Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
sriram v
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 03 May 2011 12:26

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

Postby sriram v » 06 Jul 2013 08:40

TonySoprano wrote:If OIT is true please explain why the Indo-European languages (supposedly originating in North India) reached all the way to Ireland but could not even penetrate past the Vindhyas. When looking at history, an objective view is required free of nationalism and chauvinism. Just my 2 paisa.


TonySoprano, your statement that Indo-European languages didn't penetrate past the Vindhyas is objectively wrong. Marathi, Konkani and Sinhala are Indo-european languages. They are spoken by millions of natives who reside very much to the south of the Vindhyas.

P.S. First post here after years of lurking.

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

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

Postby Agnimitra » 06 Jul 2013 08:52

TonySoprano wrote:If OIT is true please explain why the Indo-European languages (supposedly originating in North India) reached all the way to Ireland but could not even penetrate past the Vindhyas. When looking at history, an objective view is required free of nationalism and chauvinism. Just my 2 paisa.

If English is a European language please explain why it is found across most of the North American continent but could not penetrate eastward past the English channel. Therefore, it must be a North American language. Similarly, Arabic must have originated in N. Africa, rather than Arabia.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_20317 » 06 Jul 2013 12:29

Nilesh Oak wrote:
Klaus wrote:Manish_Sharma ji, link belongs here as there are videos of Graham Hancock elucidating on the same. While I think this link is a more accurate description of the "Kumari-Kandam" concept, I used to differ with exaggerations in earlier blogs, which labeled it as a sunken continent and claimed that it stretched all the way to Madagascar and Oz coast.

<sniped>

As Kalus ji said, IMO, the link belongs here. You may see in previous posts some sea level rise maps/timing posted by me and others. They all have relevance for Kumari Kandam, Dwarka, migration Out of India, but also plausible (migration or repatriation) from south eastern Asia to [u]Indian continent[/u].


8) I like the ring of it.

Re. the doubt raised by TonySoprano ji 2 paisa is actually an overvaluation. But it carries a germ of an idea. Wish Shiv ji and B ji could cooperate on it :P .

Taking India as the centre of expansion. What is the co-relation between:
1) the Sanskrit derived words found in various languages in various directions; and
2) the genetic diffusion in various directions.

I admit i am unable to word it properly but hope you guys get the idea, which is to see if the number of Sanskrit derived terminology as claimed by linguists, has any co-relation with dilution of genetic content. With languages we cannot really use the dilution word, but with genetics we know the claves can be ordered (even if incapable of being dated). OTOH with genetics we cannot be very sure of numbers but with languages we can still do a numerical analysis. or so I hope.

member_24042
BRFite
Posts: 214
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_24042 » 06 Jul 2013 22:05

Thank you everybody for the warm welcome! I will try to read all the posts in this thread! I am not a supporter or opponent of AIT or OIT. I just think we really do not have sufficient evidence for either. And if AIT is true, I think just the languages moved to India-NOT some large scale migration. The genetic influx in India must have been minimal as Central Asia is not very conducive to population. This pattern of a small group of invaders imposing their language and culture on a much more civilized people is replete in history. For examle: Turks in Turkey, Arabs in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Syria, etc.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_20292 » 06 Jul 2013 22:41

Can you change your name to a normal one , which sounds like a real persons name please?

Tony Soprano is a TV character....who just died.

member_24042
BRFite
Posts: 214
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_24042 » 06 Jul 2013 23:29

mahadevbhu wrote:Can you change your name to a normal one , which sounds like a real persons name please?

Tony Soprano is a TV character....who just died.


Correction sir, James Gandolfini tragically passed. Tony Soprano lives in the hearts of his multitude of fans. Again if Mods ask me to change name, I def. will. 8)

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5835
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

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

Postby vishvak » 06 Jul 2013 23:55

TonySoprano wrote:Thank you everybody for the warm welcome! I will try to read all the posts in this thread! I am not a supporter or opponent of AIT or OIT. I just think we really do not have sufficient evidence for either. And if AIT is true, I think just the languages moved to India-NOT some large scale migration. The genetic influx in India must have been minimal as Central Asia is not very conducive to population. This pattern of a small group of invaders imposing their language and culture on a much more civilized people is replete in history. For examle: Turks in Turkey, Arabs in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Syria, etc.

If there is no sufficient evidence then there is no point in giving out value judgement and long story line. Much more research is needed perhaps.

Here is one link with research - Let not the 19th century paradigms continue to haunt us! - Inaugural Address delivered at the 19th International Conference on South Asian Archaeology,
held at University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy on July 2-6, 2007.

The AIT looks more like relic of barbaric colonial times when insufficient research used to be passed off as history of humankind! The Aryan Invasion Theory is one such example of that arbitrary history writing.

member_23700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_23700 » 07 Jul 2013 01:08

TonySoprano wrote:Thank you everybody for the warm welcome! I will try to read all the posts in this thread! I am not a supporter or opponent of AIT or OIT. I just think we really do not have sufficient evidence for either. And if AIT is true, I think just the languages moved to India-NOT some large scale migration. The genetic influx in India must have been minimal as Central Asia is not very conducive to population. This pattern of a small group of invaders imposing their language and culture on a much more civilized people is replete in history. For examle: Turks in Turkey, Arabs in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Syria, etc.

Don't try. Read them. Of course choice is ultimately yours.

Since you are repeating old and tired arguments of AIT and AMT, why don't you state---to the best of your understanding.. what is the statement of AIT or AMT.. with when, who, where from , where and how. Not an easy task and I don't know of any AIT-ian worth his/her salt even attempt that.

This is because any attempt to put it in a statement form.. becomes its own nightmare and AIT falls on its face and back ...like a pack of cards.

It does not matter whether you are supporter or opponent of AIT or OIT, what matters is you can work your way out through 190+ pages and then compare the evidence against AIT position. But to do that.. you may want to state the AIT position first.. since no AIT-an has ever shown guts to state it clearly. At least not on this thread (but you copying from somewhere else with appropriate references is equally fine).

Welcome to the forum.

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

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

Postby johneeG » 09 Jul 2013 22:47

X-posting from off-topic thread: Link to original post
-------
abhischekcc wrote:
As for Jesus' 'virgin birth.' Who says it really needs to have happened? Some other biological pathway to pregnancy could have been activated


I disagree with the virgin birth concept - until there is evidence or cultural precedence to show it.

And the only cultural precedence of virgin birth is in ancient European mythology, not in Jewish or Hindu or Arab or Central Asian lore. So the logical conclusion is that while Jesus was born normally, the virgin birth idea was superimposed on his life when Xnism was adopted by the Roman empire.


Saar,
there is nothing in the world which does not have its source in Bhaarath(specially, Sanathana Dharma). Directly or indirectly, all ideas have their roots in Bhaarath.

As for virgin mother, there are cultural precedence in India. It is just that, in India, it is not considered such a big miracle. Because, in Indian literature, there are several miraculous births. So, virgin mother becomes just another extra-ordinary birth. But, X-ism puts too much emphasis on this. Infact, abrahamism puts too much emphasis on some really small (miraculous) deeds. Even if it is just fiction, they put too much emphasis on these miracles(specially, X-ism). Mo-ism puts too much emphasis on the self-acclaimed revelations(which are stored in naroK).

Again, 'revelations' is not really an original idea. In fact, the oldest literature that claims to be revelations are Vedhas themselves. So, this idea also has a precedence in Bhaarath.

X-ism is simply a distorted version of crypto-Buddhism. So, there is nothing in X-ism that cannot be directly traced back to Buddhism. Following that pattern, virgin mary(mother of Jesus) is also copied from virgin maya(mother of Gauthama Buddha). Jesus is simply a crypto-Buddha figure. Nothing more, nothing less.

Buddhist version of virgin mother:
The Virginal Conception – Virginal Before the Birth of the Future Buddha.

As Thundy explains in Buddha and Christ (pp. 84ff.), the conception of the future Buddha was considered to be a ‘virginal conception’ in the sense that his mother, Queen Mäyä, was believed to have conceived him without sexual intercourse with any man: . . .

Änanda, the favorite disciple, recites . . . the events of conception and birth . . . that he heard from the Lord:

Änanda, when the future Buddha is descending into his mother’s womb, she is pure from sexuality, has abstained from taking life, from theft, from evil conduct in lusts, from lying, and from all kinds of wine and strong drink, which are a cause of irreligion. She abided in penances like a hermit, always performing penances along with her consort. Having obtained the sanction of the king, he had not entertained carnal wishes for thirty-two months. In whatever place she sat . . . there dazzled her celestial nature, resplendent by her attachment to virtuous actions. There was not a god, nor a demon, nor a mortal, who could cast his glance on her with carnal desire. All of them, throwing aside all evil motive, and endowed with honorable sentiments, looked on her as a mother, or a daughter. . . . Like unto her, there was none to be seen worthy of the venerable being, or one more fully endowed with good qualities, or compassion – that mother is Mäyä (Lalitavistara, iii).



The Virginal Conception of Jesus As narrated in Luke 1:26-35:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, with a message for a girl betrothed to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David; the girl’s name was Mary.

The angel went in and said to her, ‘Greetings, most favored one! The Lord is with you.’ But she was troubled by what he said and wondered what this greeting might mean. Then the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for God has been gracious to you; you shall conceive and bear a son, and you shall give him the name Jesus. He will be great; he will bear the title “Son of the Most High”; the Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David, and he will be king over Israel for ever; his reign shall never end.’

‘How can this be?’ said Mary; ‘I am still a virgin.’

The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child to be born will be called “Son of God”.’

– The New English Bible
_______________
1Passage in the Majjhimanikäya, cited by Albert. J. Edmunds in Buddhist and Christian Gospels:
Being Gospel Parallels from Pali Texts, ed. M. Anesaki, 3rd ed. (Tokyo, 1905), p. 173.
18
II.14. Mäyä’s Dream: the descent of a white elephant (Bodhisattva) into her womb. Stone, Bhärhut, 2nd century B.C.
[The Way of the Buddha, p. 290]

Link

As one can see, virgin maya and virgin mary are similar, infact, they are X-ist version is copied from Buddhist version. In Lalithavistara, Deva-putris and Deva-putras visit Maya just before the birth of Buddha. In the X-ist version, the Deva-putris and Deva-putras become angels. Infact, the X-ist concept of 'son of god' is just a translation of 'Deva-putra'. Jesus is supposedly the 'son of god' and 'son of David'. The 'son of David' thing has confused many people and they have tried to understand the genealogy without much success. But, they are barking up the wrong tree. The 'son of David' is also a translation of 'Deva-putra'. Deva becomes Daueid(in greek, i.e. David).

Deva is a sanskrith word. It means 'God'. But, Deva also is used as a honorific for the male superiors(like Kings) and Devi is used as a honorific for the female superiors. Infact, there are also Kings use the word 'Deva' as part of their titles or names. For example, Krishna DEVA Raya. In buddhist literature, the word Deva-putra is used to describe Buddha in both its meanings: son of a King(shakya) and son of god(in heaven). Buddha resides in Tushitha heaven as on of the sons of god(i.e. Deva-putra) before descending on to the earth to take birth as the son of Maya and Shuddhodhana. Of course, Buddhist literature is also a pirate copy of Hindhu scriptures. The motifs from Hindhu scriptures are taken and remixed to compose buddhist scriptures and X-ism is again a remix of Buddhist scriptures(motifs). Jesus is nothing more than a fictional character. That character is based on Buddha. In fact, Jesus is like an alter-ego of Buddha... i.e. Buddha in disguise. The character of Buddha itself is created by copying the motifs of Hindhu scriptures(prominently Ramayana, Mahabharatha and Bhagavatha).

Hindhu virgin mothers:
Hindhuism is full of extra-ordinary births of people. So, virgin mother does not evoke so much spotlight.

Anyway, here is a list of Hindhu virgin mothers:
a) Sathyavathi is the virgin mother of Vedha Vyasa. The father in this case was Parashara Maharshi.
b) Kunthi is the virgin mother of Karna. The father in this case was Surya(Sun God).

c) If one is more liberal, then even Anjana Dhevi can be categorized as virgin mother of Hanuman. The father in this case was Vayu(who was in turn carrying the energy of Rudhra).

Infact, not just X-ism, but even Judaism seems to have copied from Hindhuism directly or indirectly. The story of Karna and Arjuna is very interesting in this regard.

For example, birth of Karna:
Karna was born to Kunthi by the grace of Surya(Sun God). But, at that time, Kunthi was an unmarried girl. So, Surya(Sun God) blessed her that she would remain virgin despite the birth of Karna. Karna was born with a natural coat of mail and ear-rings. Kunthi put the child in a box and floated it in river Ganga. That box was found by chariot-driver named Athiratha. He adopted the child. Athiratha was the chariot-driver of Dhrithrashtra. So, Karna went to the same school(first Kripa, then Dhrona) that Kauravas and Pandavas went.

birth of Krushna:
Kamsa, the king of Mathura, married his sister(Dhevaki) to Vasudheva. But, he heard a prophecy that 8th son of Dhevaki is destined to kill him. So, Kamsa tried to kill his sister immediately to save his own life. Vasudheva begged Kamsa not to kill her. Instead, he promised to deliver all their children to Kamsa. Kamsa agreed and imprisoned his sister along with brother-in-law. As promised, Vasudheva delivered his children as soon as they were born. Kamsa killed these children. At the time of birth of 7th child, the child was transferred from the womb of Dhevaki to Rohini(second wife of Vasudheva). Then, after some time, the 8th child was born. Narayana Himself was born to them. He instructed them to transfer Him to the house of Nanda and Yashodha. Then, He assumed the form of a normal child. Vasudheva tranferred the child to the house of Nanda and Yashodha, then he replaced his own son with the daughter of Nanda and Yashodha who was also born on the same day. No one noticed the swap. Kamsa thought a daughter was born to Vasudheva and tried to kill the child. But, the child assumed the form of Goddess and informed Kamsa that the one who is going to kill him is already born and safe. Immediately, Kamsa ordered persecution of all the newborns born at that time...

Now, the story of Moses:
This story is an interesting remix of Karna and Krushna.

wiki wrote:In the Exodus account, the birth of Moses occurred at a time when an unnamed Egyptian Pharaoh had commanded that all male Hebrew children born be killed by drowning in the river Nile. Jochebed, the wife of the Levite Amram, bore a son and kept him concealed for three months.[13][15][16] When she could keep him hidden no longer, rather than deliver him to be killed, she set him adrift on the Nile River in a small craft of bulrushes coated in pitch.[15] Moses' sister Miriam observed the progress of the tiny boat until it reached a place where Pharaoh's daughter (Bithiah,[13] Thermuthis [17]) was bathing with her handmaidens. It is said that she spotted the baby in the basket and had her handmaiden fetch it for her. Miriam came forward and asked Pharaoh's daughter whether she would like a Hebrew woman to nurse the baby.[13] Thereafter, Jochebed was employed as the child's nurse. Moses grew up and was brought to Pharaoh's daughter and became her son and a younger brother to the future Pharaoh of Egypt. Moses would not be able to become Pharaoh because he was not the 'blood' son of Bithiah, and he was the youngest.

wiki link

So, the birth story of Moses is a remix of births of Karna and Krushna. Then, this story again copied in the story of Jesus.

wiki wrote:Herod hears of Jesus' birth and, wanting him killed, orders the murder of young male children in Bethlehem. But an angel warns Joseph in his second dream, and the family flees to Egypt, later to return and settle in Nazareth.

wiki link

The story of Jesus has some close connections to the birth story of Karna and Arjuna:
Karna was the son of Surya from a virgin mother Kunthi. Arjuna was the son of Indhra from Kunthi. Surya is Apollo and Indhra is Zeus in Greek. In Hindhuism, Surya and Indhra are kind of alter-egos. This is a secret.

One would have to mix Arjuna and Karna into one figure and Surya and Indhra into one figure to understand these Greek and Abrahamic stories.

Anyway, Indhra is the King of Gods in Hindhuism. Zeus is the King of Gods in Greek. Indhra's vehicle is a white elephant named Airavatha. Indhra is also a Rain God. The white elephant symbolizes a white cloud. Indhra's weapon in Vajra, it symbolizes thunderbolt. Thunderbolt is the weapon of Zeus. According to Buddhist scriptures, when Buddha was about to be born a white elephant entered the womb of Maya signifying that she became pregnant. The same motif is found in Jesus copy also. Buddhists seem to have overlooked the fact that white elephant represents white cloud. So, to Buddhists, white elephant became a symbol of Buddha. In X-ist copy, white dove and white lamb become a symbol of Jesus(crypto-Buddha).

----
Actually, it seems to me that the whole Abrahamic tales are merely corruptions of Hindhu originals. More than one Hindhu figure is mixed to create an Abrahamic figure. Buddhism may have been the medium. Buddhism itself copies and steals many Hindhu motifs and figures to craft its scriptures. I suspect that Buddha himself is a copied Hindhu figure.

Brahma/Surya(Vivasvan) -> Abraham
Saraswathy/Sangya -> Sarah
Chaya -> Hagar
Rudhra(Isha)/Yama -> Isaac
Indhra/Shani -> Ishmael
Kubhera -> Jacob
Swayambhuva Manu -> Adam
Shatharupa -> Eve
Vaivasvatha Manu and Matsya Avathara -> Noah and his ark.

Brahma and Saraswathi relationship is presented as incest in Buddhism. Abraham and Sarah are most probably derived from this presentation of Buddhists. Abraham's Incestuous Marriage with Sarah

There is a misconception that Buddhism is against caste. It does not seem to be true. I don't know how to say this, but it seems that the stress of caste/Kula was so much that they were prepared to commit incest rather than marry outside Kula(more specifically Kshatriya).

In several places in the Pāli Canon, including the Ambaṭṭha Sutta (D.i.92), the progenitors of the Śākyas are related to King Okkāka. Pāli Okkāka is identified with the Sanskrit Ikṣvāku, who is known from Purāṇic stories, and in Jainism he is an ancestor to all of the Tirthaṅkaras. The king banishes his elder brothers from his kingdom and they make their home on the slopes of the Himalayas. But they can find no one suitable to marry, so they take their own sisters as wives, and these incestuous relationships give birth to the Śākyas. Given the prejudice against incest in India society generally it is remarkable that this detail was preserved, and this suggests that it might have a grain of truth. If so it points to Iran "there is good evidence for this practice called xᵛaētuuadaθa, so-called next-of-kin or close-kin marriage."
Wiki Link

As you can see, they believed incest was better than marriage outside caste. In fact, they continued to believe that they were progeny of pure castes.

This incest in Buddhism had curious effect. They justified it through their theology by ascribing this behaviour to many other figures in their theology. But, most of the figures in Buddhism were borrowed from Hinduism. So, essentially, Buddhism redefined these figures and some of them were ascribed incest to justify their own incestous behaviour.

For ex:

In the Udaya Jataka the Bodhisattva is a prince who is compelled to marry his half-sister. Although the two sleep in the same room for many years they remain celibate (Ja.IV,105). In the Dasaratha Jataka the princes Rama and Lakkhana marry their sister (Ja.IV,130). As with many ancient peoples the Sakyans, the tribe the Buddha belonged to, had a myth about their origins which included brother-sister incest. When the Koliyans were involved in a dispute with the Sakyans they taunted them by sayings that they ‘cohabite with their sisters like dogs, jackals and other animals’ (Ja.V,413). During the Buddha’s life there was an incident where a nun became infatuated with her son who was a monk and had sex with him, an offence entailing expulsion from the Sangha (Vin.III,35). When this was brought to the Buddha’s attention he said, ‘Does not this foolish man know that a mother shall not lust after her son or a son after his mother?’
Link

So, Buddhists created a version of Ramayana where Sita is both the sister and wife of Rama. All this for what?! Caste! It is ironic since, according to Valmiki Ramayana, Rama killed Vali for committing incest with his sister-in-law. Rama explains that a sister-in-law is equivalent to one's daughter and should never be thought of as wife material. And the only punishment for such incest is death. If incest with sister-in-law in punishable by death, then what is the punishment for incest with sister?

But, all that is irrelevant when one has an agenda. So, Buddhists tarnish Rama to justify their incest.

The same thing passed on into the story of Abraham and Sarah.


Carl wrote:Subhash Kak writes: Rigvedic roots of Semitic gods?
The different Semitic gods have cognates in the Vedic pantheon. Yam may be connected to the Vedic Yama who in RV 10.10.4 is seen as being born from the waters, and Mot to the Vedic Mrityu, death. But more to the point, Ila represents Agni as in Yajurveda (VS) 2.3, whereas Ilaa represents Earth, speech, and flow. There is also the Vedic Yahvah. As an epithet it is associated with movement, activity, heaven and earth; it means the sacrificer and Agni, the chief terrestrial god. It is associated with energy like the Yahwah of the Semites. The name Yahvah occurs 21 times in the Rigveda [i]. It may be compared to Shivah, an epithet for auspiciousness in the Rigveda, that later is applied regularly to Rudra.

Are Ila and Yahvah like El and Yahweh just by coincidence? We don't know, but we certainly do know of the Vedic-god worshiping Mitanni of North Syria who could have served as the intermediaries in connecting the Indians and the Semites.

An example:

पर वो यह्वं पुरूणां विशां देवयतीनाम ।
अग्निं सूक्तेभिर्वचोभिरीमहे यं सीमिदन्य ईळते ॥ [RigVeda 1.36.1]

RigVedic meaning of Yahvah (a Name of Agni):

1 yahva mf(%{I4})n. restless , swift , active (applied to Agni , Indra and Soma) RV. ; continually moving or flowing (applied to the waters) ib. (= %{mahat} Sa1y.) ; m. = %{yajamAna} , a sacrificer Un2. i , 134 Sch. ; (%{I}) f. du. heaven and earth RV. ; pl. the flowing waters (with %{sapta} , `" the seven great rivers "') ib. (cf. Naigh. i , 15).

2 yahvat mf(%{a4tI})n. ever-flowing (waters) RV.

Predictably, EJ sources want to debunk any linkage of Semitic god to Vedic tradition. One website called "Karma to Grace" :lol: has this to say - link
Yahweh is the unique name given to the God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament.
[...]
Is Yahvah the same as Yahweh? Well, let us ask the question more correctly, “Is hwhy the same as यह्व?” Can you read these two? Do you know what they say? Is there a linguistic tie between the two? Is the “H” of Hebrew represented here (there are two “H” sounds in Hebrew) the same as the “h” in Sanskrit? Are the vowels the same? The vowels aren’t even written in Hebrew, so we can’t easily know if they are the same as the Sanskrit ones. The “v” of Jahvah and the “w” of Yahweh —are we sure they are the same? In English they are quite different—one is a fluid and one is a fricative, and they represent completely unique sounds in English. “Wow” and “Vow” are completely different words and though they could be connected phonetically, we still do not identify them as the same words. Do they represent different sounds in Hebrew and Sanskrit? ..... {on and on in this vein}


Link to Subash Kak's article
Link to original post quoting the post of Agnimithra

Yahvah is one of the names used for Agni(Fire God) in Rig Vedha. This connection between Yahvah and Agni(Fire God) will explain many of the miracles in Old Testament.

Elijah shows a miracle where fire is born from a transparent liquid. This is seen as triumph of Yahvah. Why is it a triumph? Because, Fire God won. Similarly, Moses sees a bush catch fire in desert. He thinks of it as manifestation of God. How can a bush catching fire be a manifestation of God? Because, it was Fire God that they were praying to.

Who is this Fire God? Rudhra is the higher Agni. Remember, Rudhra burns up Agni also during pralaya. So, Rudhra is the higher Fire God. It is Rudhra who is Yahvah. Rudhra is also Isha. Many Abrahamic names like Ishaac, Ishmael, Ishrael...etc have the cognate Isha.

Rudhra is also Girisha. Girisha means one who resides on mountains. Abraham goes on to the top of a mountain to sacrifice his son. His son carries the wood to lit up the fire. Why go to the top of the mountain? Because, top of the mountain is where the God resides: Girisha. Why lit a fire? Because, they are worshiping Rudhra/Yahvah, the Fire God.

Moses climbs to the top of the mountain to get the laws for his people. Why climb to the top of a mountain? Girisha...

Remember, the cows were also worshiped by the jews and egyptains at the time. Moses breaks the idol of a golden calf and kills many people who were worshiping it. Of course, these stories cannot be taken as real because they are simply remixing the older motifs from other scriptures.

So, who is Baal? Baal is water God or God of fertility or God of sea.
Baal is Soma i.e. Sa+Uma(Shiva with Uma). That means, in the worship of Baal, worship of Goddess is also inherent. On the other hand, in the worship of Yahvah, only the God without the Goddess is worshiped.

Eventually, the cult of Baal was digested into cult of Yahvah. Baal could also be viewed by the followers of Yahvah cult as Jaalandhara. Jaalandhara was born from Shiva. He became the ruler of Seas. Eventually, he was defeated by Shiva.

I think the root of iconoclasm in judaism is the worship of Fire. Because Fire is worshiped, there is no murthy/image. These people were opposed to the image worship because they were zealot fire worshippers.

These ideologies continue to be mutate and evolve(or devolve).

---
The essential point is that all ideas have their source in Hindhuism.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

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

Postby devesh » 10 Jul 2013 07:07

Agnimitra wrote:RajeshA ji you've been missed here.


I second that.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21158
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 10 Jul 2013 08:42

devesh wrote:
Agnimitra wrote:RajeshA ji you've been missed here.

I second that.

Miyan,
Did they not say the Gussa of wise man is short lived like the line in Jugg of Wine?

Rahiman Dhaga Prem Ka , Matt Torro Jhatkaye
Toote tho Naa Jurre, Jurre Gaanth Parr Jayee!!

Aqal, Mush Ek Samman Hai, Gyani Diyo Bikhaye
Jaise Jaise Baant Diyo , Oottni expand Ho jayye.
Bhya , ottni expand ho Jayee!!

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Postby Virendra » 10 Jul 2013 10:36

I was reading an aritcle on Paleoclimatic studies and found this. Perhaps members with knowledge in astronomy and geology can make something out of it, in context of this thread?

...precession of the equinoxes controls the occurrence of the glacial cycles ...
...variations in the intensity of summer insolation (thus the rainfall) are primarily controlled by the precession of equinoxes...

I think if Indian scholars would steer, leverage the paleoclimatic and Ice age studies it will add another scientific dimension to the debate of AIT-OIT. Rhetoric and sepculation would be reduced further.
What was the treeline during and after last Ice Age?
What were the Ice Age refugia in the middle of Ice?
What was the carrying capacity in various regions of the Indian sub-continent? (regardless of whether refugia or not, Ice laden or not)
How did the tropical glacial states changed between LGM and early Holocene?
How did the summer insolation and orbital changes lead to changes in rainfall pattern?
How did the changes in oceanic circulation led to changes in lake levels?
How did the tropical sand dunes/deserts expand or contract betwen LGM and early holocene?
How did the vegetation in north (tropical) India as well as the south (coastal) change betwen LGM and early holocene?
Where did anthropization occur, when and what effects did it have on the local ecological carrying capacity?

Most importantly - What were the paleoclimatic, geological barriers that led to separate ecological zones in the Indian sub continent, such that three distinct langauge families developed here in relative isolation for a long time.

I know I have given more questions than answers, but I feel that while reearching genetics, astronomy, linguistics and archeology etc .. we're neglecting this particular angle to look at the problem. More attention is needed here.

I think that is what will answer the questions like these :
TonySoprano wrote:If OIT is true please explain why the Indo-European languages (supposedly originating in North India) reached all the way to Ireland but could not even penetrate past the Vindhyas. When looking at history, an objective view is required free of nationalism and chauvinism. Just my 2 paisa.


Regards,
Virendra

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Postby Virendra » 10 Jul 2013 10:49

This question raises another one.
Why is it that linguistic zones always seem so defined by geography? Even in case of India, we're always saying - abc languages above Vindhyas and xyz below Vindhyas.
The Ice Ages and related paleoclimatic phenomenon always make drastic changes to the ecology of a place.

When we're talking about human existence, movement and language travel; the Geography cannot be viewed in isolation. Timelines and the specific climatic factors always play their part. A mountain range may be easily surmountable in a particular phase of climate & human civilization while it would be impossible to go around in another phase.
Question arises .. which timeline, climate and phase of human evolution would support easy cross over, spread out for humans. Definitely the late ones.
The more we move farther back in time, the chances go dim. Ice Age features were still prominent, modern man's evolution and technology was still in infancy.

During the Ice Age, north India i.e. above Vindhya range - till Rajasthan, Malwa and parts of central India was covered in Ice as studies of rock segments have shown. The ecological carrying capacity was extremely limited. Meaning not many species of bird, plants, animals would be supported. The same applies to humans.
At the same time, down south and more so towards the coast the ecological carrying capacity is comparatively mugh higher. There is more biological diversity found. That is where majority of wildlife, vegetation and humans etc would thrive.
After the Ice Age, four things happen in the Indian sub continent:
a) The ice recedes in south to north direction and the more southward an area is, the quicker it gets rid of the Ice.
b) Tree-line (virtual border of habit-at) advances from south to north.
c) Coastal and southern areas are more and more saturated in vegetation and wildlife terms and anthropization by humans.
d) The region also faces land grab by the rising sea level.

As a result there is a movement of life forms towards north (of India and beyond) and away from near-coasts toward mainland as well.
The few Ice Age refugia in north also would be liberated and gradually we can expect a re-union of various locked down ecological oasis of the Ice Age.

This movement also explains why RV remembers horse together with sea/water meaning on so many occasions.
During the Ice Ages the extremely cold and arid landscape of Eurasias, West Asia and Iran would be sans any herbs for horses to live on.
This would kill majority of the horses there. However, even at the those times the warmer climates of Indian sub continent were able to sustain wild caballus(true) horses.
The so called PIE root for horse - ekwa means water, sea. The Rigveda has enough mention of horse praise where they say the horse to have come from the Sea. The Rigveda is said to have been written soon after the last Ice Age.
At the same time the Sea level is said to have raised and thrown coastal life inwards to mainland, which explains why Vedic Aryans would call horse 'ekwa' or 'ashwa'.

Ice Age was not only cold and ice laden but arid as well (even in tropical areas). The expanse of earth covered in sand dunes/desert betwen 30 degree north and 30 degree south was much higher, as also indicated by the study of accumulated dust deposits in ocean beds.
Among other places, few regions of the north India still acted as refugia where tropical vegetation is said to have survived in very narrow belts.
Study by Street and Grove 1979 has shown that lakes of the tropical and monsoonal areas like East Africe, South Arabia, NorthWest India etc were at low levels during the LGM and they reached very high levels in early Holocene 9k-10k YBP (after the last Ice Age ended).
There occured a Milankovitch forcing around 9000 YBP, after the last Ice Age. The Earth's orbital position changed. This is known to have caused major climate changes. Kutzbach and Street-Perrott in 1985 had found that this orbital change resulted in :
1. Intensified Monsoonal cycles and heavy rainfall in Indian sub continent.
2. Northward shift of Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), again meaning a largely wet and erratic weather more high up in the norther hemisphere than before.
3. Northern hemisphere including tropical areas like S Arabia and NorthWest India, coming under high level of summer insolation.
Last edited by Virendra on 10 Jul 2013 12:00, edited 2 times in total.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Postby Virendra » 10 Jul 2013 11:41

sriram v wrote:Marathi, Konkani and Sinhala are Indo-european languages. They are spoken by millions of natives who reside very much to the south of the Vindhyas.

IMO these languages aren't of relavance here as they have appeared quite late.

Agnimitra wrote:If English is a European language please explain why it is found across most of the North American continent but could not penetrate eastward past the English channel. Therefore, it must be a North American language. Similarly, Arabic must have originated in N. Africa, rather than Arabia.

Indeed ... why !! :roll:

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 10 Jul 2013 19:47

Virendra ji,

Many great points. I have two projects in works that do look at geological data (ice ages, melting of ice and its effects on animals, extinction, evolution, migration, sea levels, ).

The focus of first project is limited to -Flooding of Dwarka. My proposed timeline (per my book) 5525 BCE.

The focus of second project is limited to Ramayana time - My proposed timeline (to be proposed soon).

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

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

Postby member_22872 » 10 Jul 2013 20:20

if OIT is true please explain why the Indo-European languages (supposedly originating in North India) reached all the way to Ireland but could not even penetrate past the Vindhyas. When looking at history, an objective view is required free of nationalism and chauvinism. Just my 2 paisa.


Even by the staunch Tamil supporters who argue that Tamil is older than Sanskrit, they don't deny that Sanskrit and Tamil share some common word roots. If intermingling didn't happen and if Vindhya ranges were that formidable, Tamil and Sanskrit should be completely separate languages altogether with no commonality. But there are more similarities between Sanskrit vocabulary and grammar and that of Tamil as compared to Sanskrit and say Irish. So your premise is not correct.

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

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

Postby Agnimitra » 10 Jul 2013 22:30

Jhujar wrote:
devesh wrote:quote="Agnimitra" RajeshA ji you've been missed here.
I second that.

Miyan,
Did they not say the Gussa of wise man is short lived like the line in Jugg of Wine?

Rahiman Dhaga Prem Ka , Matt Torro Jhatkaye
Toote tho Naa Jurre, Jurre Gaanth Parr Jayee!!

Aqal, Mush Ek Samman Hai, Gyani Diyo Bikhaye
Jaise Jaise Baant Diyo , Oottni expand Ho jayye.
Bhya , ottni expand ho Jayee!!

:mrgreen:
RajeshA ji said he had some reprioritization to do and so was taking a break.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Postby Virendra » 11 Jul 2013 11:46

venug wrote:Even by the staunch Tamil supporters who argue that Tamil is older than Sanskrit, they don't deny that Sanskrit and Tamil share some common word roots. If intermingling didn't happen and if Vindhya ranges were that formidable, Tamil and Sanskrit should be completely separate languages altogether with no commonality. But there are more similarities between Sanskrit vocabulary and grammar and that of Tamil as compared to Sanskrit and say Irish. So your premise is not correct.

Venu ji,
Common roots would mean that the languages had the same parent and they separated somewhere down the line.
On the other hand, AMT supporters argue that the mixing between Sanskrit and Tamil happened much late and there is no record of Sanskrit in south much before the Mauryas.

I think that till the Ice age ended around 8000 BC, there were climatic barriers that didn't allow for free movement & imposed ecological lock down into separate zones within India. Thus three language families developed in isolation.
Immediately after the Ice Age the extremely strong rivers, deltas, dense rain forests would again impose good some restrictions. But gradually by the advent of 7000 BC things would have improved and a slow merger of previously disjunct refugia would already start taking place.

So yes, there were barriers before; that lead to people and language(families) proceeding in isolation.
Later the barriers watered down and thus the gradual mixing took place over a long period of time.

Regards,
Virendra

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 12 Jul 2013 02:06

Virendra wrote:
Common roots would mean that the languages had the same parent and they separated somewhere down the line.
On the other hand, AMT supporters argue that the mixing between Sanskrit and Tamil happened much late and there is no record of Sanskrit in south much before the Mauryas.

I think that till the Ice age ended around 8000 BC, there were climatic barriers that didn't allow for free movement & imposed ecological lock down into separate zones within India. Thus three language families developed in isolation.
Immediately after the Ice Age the extremely strong rivers, deltas, dense rain forests would again impose good some restrictions. But gradually by the advent of 7000 BC things would have improved and a slow merger of previously disjunct refugia would already start taking place.

So yes, there were barriers before; that lead to people and language(families) proceeding in isolation.
Later the barriers watered down and thus the gradual mixing took place over a long period of time.

Regards,
Virendra


(1) Let's not accept AIT zealots changing it to AMT(just on a whim), as if they are offering some concessions to others. The entire theory is offered in a hand waving fashion and maintained it that way for a reason. Partly, this could be simply because many of AIT Nazis, their sepoys and other blind zealots are incapable of understanding how theories are proposed and then corroborated/falsified.

(2) What records do we have (of anything) before Mauryas in south? Besides let's not jump to absence of evidence = evidence of absence. All that may mean is we can not talk with confidence of Sanskrit in the south before specific time. This is not a proof of anything.

(3) Ice age had very little influence (in terms of barriers within India). I hope no one is suggesting that India had glaciers similar to that of North America. Besides Ice-age is not a simple, continuous linear phenomena as was assumed until some 50 years ago. Ice melting occurred in bouts (Older dryus, Younger dryus) and for various reasons. Again, ice age had no effect on interior of India. For sure, weather would have been affected and coastlines would have also been affected due to rising sea-levels.

(4) There are other competing theories (Earth crust displacement), according to which Greenland and arctic sea (and Antartica) are in ice-age in our times, whereas some 8000 BCE and before, North America was in ice age (note, parts of Alaska and even parts of Seiberia were free from ice when North America was filled with glaciers).

(5) There are geological evidence for glaciers in central and even south India...but we are talking of millions of years in antiquity - nothing of that sort in say last Million years.

Just my 2 cents.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 12 Jul 2013 02:28

Nilesh and Virendra,

So King Bhagirath bringing Ganga down to earth could be a massive glacier lake burst like the recent Uttara Khand bursts. And that was way before Rama of the Ikshvaku dynasty.


Can we look at the sat pictures of Gangotri and discern anything?

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Postby Virendra » 12 Jul 2013 11:47

Nilesh Oak wrote:(1) Let's not accept AIT zealots changing it to AMT(just on a whim), as if they are offering some concessions to others. The entire theory is offered in a hand waving fashion and maintained it that way for a reason. Partly, this could be simply because many of AIT Nazis, their sepoys and other blind zealots are incapable of understanding how theories are proposed and then corroborated/falsified.

(2) What records do we have (of anything) before Mauryas in south? Besides let's not jump to absence of evidence = evidence of absence. All that may mean is we can not talk with confidence of Sanskrit in the south before specific time. This is not a proof of anything.

I'm not accepting the AIT/AMT line at all :D

Nilesh Oak wrote:(3) Ice age had very little influence (in terms of barriers within India). I hope no one is suggesting that India had glaciers similar to that of North America. Besides Ice-age is not a simple, continuous linear phenomena as was assumed until some 50 years ago. Ice melting occurred in bouts (Older dryus, Younger dryus) and for various reasons. Again, ice age had no effect on interior of India. For sure, weather would have been affected and coastlines would have also been affected due to rising sea-levels.

Agreed that interiors were not completely ice laden but I wouldn't go as far as saying "no effect".
About the barriers, they are in ecological context. They were not and cannot be built by Ice alone. However the last Ice Age did enhance the barriers in terms of changed climate, vegetation and tree-line etc. It is important to remember here that I'm not saying "Ice" but "Ice Age".
That the tropical India was largely arid during the Ice Age is known by the study of accumulated dust deposits in ocean beds. Not only the land mass but the tropical ocean beds were quite cold.
Even when later glacial melting would release water to the Indian subcontinent, only the regions around various basins and drainage deltas would help the wildlife and hominin population with necessary resources for survial and tool development.
Besides, the river systems themselves would act as barriers, defying the population to cross over and disperse. not to forget the other constraining factor of arid landscapes.
I don't know about north, but at LGM even down south there was an 800 meters decrease in the treeline at Sandynallah region in the Nilgiris. One could guess the implications. Factors like the treeline virtually define the refugia i.e. biological boundary for wildlife and hominin population.

Bottomline - population and its activities were dominated by numerous factors like geography, climate, resources, terrain etc.

Nilesh Oak wrote:(5) There are geological evidence for glaciers in central and even south India...but we are talking of millions of years in antiquity - nothing of that sort in say last Million years.

That is from the Talchir period millions of years back. Undisputed evidence of moving ice and rock fragments was found in the Rock beds of what were known as Malwa, Rajputana and the salt range of Punjab.
Also confirmed is that Himalayas and associate mountain ranges of north were glaciated during the last Ice Age.
As far as Ice Age and its effects are concerned, North would always be seen as the less inhabitalbe half of India.
I think what really opened this part up were the events around 7000 B.C - Milankovitch forcing and increased summer insolation.

Anyway, quoting Petraglia on the barriers :
...Between the Himalayas and the peninsula lies the Indo-Gangetic plain, which has deep alluvial deposits stretching from the Indus River of Pakistan in the west to the eastern deltaic lowlands of Bangladesh.
These large rivers and deltas may have acted as barriers, thereby limiting dispersals of mammals and hominins (Kretzoi 1961–1964; Field and Lahr 2005; Field et al. 2007)...

...Geographic barriers that limited or prevented a southerly migration may have included the large river systems outflowing from the Himalayas or the arid landscapes in the northwest during glacial periods.
Comparisons between environmental settings and faunas of northern India and southern China would be instructive, as it would help to explain if corridors existed for hominin dispersal...


Then
....geographic distribution of the Purana and Gondwana basins ...The basins occur in the northwest, the peninsula and along the eastern half of India and near the coast....

Now, can you recall/superimpose where the three language families are found in India?
Magic !! :wink:

ramana wrote:Nilesh and Virendra,
So King Bhagirath bringing Ganga down to earth could be a massive glacier lake burst like the recent Uttara Khand bursts. And that was way before Rama of the Ikshvaku dynasty.
Can we look at the sat pictures of Gangotri and discern anything?

It might've been a geological project executed under the King Bhageeratha. Otherwise I don't see how a human figure could be so credited with the bringing of Ganga.
Only the Ganga could've been praised or this could've been attributed to Godly action .. why the King?

Regards,
Virendra

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

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

Postby member_22872 » 12 Jul 2013 14:37

Virendra ji,

We already have precedence of the effects of ice age on Indian sub continent. Around 75K years back Toba volcanic eruption seems to have brought in ice age. Then Indian subcontinent was the only place of refuge. True, the north could have frozen, that also means that South India remained more hospitable. This also could mean movement of people to the south. So even if argues about catastrophic climatic conditions as ice age to prevented people to mingle, I think that had little effect on the people of Indian subcontinent of those times.

Existence of Sanskrit sounding words in Tamil is proof enough to say Sanskrit and Tamil influenced each other, one need not look for Sanskritization of South itself pre-Mauryan period. I highly doubt Vindhyas impeded people's mingling. If people could spread to South once, they could do it again at their will. Only the will and need might have stopped them from crossing.

Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

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

Postby Atri » 12 Jul 2013 14:42

I think of it as a course correction of ganga.. Perhaps, Ganga was running like brahmaputra does.. Bhagiratha changed the course and made her flow through the plains. Not just ganga, all the himalayan tributaries as well. Like a massive river-linking project.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Postby Virendra » 12 Jul 2013 16:22

venug wrote:Virendra ji,

We already have precedence of the effects of ice age on Indian sub continent. Around 75K years back Toba volcanic eruption seems to have brought in ice age. Then Indian subcontinent was the only place of refuge. True, the north could have frozen, that also means that South India remained more hospitable. This also could mean movement of people to the south. So even if argues about catastrophic climatic conditions as ice age to prevented people to mingle, I think that had little effect on the people of Indian subcontinent of those times.

Existence of Sanskrit sounding words in Tamil is proof enough to say Sanskrit and Tamil influenced each other, one need not look for Sanskritization of South itself pre-Mauryan period. I highly doubt Vindhyas impeded people's mingling. If people could spread to South once, they could do it again at their will. Only the will and need might have stopped them from crossing.

I'm not contesting your view Venu ji.
As compared to the few refugia in North, down South was the obvious and more hospitable place during Ice Age as I've already mentioned many times in previous posts. I've supported the same view even while talking about horses in RV and the ekwa/water association.
As far as Tamil and Sanskrit are concerned, people speaking Dravidian and IE family languages had plenty of time to mingle.
That is - between the end of Ice Age+Milankovitch forcing+increased summer insolation far back on one side and written records of Sanskrit in south in the recent Mauryan times on the other.
Even if we forget about that, it is quite possible that the two languages/families split from common parent during the extremities of LGM at 18,000 B.C. Thus there are examples of common roots.
If we look at the bigger picture of timescale .. in simplest way this is like having some people in a dark room go through temperature in minus degress. People huddle into different groups at the best possible cover available. Then you open the room back to warmth and light. Everyone comes out and mixes right back.
It is not preposterous and IMO is a natural thing to happen, given that elements of nature (like glaciers, oceanic current, insolation levels, monsoon etc) go through so many cycles and ages. This has happened before and will happen again.

Perhaps the guys dwelling on this planet after the next Ice Age or some other kind of transformation, would again be arguing about when and where the likes of us were roaming. :P

Regards,
Virendra

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

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

Postby Murugan » 12 Jul 2013 19:45

Anando... enjoy... cheers

A genetic study has confirmed that New World dog breeds such as Chihuahuas, Peruvian Hairless Dogs, and Carolina Dogs originated in Asia, and are descended from dogs who crossed the Bering land bridge with humans.

http://archaeology.org/news/1072-130711 ... estication

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21158
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 13 Jul 2013 00:16

Murugan wrote:Anando... enjoy... cheers
http://archaeology.org/news/1072-130711 ... estication

Too Bad, they have not studied the Brainless Paki breed yet.
The Sentinelese people of North Sentinel Island, an "ancient" tribe
http://www.metafilter.com/129894/The-Se ... ient-tribe

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands are a string of 572 islands that run roughly north-south in the Bay of Bengal between Myanmar and Indonesia, but are formally a part of the Republic of India. Of the hundreds of islands, less than 40 are inhabited. While you can travel and visit some of the islands, but as of 2005, there are also a few that India has declared closed to outsiders to preserve these distinct cultures, living much as they have for hundreds to thousands of years, remaining distant from all outsiders. The most extreme example are the Sentinelese people who live on North Sentinel Island (Google maps).
The small tribe on North Sentinel Island continues to resist all contact with the outside world — just as they have for the past 60,000 years. They drive off fishermen, journalists, anthropologists and government officials with their spears and arrows. Their low-lying island, heavily forested and protected by a barrier of coral reefs, is roughly the size of Manhattan.
The exact lineage of the Sentinelese people is unclear, but complete mitochondrial DNA sequences from Onges and Great Andaman populations (abstract, with comments) suggests that these populations "survived in genetic isolation since the initial settlement of the islands during an out-of-Africa migration by anatomically modern humans." Linguistically and physically, the populations on the different islands have been separated long enough to have distinct languages and genetics. "The epigenetic data suggest that the Andaman Islanders originated from either two colonization events or a single founding population that has been subdivided for an extended length of time. " Given the Sentinelese people's disinterest in outsiders and their apparent early technologies, it is assumed they are similarly ancient in lineage.As these populations are not terribly remote, there have been efforts to study these people and their cultures for centuries. Still, there is no recording of Sentinelese people's spoken language, and observations have been limited to the few encounters, intentional or otherwise, that the Sentinelese have permitted.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 13 Jul 2013 21:33

Virendra wrote:
Even if we forget about that, it is quite possible that the two languages/families split from common parent during the extremities of LGM at 18,000 B.C. Thus there are examples of common roots.
If we look at the bigger picture of timescale .. in simplest way this is like having some people in a dark room go through temperature in minus degress. People huddle into different groups at the best possible cover available. Then you open the room back to warmth and light. Everyone comes out and mixes right back.
It is not preposterous and IMO is a natural thing to happen, given that elements of nature (like glaciers, oceanic current, insolation levels, monsoon etc) go through so many cycles and ages. This has happened before and will happen again.

Perhaps the guys dwelling on this planet after the next Ice Age or some other kind of transformation, would again be arguing about when and where the likes of us were roaming. :P

Regards,
Virendra

Virendra ji,

I like your LGM at 18000 BCE theory. IMO, it may not be a split, but more like one group moving to another area and contacts getting rare and thinner over time.

Interestingly Bhagavat Purana (all Puranas have genuine interest in capturing our ancient history, they are just not good at it) mentions the Manu (Satyavrat.. or whatever his name is/was) saved via Matsya Avatar and who repopulated India (could mean. re-established civilization) was a 'Dravid'!

My attempts to track time of this Manu also align with this broad period .. 15000 BCE through 20000 BCE. Isn't this also the time claimed by Sangam literature for flooding of their ancestral land (Kumari kandam) south of India?
------------
Liked your analogy. Alternate to that analogy under same circumstances.. is that all huddle together when area of survival becomes narrower. However they space out themselves and go to new pastures when areas open up again.

Ice age barriers (knowledge of them from Geology) allow us to determine potential migrations around the world, but in this specific case, Out of India into NW...and in turn link that conjectures to other evidence.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Postby Virendra » 15 Jul 2013 11:51

Nilesh Oak wrote:I like your LGM at 18000 BCE theory. IMO, it may not be a split, but more like one group moving to another area and contacts getting rare and thinner over time.

Yes, that is possible. But given the timeline, reasons would be very primal like climate imposed restrictions on or saturation of - the region's carrying capacity etc.

Nilesh Oak wrote:Interestingly Bhagavat Purana (all Puranas have genuine interest in capturing our ancient history, they are just not good at it) mentions the Manu (Satyavrat.. or whatever his name is/was) saved via Matsya Avatar and who repopulated India (could mean. re-established civilization) was a 'Dravid'!

My attempts to track time of this Manu also align with this broad period .. 15000 BCE through 20000 BCE. Isn't this also the time claimed by Sangam literature for flooding of their ancestral land (Kumari kandam) south of India?

I think Manu's Dravida and Matasya avatar are in context of flooding. The flooding event (first of the ones known to us) should be toward the end of Pleistocene, if not Holocene. More of "10,000 BC and afterwards" zone instead of 15,000-20,000 YBP.
It would have been one of the many waves in which Arabian sea among other water bodies reclaimed the land of Indian sub continent.
A good candidate is at and around the Gulf of Cambay. In our subcontinent, that is where the Sea has made maximum incursion after Ice Age. I don't think that we will have so much sea level rise around LGM. We should expect the opposite in LGM time range when ice sheets are maximized and so is the dessication.
Climatic manifestations of LGM between 15,000 - 20,000 BCE range contradict head-on with the warming and flooding that is characterstic of concepts related to Sangam and Matasya.

Image
Interestingly even today the regions not far from Gulf of Cambay and Manu's Dravida - like the Coastal Sind, Gujrat and Maharashtra have place names with Dravidian substratum. Village names end with 'valli'/'palli'. Jain texts of Gujrat mention cousin marriages - something familiar in dravidian culture of south India even today.
So a sea recovery wave forces Manu and his people to relocate deeper in mainland .. may be near Himalayas where he goes atop the flooding water in Indus or Sarasvati. Sarasvati's mouth to Arabian Sea would not be far off from the Dravida location shown above.
Tamil literature of late Sangam times had given up the initial 7 divisional geographical descriptions to adopt 5 divisions, because land was lost to the progressing Arabian Sea.
It is in the late Sangam time's Tamil literature that Agasthya's bringing large number of immigrants from Dwarka has been been mentioned by Tholkaapiyam. The latter also says that Agasthya had a forest tract in Kerala-Tamilnadu region cleared for their settlement. This forest tract was one of the 5 regions that Tamils counted after the sea's land grabbing had forced inward/northward movement.
First Sangam was around 10,000 B.C. around a millenia before the last known major convergence of factors giving us maximum summer insolation in northern hemisphere had occurred 9,000 B.C., at the transition between the last glaciation and the current interglacial, the Holocene. I would like to correct my earlier date of this Milankovitch forcing, had mistaken it to 7,000 B.C.
Around this forcing's date only, a major flooding event might have happened. Forcing cause a lot of warming and other changes.

Image[/quote]

It is interesting to try and correlate the knowledge on Sangam and Ice Age. :)

Nilesh Oak wrote:Liked your analogy. Alternate to that analogy under same circumstances.. is that all huddle together when area of survival becomes narrower. However they space out themselves and go to new pastures when areas open up again.

Right. Though there would be many such narrow refugia and people would find the nearest one; rather than all trying to huddle at one common place.

Nilesh Oak wrote:Ice age barriers (knowledge of them from Geology) allow us to determine potential migrations around the world, but in this specific case, Out of India into NW...and in turn link that conjectures to other evidence.

Nilesh Oak wrote:What do we know about the vegetation, forests, climate etc. for India for the above period?

During Ice Ages the tropical/north India was was not only cold and ice laden but arid as well.
The expanse of earth covered in sand dunes/desert betwen 30 degree north and 30 degree south was much higher (50%) around 18000 YBP as compared to now (10%), as indicated by the study of accumulated dust deposits in ocean beds. This latitudinal range covers south India and lower half of north India+Pakistan.
Increased fluxes of dust from the arid tropical lands down to Oceans is indicative of heightened aridity during glacial times, atleast the LGM for sure.
The low lake levels in northwest India at LGM period also confirm the aridity. The high lake levels at the same lakes during the Early Holocene Interglacial period confirm its warmth and humidity. This is in line with the fact that the Milankovitch forcing of 9000 BC would cause more rains.

So compared to central Asia and Eurasia, not only was Indian subcontinent a good Ice Age refugia in late Pleistocene.
But also during early Holocene's warm welcoming climate, India would be the favorite place to stay.
We know that Ice would recede south to north and we would see better climate conditions the same way.
As the effects of Ice Age vanish after 8,0000 B.C., it is logical for the Indian sub continent's resident to move up northwesterly (got Himalayas in north east) and find freshly vacated inhabitable lands in central Asia.

Research suggests that the early (Pleistocene) hominin settlements in India would have been at one or both of the two cadidate areas:
a) Hugging the Coasts all along from East Africa to South Arabia, Gulf of Cambay, southern coast of India, Myanmar (including land linked Andaman-Nicobar) and further on in Sunda land.
b) Incoming is via coastline only but the dispersal within India isn't limited to coasts. Instead it is dictated by the river system and deltas. These not only feed the population with resources but also act as barriers, dominating where the groups could go and where not.

Regards,
Virendra

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 16 Jul 2013 09:05

Virendra ji,

Thank you.

Few points

(1) When it comes to genetics, the time stamp on gene pool admixing/migration is not very accurate (at least at this time.. but is getting better), even then, if I recall correctly, transfer of M17 (male marker)has timing of going out of India to Europe via straight up north and then west as far back as 13000 BCE (Stephen Oppenheimer's work and books).

(2) I do have number of research papers on climate, LGM, multiple floods and such and at some point I will revisit them (I have read them before), however would appreciate your refernces (books, papers etc.) for your conclusions for Indian climate, especially beginning with LGM.

(3) Based on your high point summary, I can say (admit) that my Mahabharata but also (or especially) Ramayana timeline would be in conflict with your summary of Indian climate after LGM and pre - 8000 BCE. That is why, to me #2 above (references and papers and evidence in them) is of critical importance. If both of these evidences (say Ramayana work of mine and climatic evidence for India post LGM to 8000 BCE) are on equally stronger ground, then we have more interesting and complex problem to solve! I can only vouch for my work on Ramayana which is on solid footing.. as far as astronomy evidence is concerned.

Of course I do recognize that nothing is on solid footing and all is subject to falsification, modification and re-verification. For example, variable rate of precession (either due to binary theory or otherwise) can throw in some surprises with my predictions for Ramayana time period.
-----------
When you refer to Pleistocene settlements in India, what specific time limit you are (or papers you are referring to) referring to, because keep in mind Pleistocene is 1 Million years long.
----------
Thanks again. I will start getting into geological aspects pre-8000 BCE after my work on Ramayana is completed.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 16 Jul 2013 09:09

Virendra ji,

BTW, 'Manu's Dravida' from your posts is my Kushasthali and later on Dwarka. :rotfl:

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Postby Virendra » 16 Jul 2013 18:00

Nilesh ji,

Nilesh Oak wrote:(1) When it comes to genetics, the time stamp on gene pool admixing/migration is not very accurate (at least at this time.. but is getting better), even then, if I recall correctly, transfer of M17 (male marker)has timing of going out of India to Europe via straight up north and then west as far back as 13000 BCE (Stephen Oppenheimer's work and books).

Migrations out of India had started 85,000 years back. Since then there have been many migrations in many directions for a variety of reasons. As for the M17 expanding from Gujarat, not only that .. but even J2b originates in India at 12000 BCE and appears in west Asia by 5000 BCE. Even 'Muscus Domesticus' originates in India and spans out (obviously with humans) between 10,000 and 15,000 BCE.
I'm not contradicting these timelines and migrations as they're from Oppenheimer, Sengupta and Underhill etc.
My point was that sangams, flooding and matasya etc that you mentioned do not align with LGM climate.

Nilesh Oak wrote:(2) I do have number of research papers on climate, LGM, multiple floods and such and at some point I will revisit them (I have read them before), however would appreciate your references (books, papers etc.) for your conclusions for Indian climate, especially beginning with LGM.

I'm at home right now and my docs are at the office workstation :P
This is one of the references I can give at the moment. Will send the rest later.
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-823388-4.pdf

Nilesh Oak wrote:(3) Based on your high point summary, I can say (admit) that my Mahabharata but also (or especially) Ramayana timeline would be in conflict with your summary of Indian climate after LGM and pre - 8000 BCE. That is why, to me #2 above (references and papers and evidence in them) is of critical importance. If both of these evidences (say Ramayana work of mine and climatic evidence for India post LGM to 8000 BCE) are on equally stronger ground, then we have more interesting and complex problem to solve! I can only vouch for my work on Ramayana which is on solid footing.. as far as astronomy evidence is concerned.

I don't think there is a lot of contradiction post LGM. It is only when LGM timeline - the range of 15,000 to 20,000 BCE is used and then terms like matasya, sangams, flooding etc are included, that there are contradictions.

Nilesh Oak wrote:When you refer to Pleistocene settlements in India, what specific time limit you are (or papers you are referring to) referring to, because keep in mind Pleistocene is 1 Million years long.

I am referring to the incoming wave(s), their movements here and their subsequent settlement. This spans over the entire Pleistocene and the papers don't have any pinpointing of events to specific years.
Everything is given in a wide range of years and that is how it would've happened .. gradually, slowly over a long period of time.
As you've asked for source, please refer to Petraglia's paper from which I've quoted before.
http://academia.edu/484866/The_Early_Pa ... on_History

The implications of those two possible scenarios are on the questions I raised before. Those scenarios are driven by geographic and climatic barriers as you'll see from Petraglia's paper.
River systems, deltas and basins are not only barriers to the movement, they also provide resources to have the population stick around.
This along with the Ice Age and early Holocene geological factors, answer the question that started this chain of posts.
If OIT is the truth, why the IE family that spread till Britain in west, didn't even go below Vindhya in south India?

Not to forget that by the same yardstick of "lack of written record doesn't mean there was no PIE", we can say that lack of written record in South India before Mauryan times doesn't mean there was no Sanskrit there then.

Regards,
Virendra

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1202
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Postby Virendra » 17 Jul 2013 10:04

There are two factors I'd like to mention/re-phrase to put things in perspective of that question:
a) Receding of the Ice and related climatic forces after 9,000 BCE would follow south to north direction. More and more fresh land is made available in south to north direction. Obviously the humans leveraging this change would move south to north instead to the opposite direction down south across Vindhyas.

Now, lets assume that still at some point in time few might have wanted to tread down south as well.
b) Carrying capacity of an ecological system is what governs who and how many can stay at a place.
During the last Ice age the warmer, ice free South India would have had a sprawling host of bio mass including humans, plants and other wild life. (Though I've already mentioned how treelines were depressed by kilometers even in south India).
This eventual saturation of carrying capacity in the refugia down south would not allow others from north to settle there.

Isolated in their respective regions of river systems/deltas - 1) Indo-Gangetic 2) Deccan and 3) Orissa & around;
These populations developed with language differentiation over time and we see the three language families emerge -
1) IE, 2) Dravidian and 3) Austro-Asiatic

When exactly Sanskrit and Tamil came in contact between 9,000 BCE and Mauryan times; I don't know. But it would be when the barriers are broken and human evolution has reached a stage where they can byepass drylands, from one friendly area to another.

Regards,
Virendra

Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

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

Postby Atri » 18 Jul 2013 14:52

http://maharashtratimes.indiatimes.com/ ... 139114.cms

उत्खननात हडप्पापेक्षा दोन हजार वर्षे जुनी भांडी सापडली

भारतीय संस्कृतीचे मूळ सरस्वतीच्या काठी?

भोरसैदा गावाजवळ पावसाळ्यात प्रकटणारी सरस्वती नदी

मयुरेश प्रभुणे, फतेहगड (हरियाणा)

प्राचीन सरस्वती नदीच्या काठावर वसलेली सारस्वत संस्कृती ही सिंधू संस्कृतीपेक्षा प्राचीन असल्याचे पुरावे पुरातत्त्व शास्त्रज्ञांना मिळाले आहेत. सरस्वतीच्या काठावरील कुरुक्षेत्र, फतेहगड आणि सिरसा या भागांतील पुरातन ठिकाणी केलेल्या उत्खननातून हे नवे संशोधन समोर आले आहे.

आतापर्यंत हडप्पाकालीन संस्कृती ही भारतातील सर्वांत जुनी (इसवी सन पूर्व ३५०० ते ४०००) प्रगत संस्कृती मानण्यात येत होती. मात्र, सरस्वतीच्या खोऱ्यात वसलेल्या बिरडाणा आणि गिरावड या ठिकाणी सापडलेल्या वस्तूंच्या साह्याने निश्चित करण्यात आलेला कालावधी इसवी सन पूर्व ६००० वर्षे म्हणजे हडप्पा संस्कृतीपेक्षाही दोन हजार वर्षे जुना असल्याचे समोर आले आहे.

आदिबद्री या सरस्वतीच्या उगमापासून तिच्या जुन्या प्रवाहाच्या मार्गाने प्रवास सुरू केल्यावर तिच्या प्राचीन अस्तित्वाचे पुरावे आजही उत्खनन झालेल्या साइटमधून, या भागाच्या भौगोलिक रचनेवरून आणि लोकांच्या श्रद्धांमधून मिळत असल्याचे आढळून येते.

सरस्वतीच्या पाण्यातून निर्माण झालेल्या कुरुक्षेत्राच्या सिन्निहित सरोवरात पवित्र स्नान करणारे साधू, पिहोवाला सरस्वतीच्या काठावर रोज संध्याकाळी होणारी नदीची आरती आणि सरस्वतीच्या कोरड्या पात्रात घेतलेले पीक हे सर्वोत्तम असल्याची धारणा असणारा शेतकरी... सरस्वती आजही लोकांच्या मनात प्रवाहित असल्याची साक्ष देतात. कुरुक्षेत्र-पिहोवा मार्गावरील भोरसैदा या गावात सरस्वती नदीच्या कोरड्या पात्रातून फिरताना पात्राच्या भिंतींमध्ये मातीची भांडी, मानवी सांगाडे, मातीच्या बांगड्या स्पष्टपणे पाहता येतात.

कुरुक्षेत्रातील पुरातत्त्व शास्त्रज्ञ आणि येथील प्रसिद्ध श्रीकृष्ण संग्रहालयाचे क्यूरेटर डॉ. राजेंदर राणा यांनी दिलेल्या माहितीनुसार, 'वेद, महाभारत आणि पुराणांमध्ये उल्लेख झालेल्या कुरुक्षेत्र परिसरातील ३६० तीर्थस्थळांच्या ठिकाणी उत्खनन करण्यात आले. त्यातील १३४ ठिकाणी प्रगत संस्कृती दाखवणाऱ्या वसाहती पुरातत्त्व शास्त्रज्ञांना सापडल्या आहेत. या वसाहतींच्या सुनियोजित रचना, सापडलेली भांडी, हत्यारे, खेळणी, दागिने आदी सर्व गोष्टी सरस्वती संस्कृती प्रगत असल्याचेच सिद्ध करतात.'

सरस्वतीच्याच मार्गाने अग्रोहा, बाणवली, कुणाल आदी महत्त्वाच्या ठिकाणांना भेटी देऊन आमचा प्रवास सुरू होता. मनात विचार आला, सरस्वतीच्या खोऱ्यात आता कुठे उत्खननाला सुरुवात झाली आहे... लुप्त सारस्वत संस्कृती ज्या वेळी पूर्ण प्रकट होईल. इतिहासाची पुस्तके नक्कीच बदलावी लागतील.

सरस्वतीच्या काठावरूनच प्राचीन संस्कृतीचे स्थलांतर

सरस्वतीच्या खोऱ्यात संशोधन करणारे पुण्यातील डेक्कन कॉलेजचे सहसंचालक डॉ. वसंत शिंदे यांनी सांगितले, 'गेल्या तीन दशकांत कुरुक्षेत्र, फतेहगड आणि सिरसा जिल्ह्यांत सरस्वतीच्या काठावर अनेक हडप्पाकालीन वसाहती सापडल्या. त्या साइटवर सापडलेल्या वस्तूंचे साधर्म्य हडप्पा संस्कृतीशी असल्यामुळे सरस्वती आणि सिंधू संस्कृती समकालीन असल्याचे मानण्यात आले. मात्र, फतेहगडजवळ सरस्वतीच्याच खोऱ्यात असणाऱ्या बिरडाणा आणि गिरावड या ठिकाणी सापडलेल्या मातीच्या वस्तूंचा 'कार्बन १४' पद्धतीने निश्चित करण्यात आलेला कालावधी इसवी सन पूर्व ६००० इतका आहे. हा कालावधी हडप्पा संस्कृतीपेक्षा दोन हजार वर्षांनी जुना आहे.'


gist in english - They found remains of civilization dated approx 6000 BCE on the banks of now extinct Saraswati River. The dating was done based on carbon-14 method. The excavations were done around Kurukshetra. It appears (from this) that INdus valley civilization was in fact continuation of older Saraswati valley civilization. Talegiri calls IVC as Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization. This nomenclature now has an archaeological evidence backing it..

Geological studies say that saraswati dried up when Satlun and Yamuna changed their courses to meet Sindhu and Ganga respectively, thereby drying up the Saraswati. Even sources like Mahabharata state this gradual dessication of Saraswati (seasonal Ghaggar-Haakra river, as it is called today).

The ancient civilization people migrated from Saraswati basin elsewhere.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

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

Postby Arjun » 20 Jul 2013 10:16


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 21 Jul 2013 00:54

^how do you think they knew martial arts in the first place ... much much earlier to 13th century?

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 21 Jul 2013 23:56

Virendra ji

Do you have an article/paper etc. that would describe scenarios 15000 BCE to our times, separated by say North India (Ganga Belt), Centeral India (Narmada), South Central (Godavari), south (Karnatak), further south (Kerala/Tamilnad), and Sri Lanka.

Specifcially - climate, rain, seasons (temperatures) etc..

TIA

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 22 Jul 2013 03:54

one can also corroborate the geological conditions of Earth with this report as well:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/ne ... ERICA.html

15-17k years ago: should have been similar conditions at the same latitude levels south and mid america.

and note the melt and flooding times as well.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 24 Jul 2013 01:51

Sudarshan ji and Shiv ji,

I sent you few attachments (with homework) to your email addresses I have on my file. I did get email reply from you, so not sure if you received them. Let me know by replying to my email. I will delete this after that.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

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

Postby RamaY » 26 Jul 2013 19:53

Apologies if posted already

kedariprasad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby kedariprasad » 28 Jul 2013 14:16

I am not the expert on this topic, but I go through http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com, just for knowledge. On Aryan Invasion Theory, I came across a book called "Origins of Vedic Civilization" by Kenneth Chandler, Ph.D. he writes:
Archaeologists at Harvard, Oxford, and other top universities in the US and Europe are now widely agreed that there was no invasion of India from outside that displaced the peoples of the Saraswati and Indus river valleys. (Page 2/44)
Book link http://sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/ORIGINS.PDF
may be useful for discussions.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests