythology as Nāgas.

But horse has never really been anthropomorphized, given any human traits or considered a deity, at least none that I know of.

So even in Rigveda times, horse has remained more a symbol of speed or an object of prestige, and only in these roles has the horse been integrated into Rigvedic theology.

As a symbol of speed, that is more than apparent to any observer of an horse. It is not some secret singularly accessible to the Steppes-Man only. Similarly as an object of prestige, it could go either way. Either it is prestigious because the whole life of a society revolves around the horse, as may be the case with Mongols; or it could be prestigious because of its paucity and thus availability only to the royalty, nobility and elite.

One would have expected that the horse would be considered a being of higher divinity if the pre-Rigvedic Aryans had any roots in the Steppes from where the horse came, but the horse really plays a very minor role in the whole Rigveda!

Added Later: Forget the Argument, see below!

[ramana]

RajeshA, Hyagriva avatar of Vishnu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayagriva

[RajeshA]

RajeshA, Hyagriva avatar of Vishnu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayagriva

[ramana]

No need for :--<

> Hindus are very deep and complictated unlike Europe imagined Aryans who like like educated Vikings..

[Rony]

Too much nonsense has been cooked up about the Rig Veda simply because it represented the oldest work of an exceedingly well developed body of knowledge that everyone wanted to claim was his. And even today in the age of Googal, the first and main translation of the RiG Veda that comes up is a ridiculous one by one Griffiths in the 19th century.

shiv garu and other learned ones, I dont know if this is the right thread to ask but i will try. I am looking for a english translation of vedas (complete translations, all 4 vedas) which i can buy and keep in my bookshelf for life. Can you suggest a good and better alternative than griffiths/witzels/donigers ? I searched on google and amazon and as you said, its only griffiths/doniger which are coming up.I asked this question in 'discussion of epics' thread but did not get a reply.So posting it here. The more i want to learn about vedas, the more i am getting ashamed of myself for not knowing sanskrit and for relying on english and western authors to know my own texts. Apologies if its all OT.

[A_Gupta]

ManishH, the main conclusion has to be that the Rg Veda was composed long after PIE dispersal (whether AIT or OIT).

[Dan Mazer]

Actually no one called the language 'Sanskrit' until pāṇini. Maybe proto-Sanskrit is a better word.

Surely electrons weren't 'proto-electrons' before someone first named them?

[A_Gupta]

The cow is present in PIE.
http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/pho ... ord28.html

So cows are pre-dispersal by the same logic as horse.

Here is the equivalent entry for horse:
http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/pho ... word3.html

[RamaY]

RajeshA, Hyagriva avatar of Vishnu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayagriva

Isn't Vishnu a later day God in Vedas

Perhaps someone can count how many times Indra, Agni etc., are mentioned in RgVeda compared to Vishnu

shiv garu and other learned ones, I dont know if this is the right thread to ask but i will try. I am looking for a english translation of vedas (complete translations, all 4 vedas) which i can buy and keep in my bookshelf for life. Can you suggest a good and better alternative than griffiths/witzels/donigers ? I searched on google and amazon and as you said, its only griffiths/doniger which are coming up.I asked this question in 'discussion of epics' thread but did not get a reply.So posting it here. The more i want to learn about vedas, the more i am getting ashamed of myself for not knowing sanskrit and for relying on english and western authors to know my own texts. Apologies if its all OT.

Rony-garu,

TTD published Veda samhitas in Telugu. Don't know if they have inglish versions...

[Agnimitra]

I am looking for a english translation of vedas (complete translations, all 4 vedas) which i can buy and keep in my bookshelf for life. Can you suggest a good and better alternative than griffiths/witzels/donigers ?

I would also appreciate input from members.

Sri Aurobindo attempted translations of the Vedas. His book Secret of the Veda is available, and the Sri Aurobindo Kapali Shastry Instutute has come out with translation attempts based on Aurobindo's ideation of the meanings of Vedic words. They also acknowledged a debt to Acharya Madhva's Rg-Bhashya.

SAKSI translations of the Vedas - go to the section "Text, Translation and Notes."

In Hindi the Arya Samaj have put out the partial translations and commentaries of their founder Swami Dayananda, extended by disciples. Here is a website with the Hindi translations and commentaries.

Arya Samaj translations of Vedas - look on the rightmost pane of the page.

Looks like some Arya Samaj offshoots are also working on an English translation project.

Just my 2c.