Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 18 Jul 2012 16:50

If Sanskrit, like European origin languages, has inherited a large percentage from non IE languages - what languages has Sanskrit inherited from? Dravidian languages? But every linguist tells us that Sanskrit has taken very little by way of vocabulary from Dravidian languages. Has Sanskrit taken much from Sinic languages like Chinese? No. What about Arabic? No. How about non IE Sanskrit roots from Phoenician or Red Indian languages? No. I think there is a far eastern "Austronesian" group? Does Sanskrit have anything in common with that? No. It seems to me that 95+ % of Sanskrit is of Indic origin.

Shiv garu, from wiki (to me this is AIT proponents take on Non-IE influence on Sanskrit, even though Dravidian influence is noted, it appears they are leaning more on Munda and Proto-burushaski:

Vedic Sanskrit has a number of linguistic features which are alien to most other Indo-European languages. Prominent examples include: phonologically, the introduction of retroflexes, which alternate with dentals; morphologically, the formation of gerunds; and syntactically, the use of a quotative marker ("iti").[1] Such features, as well as the presence of non-Indo-European vocabulary, are attributed to a local substratum of languages encountered by Indo-Aryan peoples in Central Asia and within the Indian subcontinent.

A substantial body of loanwords has been identified in the earliest Indian texts. Non-Indo-Aryan elements (such as -s- following -u- in Rigvedic busa) are clearly in evidence. While some loanwords are from Dravidian, and other forms are traceable to Munda[2] or Proto-Burushaski, the bulk have no sensible basis in any of these families, indicating a source in one or more lost languages. The discovery that some loan words from one of these lost sources had also been preserved in the earliest Iranian texts, and also in Tocharian convinced Michael Witzel and Alexander Lubotsky that the source lay in Central Asia and could be associated with the Bactria–Margiana

But the above seems to have inconsistencies, hence the CA language influence on Vedic Sanskrit is questioned:

Colin Masica could not find etymologies from Indo-European or Dravidian or Munda or as loans from Persian for 31 percent of agricultural and flora terms of Hindi. He proposed an origin in unknown Language "X".[23] Southworth also notes that the flora terms did not come from either Dravidian or Munda. Southworth found only five terms which are shared with Munda, leading to his suggestion that "the presence of other ethnic groups, speaking other languages, must be assumed for the period in question".[24]

Lubotsky pointed out that the phonological and morphological similarity of 55 loanwords in Proto-Indo-Iranian and in Sanskrit indicates that a substratum of Indo-Iranian and a substratum of Indo-Aryan represent the same language, or perhaps two dialects of the same language.

On the other hand the archaeological affiliation of BMAC to indo-iranian culture is seriously dubious as archaeologists like B.B. Lal have shown the culture of BMAC to be an unique one with no such relation with the assumed indo-iranian cultures.[28]

Seems to me that the firm grip of CA origin of PIE makes them not research what percentage of Dravidian/Munda/Prakrit's influence is on Sanskrit, it will be great if we can investigate that as that information will hard to come by.
From:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substrat ... #section_3

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jul 2012 17:05

The reason it is dangerous for the AIT-Linguists to look for Dravidian "loanwords" in Sanskrit is simply that if any such word were to find a cognate in European languages, then their game would be over! How can a Dravidian word be there in some European language if the European language was never in India, not in its proto-form or ever?

If one can find just 10-20 Tamil/Munda words in Sanskrit, which are also present in European languages, the game changes! Of course, they will say that those words in Tamil/Munda are loan-words from Sanskrit!

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 18 Jul 2012 17:31

Some linguistic features common to Dravidian and Sanskrit but not to European languages in IE grouping:

On the other hand, both Sanskrit and Tamil are syllabic languages and both treat consonants and vowels very similarly. Just as in Sanskrit where aksharas (speech particles or atoms) are divided into Svarams (vowels) and Vyanajanams (consonants), in Tamil vowels (Uyir Ezhuttu) are clearly distinguished from consonants Mey Ezhuttu.

And although linguists are divided as to which came first, both Sanskrit and Tamil are written in very similar ways. Unlike the European langauges that are written using alphabets (derived from Greek, and branching off from Latin or Cyrillic), all Indian languages are written using syllables made up of (simple or compound) consonant shapes that are modified by the symbols for vowels that connect the consonants. In Sanskrit (and languages derived from it) as well as in South Indian languages like Telugu and Kannada there is a precise and unambiguous correspondence between how words are pronounced and how they are written.

From the point of view of classifying languages based on the organizational principles that govern their written scripts no logic would permit the Sanskrit-derived North Indian langauges to be placed in the same language group as the European languages.

For instance, languages (such as Chinese or Japanese) that use pictograms, logograms and ideograms in their written form are a unique group of languages and are classified as “Semanto-phonetic”. To understand the development of such languages using morphological and entymological constructs as described by Sanskrit linguists such as Yaska or Panini would be absurd.

Writing in Language in India (9, Jan, 2002), G. Sankaranarayanan observes how repeating words and forms is a significant feature that extends across the Indian subcontinent and includes not only the Sanskrit and Tamil derivatives but also Munda and languages from the Tibetan-Burmese group.

…Thus word repitition is an economic but meaningful way of expressing varied forms of frequency, plurality or multiplicity.

Note too that Indic languages permit the dropping of pronouns (which become implied). In the previous example both the subject (I/we) and object pronouns (him/her/them) may be dropped, but (got tired telling) would be impermissable in English.

It may also be noted that across India, both Sanskrit and Tamil derived languages use SOV (subject Object Verb) word order as a default. But several Indo-European langauges such as English, French, Portugese and Bulgarian use SVO word order.

However, in colloquial or theatrical speech, (or even in poetic/literary texts) Hindi (like Arabic) also permits VSO. Moreover, when repeated words are used all Indian langauges permit the omission of the subject and the word order becomes flexible – either OV or VO.

Word order also becomes flexible in the context of question and answer exchanges. Thus in Hindi “Gaye the Tum?” (Went did you?), “Tum Gaye The?” (You went did?) and “Tum Gaye?” (You went?) are all possible. Replies to where did you go could be equally varied from the standard SOV “Main Allahabad gaya tha” (I Allahabad went) to an OVS “Allahabad gaya tha main” (Allahabad went I) or simply OV “Allahabad gaya tha” (Allahabad went) or even VO “Gaya tha Allahabad” (Went Allahabad)

From:
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2009/11/07/ ... -language/

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jul 2012 17:36

venug ji,

Sanskrit and Tamil may have similarities in writing, but those similarities would be irrelevant for comparative linguistics when it is all about vocabulary.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 18 Jul 2012 17:54

Rajesh garu, yes you are correct, I realized that after posting, I will dig more. But it appears the sentence structure seems to be different.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jul 2012 19:03

Publication Date: 1993 - Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 36, pp 117-140
By Subhash Kak
Astronomy of the Vedic Altars

In this paper, two ancient Indian texts, the Śatapatha Brâhmana and the Rigveda, are examined for their astronomical content. It is argued that the 95 year ritual of agnicayana had an astronomical basis, which implies a knowledge of the length of the tropical year being equal to 365.24675 days. An astronomical code has been discovered in the structure of the Rigveda, which has been partially deciphered. This code expressed the knowledge that the sun and the moon are about 108 times respective diameters away from the earth. This analysis leads to a major revision of our understanding of the history of ancient astronomy.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jul 2012 20:01

Books on Indic Indigenism

Publication Date: May 7, 2008
Author: Subhash Kak
The Wishing Tree: Presence and Promise of India

Book Description
"The Wishing Tree provides an in-depth overview of the revolutionary changes that have occurred during the past two decades in Indian studies and, as a result, helps provide a deeper understanding of the Indian civilization.

The West has often perceived India as the land of magic and mystery, yet there are aspects of Indian traditions that speak straight to its heart. Subhash Kak, a professor at Oklahoma State University and well-respected lecturer, presents the results of his intensive research on a multitude of subjects related to both Indian and Western culture, and provides a positive and introspective look into India's amazing history and civilization. Kak addresses many controversial issues, which are commonly debated only by academics, about India's contribution to world civilization, its antiquity, and the relevance of its culture for the world's future. Using recent archeological findings and new analysis of ancient texts, Kak lays the groundwork for questioning both long-held beliefs and the research of scholars from past generations.

The Wishing Tree uncovers the story of India's ancient origins, its presence through its influence on other cultures, and most importantly, its promise for the future.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2012 21:14

RajeshA wrote: The AIT-linguists do not follow back this chain of pronunciation changes to create their proto-languages. This is probably they don't have enough data on these substratum languages.

Exactly. That is even admitted openly, but that does not deter them from reaching off the cuff conclusions.

I am trying to find out what is "European" about Sanskrit. I can see that parts of European languages that correspond with Sanskrit are called "Indo-European". The name "Sanskrit" is not used but the names "Old Indic", "Avestan" and "Old Iranian" are used. But anyone who reads the deciphered Avestan and Old Iranian texts will at one recognize them to be a dialect of Sanskrit. And there is absolutely no analysis I can find that asks if the Old Iranian and Avestan texts, decoded from strange scripts like cuneiform could have missed some of the original pronunciation because ne speaker or translator exists today. That leaves only Sanskrit as a source language to be compared with European languages to judge whether they are adequately "Indo-European' in character. Maybe I will start referring to Indo-European as Euro-sanskritic languages. That would make it easier to understand for Indians who constitute one in six humans and the world's largest community of non native English speakers. Hindi, Gujaratis and other Indian languages that are based on Sanskrit would then be called Indo-Sanskritic languages.

But when we come to "substrates" of old languages, we cannot avoid Witzel.

Witzel claims that the oldest poems of the Rig Veda show 4% of words that are of non-IE origin. Witzel goes to great lengths to try and show how these words came from the Urals or BMAC

(flippin heck!) - using less than credible arguments - but this is not the time to get into that - that is only a diversion from what I want to say. There is plenty to argue there but that would be getting into Witzel's trap because he has a broad base of arguments based on PIE reconstructions which he accepts as true and a set of arguments that pre-assume that an Aryan invasion/migration took place.

Witzel argues that these "non IE" words indicate a memory of the old regions that he names. Fine. Let me assume that Witzel is right and that 4% of early Rig Vedic Sanskrit had some memories of Ural tourism. What about the other 96% of Rig Vedic Sanskrit? Using Witzel's own words,

that Rig Veda was composed in "Greater Panjab";
and that it is all Indo European (since only 4% was non IE),
and it is all Old Indic - Rig Vedic sanskrit. Not Iranian/Avestan.

So you see folks, as per Witzel, Rig veda was composed in Punjab around 1200-1000 BC by people who migrated to Greater Punjab retaining 4% of old non IE words.

It is the remaining 96% of Sanskrit which is pure Indo European. This much can be clearly inferred from his paper. (i will post a url only on request - take my word for it).

Now isnt that funny? The "Indo Aryans" went to Europe and today 3000 years later German has 33% non IE roots from languages that were already there in Germany. Greek has 66% non IE, from languages that were already there in Greece. But even 3000 years ago Sanskrit had only 4% non IE and that too from some remote memory of Urals. Does that mean that the Entire greater Panjab region had no people at all? No people whose linguistic influence should show up as a further non IE substrate? In fact I just found that Konrad Elst has asked a similar question (although his argument is better than mine and hits directly at another of Witzel's observation)
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/arti ... tlin2.html

It is of course remarkable that they didn't borrow more terms from the natives, as if they had invaded an uninhabited country and had to invent names from scratch.

In fact Witzel himself speaks of how substrates appear in languages when a dominant group invade and impose on another group:

Loans stemming from previously existing languages, upon introduction of a new,
dominant language, are different (Anttila 1989: 171 sq). The new language may function as
superstrate, properly used and understood only by a minority at first (such as Latin in Celtic
France), but it then spreads by assimilating an often large number of local words from the
previous language, the substrate,

If Witzel is to be believed, the invading Aryans moved into India into a region with no people at all. Empty. No people to borrow language from creating a substrate. Because the 4% substrate in Rig Vedic Sanskrit is from the Urals. The 96% is pure IE with NO non IE substrate. Or else they murdered everyone or everyone ran off.

Witzel naturally does not even think of the fallacy he has created.

But set that aside for a bit and look at some fact that have cropped up - using Witzels own statements.

Of all the languages in the world, the one single language that accurately retains the maximum percentage of Indo-uropean words is Rig vedic Sanskrit. I have read some suggestions that some Slavic languages also have a very low non IE substrate, But Slavic languages are young - dating back just 1500 years or so. Rig Vedic Sanskrit is 1500 years older than that date using Witzel's dates.

In other words the single oldest language retaining the maximum fidelity to "indo-European" is Rig Vedic Sanskrit. The absence of substrate for 96% of words even at that early date suggests that the language was developed de novo in India. What Europe speaks is a Euro-Sanskritic groups of languages.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2012 21:18

Kazanas:
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/SPIE.pdf

In this paper I argue that on the evidence of Sanskrit much of the rationale of indoeuropean
comparative linguists may well be wrong and may need radical reconsideration: the three-grade
ablaut (=vowel gradation) in Sanskrit, for example, seems much more convincing than the five-grade
one proposed by indoeuropeanists; also the retroflex/cerebral consonants in Sanskrit may well have
been original in Proto-Indo-European but lost in the other branches. I should clarify that with
“Sanskrit” I mean Vedic as well and that although I consider this language (especially that of the
¥gveda) to be closer to Proto-Indo-European than any other branch, I do not regard Vedic as the IE
mother-tongue. 1 In addition, the RV should now be placed firmly within the fourth millennium BC
(Levitt 2003; Kazanas 2003, 1999). Edmund Leach wrote that after the discovery of the Indus-
SarasvatÉ civilization “Indo-European scholars should have scrapped all their historical reconstructions
and started again from scratch. But this is not what happened. Vested interests and academic posts
were involved” (1990). Although IE comparative philology has promoted considerably our
understanding of the IE family of languages and although Leach’s remarks may sound too harsh, I
agree with his main point that the “reconstructions” should be scrapped and a new beginning be
made – if this pursuit is thought to be necessary. In this article I indicate some points where the
“scrapping” can begin and at the same time give evidence for the much greater antiquity of Sanskrit.

read it all - he deals with that weir "weir"= man business we spoke of earlier

I tell ya - these philologist are something else...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jul 2012 21:26

shiv saar,

Witzel is simply scared to attribute any Sanskrit word to any substrate language from India. If the word should show up elsewhere in Eurasia, he is screwed. That is why accordingly Sanskrit is 96% pure and 4% filled with imaginary Uralic origin words, but no Indian substrate.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2012 22:02

Sorry to digress, but its about the so called "Unicorn" of Harappa. Isn't it just a simple one-horned Indian Rhino? Looks like a rhino to me.
http://www.harappa.com/indus/25.html

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 18 Jul 2012 22:07

Shiv garu, in fact it is a possibility, the pattern around the shoulders of the beast look like the armour of rhino. But that the tail is longer. It's a side face image, what if the one horn actually hides the other horn? like a side face picture, you only see one ear for example.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2012 22:13

What to make of that rectangle on a staff with wings on the left side? Is it the 'damaru' of Shiva?

What if the whole icon represents Shiva aka "eka shringi"?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Jul 2012 23:50

Rhino has much muscular legs as well it carry no Tool pouch in the middle.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jul 2012 23:51

Interesting piece of artwork there on the face part of the artifact. I was inclined to think nandi (bull).. and most features besides face resembles an udder-less bull.

No idea what the wrinkles on the face signifies?

--

nandi has that projection on the legs.
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/taolm ... an-god.jpg

indian holy ox perhaps has decorations on the face
http://www.loupiote.com/photos_m/370787 ... -india.jpg

or wrinkles like:
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/hudak ... ull-ox.jpg

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 19 Jul 2012 00:43

One objection I have for PIE theory is that it is based on prescription and thus the theory is not falsifiable as in the popperian sense. The exercise is more akin to constructing Esparanto. One can construct a PIE from a seemingly hodge-podge mix of phonemes but there is no way of saying that this was (or very close to under some metric) the real PIE (if such a beast existed in the first place).

Linguistic description (from Wikipedia)

wikipedia wrote: In the study of language, description, or descriptive linguistics, is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is spoken (or how it was spoken in the past) by a group of people in a speech community. All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be. Modern descriptive linguistics is based on a structural approach to language, as exemplified in the work of Leonard Bloomfield and others. Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing. Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give advice on effective language use, and can be thought of as a presentation of the fruits of descriptive research in a learnable form, though it also draws on more subjective aspects of language aesthetics. Prescription and description are complementary, but have different priorities and sometimes are seen to be in conflict. Descriptivism is the belief that description is more significant or important to teach, study, and practice than prescription.

The above objection of mine makes, in my mind, the neatly laid out language tree suspect. It would be more like a DAG with the arrows pointing from earlier to later languages and no direct links between geographically non-proximate groups but there may be paths through geographically proximate ones.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 19 Jul 2012 01:08

Actually I was about to post an image of an antelope, the horns resemble that of impala, same with the elongated neck. But I think it is a bull more than any other animal.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jul 2012 04:03

^but what is weird in that assumption is the hunchback is way down behind rather that is normally seen in the front for indian ox/bull.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 19 Jul 2012 04:10

It is not a hunchback, probably exaggerated bone at the hind.

Mostly looks like a bull, that is decorated. The hooves and the tail look very similar to a bull/ox.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 19 Jul 2012 04:45

Picture 3 is interesting. The front portion of picture 1 and front portion of picture 3 looks similar.

http://jlswbs.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/destic.jpg

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 19 Jul 2012 05:07

Rhino in this image...

http://forums.kraslan.ru/uploads/post-8 ... 166421.jpg

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2012 05:27

So they had pretty realisitc depictions of animals on their seals. It wasn't no shoddy heiroglyphs!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2012 05:36

SaiK wrote:face resembles an udder-less bull.

Bulls, being male, tend not to have udders SaiK ji

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Jul 2012 05:37

="JwalaMukhi"]Picture 3 is interesting. The front portion of picture 1 and front portion of picture 3 looks similar.
[

Number 4 Photu is similar to the Bhimbteka cave painting scenery.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2012 05:38

venug wrote:Shiv garu, in fact it is a possibility, the pattern around the shoulders of the beast look like the armour of rhino. But that the tail is longer. It's a side face image, what if the one horn actually hides the other horn? like a side face picture, you only see one ear for example.

I would say it is a stylized rhino image - not meant to be a dead right accurate depiction. After all the artist would have had to make a mould with a "negative" image of the animal and then use that to create this positive casting to be used as a seal.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2012 06:01

matrimc wrote:One objection I have for PIE theory is that it is based on prescription and thus the theory is not falsifiable as in the popperian sense. The exercise is more akin to constructing Esparanto. One can construct a PIE from a seemingly hodge-podge mix of phonemes but there is no way of saying that this was (or very close to under some metric) the real PIE (if such a beast existed in the first place).

Linguistic description (from Wikipedia)

<snip>

The above objection of mine makes, in my mind, the neatly laid out language tree suspect. It would be more like a DAG with the arrows pointing from earlier to later languages and no direct links between geographically non-proximate groups but there may be paths through geographically proximate ones.

Absolutely. The minute you apply logical scrutiny to PIE you realize that it is fake. Philologists admit that, but they still go right ahead and use it as proof.

In his substrate paper, Witzel uses PIE reconstructions of Slavic words to claim that Rig Vedic Sanskrit has some words from Urals. But in the very same paper he says that substrate languages have an effect on the pronunciation of words of the superstrate language and even the identity of the substrate language may be unknown, but its presence detected by unusual word pronunciation and structure.

What Witzel glosses over and fudges are the fact that

1. If an original (mother tongue of native people) substrate language affects the pronunciation of the speakers because they are all natives who are learning the new superstrate language, and
2. If the original (mother tongue of native people) completely disappears apart from this substrate evidence

- then you have absolutely no way of knowing how much the pronunciation of the "invader's" superstrate language has been affected. And if you blindly combine 4-5 different related languages which each have substrates from different old languages, the sounds you are cooking up may well have absolutely no connection with reality. This is a method of multiplication of errors, and I am amazed that people like Witzel do not seem to understand or acknowledge this this. It is stupidity or denial? The scientific and logical rigour demanded of engineering or medicine seem to be completely absent from the works of many of these prominent philological "scholars".

Another thing that boggles my mind is the fact that I have searched hard and in vain for philologists who have taken the trouble to pronounce the original and cooked up words and record the sound in a downloadable/audible sound file. Multimedia computers have been available for 20 years now but all I see is refs to palatal, laryngeal, retroflex or aspirate. These are all sounds that are ideally understood as words heard by others. None of these bloody "scholars" seems to have taken the trouble to do that. This is like teaching carpentry, surgery or music using books and written words alone, with no practical use of hands or voice for demonstration.

After all if you spend you entire goddam life talking about phonemes you really should take time out to create at least one phono recording no? Even a totally fictional 60s movie like "My Fair Lady" has a linguist using sound recording and playback aids for exactly the same purpose. What gives with this bunch?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2012 06:40

LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATE: - Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics

A substrate language (linguistic substrate or substratum) is particularly evidenced when a language is imposed on a community, as a result of political or economic superiority as can be seen in many varieties of English spoken throughout the world..

The study of linguistic substrates is relatively new and the presence of large percentages of non Euro-Sanskritic (Indo European) words is now being recognized and acknowledged among European languages.

But guess where the maximum study of substrates has been put in? Sanskrit. And they have found a total of 250 odd indisputably pre-Sanskrit substrate words (about 2% of total - see Wiki) in the early Rig Veda. The percentage gets smaller of you take later Sanskrit. 98% of ancient Sanskrit has no substrate suggesting an earlier language over which Sanskrit was imposed.

If substrates are caused by invasions and Sanskrit has virtually no substrate, where was the invasion? There is zero linguistic evidence of invasion of India by PIE or IE speakers. But European languages seem to have plenty of substrates that were suppressed by Sanskrit related language speakers.

Folks. The evidence points more to OIT than AIT.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2012 08:37

Where is Manish H?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jul 2012 09:15

JwalaMukhi wrote: http://forums.kraslan.ru/uploads/post-8 ... 166421.jpg

any high res on these images?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2012 09:21

Here is a scholarly statement by Witzel, of Harvard University on the subject of paleolinguistics, as he peer reviews a paper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory

It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars.

"scholar", "peer review", "Harvard" are all buzzwords no?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jul 2012 09:38

well it is not bull.. apologies.

they have the bull clearly done here:
http://www.imagesofasia.com/html/mohenj ... -bull.html

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2012 10:30

The guys at IndicStudies.us have put together a dossier on AIT-Nazi Michael Witzel, Brafessar @Hardward, perhaps one not as thick as the ones against Pakistan, but of respectable thickness (27 pages) nevertheless.

Dossier on Witzel

A good collection!

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 19 Jul 2012 11:40

Iranians ? Forget it Rajesh.
They are die hard fans of AIT and they hate it that Indians are increasingly against AIT.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2012 12:21

Virendra ji,

Iranians are simply fond of "Aryan Chauvinism", and not necessarily of AIT. "Arya" as I understand it, was initially a way to refer to the Chandravanshis, and later became a general epithet of "nobility in worldview"!

Iranians are Chandravanshis, the prodigy of Anu, son of Yayati! So I guess some claim they do have on "Arya", even though we would prefer that they would assert their claims based more on the second and dominant definition in India.

As scions of the Central Asian Aryans as per AIT, they basically would remain juniors in this Aryan purity sweepstakes to the Europeans. As scions of the Indian Lunar Dynasty, (and possibly someday as upholders of Dharma), they become the more ancient and senior group.

As part of the AIT, the Iranians would always remain on the sidelines, as the AIT-OIT debate rages between Europeans and Indians, and thus would be ignored. However as part of the OIT coalition, they would get a stronger voice.

The fact of the matter is that before Zarathustra declared the Daevas to be evil, all Iranians were part of the Vedic family. In fact the Agni ritual was developed under their patronage. That is their history from which they cannot really escape. They were part of India - Indo-Iranians were more strongly connected than through a hyphen.

So in any debate between Europeans and Indians on AIT-OIT, which side will be theirs? The Vedas and its rituals came into being in India, something the Iranians helped develop. If they are not on this side, where they have a historical contribution, on the other side (AIT) they have nothing, and as such would remain non-entities.

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 19 Jul 2012 13:58

Rajesh Ji,
They definitely are an ofshoot from India, no doubt. By the way I remember reading about a very old cow statue (the types used for worship since ages) excavated at a site in Iran.
But I don't see how they will prefer OIT to AIT. As of now they're fantasizing with the visually handsome and macho version of aryans that is blue eyed, white skinned, tall and predatory. The seductive version given by Europeans. Our OIT from brown skinned Indians doesn't appeal to them yet.
I guess it rubs hard on the shallow elitist egos of many over there. I think that Meluhan novellist also called Chandravanshis 'materialistic'

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 19 Jul 2012 14:11

ramana wrote:What to make of that rectangle on a staff with wings on the left side? Is it the 'damaru' of Shiva?...

That looks like yupa or sacrficial altar. In seals' images of other animals, there is something on left hand side of almost all the animals facing left

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2012 14:20

Virendra ji,

The Iranians may appreciate the Europeans looks, but lets be honest, the Iranians may have some resemblance to the darker Greeks and Italians, but the Iranians are neither blue-eyed, nor blond, nor as xanthrochroi (fair) as the North Europeans, so basically they are from that perspective still third-rate maal! Same is the case with Pushtuns.

If they take Europeans as the measure of Aryan purity and racial superiority, they will always come 4th, after the Anglo-Germans, Slavs, and Mediterraneans.

That is why that narrative is just not good enough for the ego-boost.

Besides as India rises, Indian appeal would also increase.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2012 14:40

From Ministry of Information, Sultanate of Oman

Oman in the Fourth Millenium BC

Ras al-Hamra, in the north west of Muscat, contains evidence to show that the region had human settlements in the fourth millennium BC. The site consists of settlements heaped one on top of the other. The layer representing the dwellings is composed of sand, shells, fishbone, ash and coal. Interestingly, no pottery remains have been found.

Other archaeological finds include a symmetrically shaped pit, such as might be used for waste disposal, fire hearths, flint tools, snare weights fashioned from rock crystal, and hunting hooks made from copper and seashells. Hunting fish and turtles appears to have been the principal activity of these dwellers.

There was evidence that the lotus tree was widespread, as well as mangrove swamps, sorghum and mulberry bushes. The inhabitants of this time built their homes from branches and reeds. The dwellings were circular in shape with a central excavation.

A burial ground was unearthed at this site which contained 220 skeletons lying on one side in a foetal position facing the sea (the source of their subsistence), their arms folded upwards and back. In some cases the hand was folded firmly over an oyster. However, in one case a pearl was discovered. This pearl is one of the oldest examples found in the Gulf. In many cases, the skeleton was adorned with jewellery made from shells, including rings and bracelets, along with necklets made from stone beads with shell pendants shaped like leaves.

Oman in the Third Millenium BC

There are many locations throughout the Sultanate which represent the third millennium BC, including Bat, Ras Al-Hadd and Samad Al-Shan.

Bat is east of Ibri in the Dhahirah region. A burial site located at a distance of 1 - 2km north of the village was discovered which consisted of 100 burial sites made from stone. These have become known as the Bat Tombs and they are circular in shape, constructed from blocks of local stone and incorporating two walled enclosures, one inside the other, constituting the burial structure. Parallels between these tombs and those found at Umm Nar in the United Arab Emirates have been made. A fine quality of terracotta earthenware has been found at both sites and the interior walled enclosure of the tombs has had the effect of sectioning it into several chambers.

The vestiges of six square-based stone towers, marking out and enclosing rectangular shaped dwellings has been unearthed. It has been calculated that the height of one of the six towers was over ten metres. Carbon dating has placed the structures at 2750BC.

Water channels have been uncovered which were probably used to deliver water from a more remote spot, making them some of the first examples of the aflaj irrigation system in Oman.

The Samad Al-Shan site is located in the wilayat of Al-Mudhaibi in the eastern part of the Sultanate. There are a number of ring-shaped graves huddled together which are built from large stone blocks and three different types have been identified:

The men's graves contained iron and copper weapons, such as daggers, knives and arrowheads as well as large earthenware jars and shells used as drinking vessels.
The women's graves have deep stone vessels and earthenware flasks for storing viscous liquids such as essences and shells containing a green substance used as a cosmetic, together with a variety of shells.
Dual graves, containing the skeletons of men and women together.

Archaeological studies of the artefacts from this site have established that it dates back to around 500BC. The pottery has been hand-made from a coarse clay and fired at a moderate temperature. It was coated inside and out and decorated with one of three patterns:

A fishbone design
A grid of crossed lines
Inscriptions from Southern Arabia

These decorations date back to 200 - 50BC and were impressed onto the vessels before firing. The size and function of these vessels were as follows:
Large water storage jars
Cream-coloured vessels used for storing grain
Earthenware flasks used for storing viscous liquids
Small, dark-coloured bottles which were probably used for burial purposes only

Recent excavations have unearthed the skeleton of a she-camel which was situated close to the rest of the burial site. It was adorned with a necklet of stone beads which date the burial to the Iron Age.

At the Ras Al-Hadd site in Sur, an edifice has been discovered which is constructed of brick and sub-divided into several elongated chambers. It is thought that these were used for storage. A workshop for carving flintheads was also identified in which were found fragments of red shert, a type of flint specifically associated with the pre-historic period. The workshop was also used as a production unit for making jewellery from shells, such as rings, beads and pendants.

A number of pots were found, the most important dating back to the third millenium BC. These are of the Harappan type and probably belong to the last of the Mohanjudaru Dynasty from India. Red terracotta earthenware was also found, with dark stripes and illustrations. Other archaeological discoveries include pieces of burnished pottery of the Sassanid Islamic period and also African ware and Chinese porcelain.

The buildings are distinguished by their unique use of brick. This is the only district in Oman and its environs, including south of Iran, Baluchistan and the Sind Valley, where brick was used during the Bronze Age. It has been surmised that the inhabitants of Ras al-Hadd were pioneers of using brick as a construction material, a practise which persisted for more than 1500 years in Oman.

The most commonly found artefacts are flint implements: chisels used for boring holes into beads, hammers, stone snare weights and shell ornaments such as rings, necklets and oyster shells containing antimony. A variety of beads have also been unearthed, made from red carnelian and lapis lazuli, as well as green porcelain vessels dating to around 1800BC. There were also large quantities of bones from fish, turtles and sharks.

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 19 Jul 2012 14:55

RajeshA wrote:Virendra ji,

The Iranians may appreciate the Europeans looks, but lets be honest, the Iranians may have some resemblance to the darker Greeks and Italians, but the Iranians are neither blue-eyed, nor blond, nor as xanthrochroi (fair) as the North Europeans, so basically they are from that perspective still third-rate maal! Same is the case with Pushtuns.

If they take Europeans as the measure of Aryan purity and racial superiority, they will always come 4th, after the Anglo-Germans, Slavs, and Mediterraneans.

That is why that narrative is just not good enough for the ego-boost.

Besides as India rises, Indian appeal would also increase.

Lets hope. Amen to that, although I couldn't care less about whether Iranians denounce AIT or OIT.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 19 Jul 2012 15:44

वीर्य vIrya n. energy
वीर्या vIryA f. virility
वीर्या vIryA f. vigour
वीर्य vIrya n. consequence
वीर्य vIrya n. splendour
वीर्य vIrya n. heroism
वीर्य vIrya n. lustre
वीर्य vIrya n. virility
वीर्य vIrya n. semen virile
वीर्य vIrya n. robustness
वीर्य vIrya n. heroic deed
वीर्य vIrya n. power
वीर्य vIrya n. manliness
वीर्य vIrya n. efficacy
वीर्य vIrya n. poison
वीर्य vIrya n. courage
वीर्य vIrya n. dignity
वीर्य vIrya n. valour
वीर्य vIrya n. bravery
वीर्य vIrya n. manly vigour
वीर्य vIrya n. strength
अनन्त-वीर्य ananta-vIrya adj. of unlimited potency