Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[VikramS]

http://news.yahoo.com/huge-ancient-civi ... 49804.html

Yahoo has the story about the collapse of the Harappan civilization based around Saraswati dating it well in the past....

[member_22872]

From Oppenheimer's book 'The Real Eve' pp 135:
J, T lines are latest European genetic lines they made recent intrusions into Europe approx 10k years BP. And these have origins in near East (could mean fringes of Indian subcontinent). Rest of the European lines U5, HV, U4, I reached Europe from India subcontinent.
U5 too has Origins in near East of Europe. The earliest roots of HV are found in Indian subcontinent(NW India and Kashmir around 40k BP). H descenents were to provide half of all western and northern European maternal lines, Slav, Finn and Germanic in paricular.
So from the above it can be cloncluded that there is no genetic intrusion in the last 10000 years into India, on the contrary the direction is into Europe from the East, it's the J and T1 lines coming from near East to Europe.

So my question to Manish ji is if PIE is even remotely true and existed in Europe, where is the genetic movement to support that from Europe to India from the above? I know you and B ji have exchanged and talked about R1A1, but if R itself has origins in Indian Subcontinent, how can it be argued that R is basis for PIE (in Europe) even if exists? I apologize in advance, I am not a geneticist, just found your argument illogical from the above (I don't have in depth understanding of genetics which could have prevented me from understanding intricacies in your argument.).

And also from pp 157:

For me and Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origins of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than un Central Asia{ this means a East to West migration }, but diversity characterizes it's presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a 'male Aryan invasion' of India

[ManishH]

Then I would like to ask how a BBC reporter in 2012 gets away with coolly palming off the same old 'myth' of the Vedas describing the migration/invasion?

What sells in pop-science magazines is sensational stories. No one wants to watch a documentary with scholarly input that anyway ends up sounding like full of self-doubt. That BBC documentary is exactly catering to that kind of audience.

Another example of pop-science is the article which shows cave paintings in a central Indian cave and claims horse domestication in mesolithic. They are not backed by any archaeological report mentioning how the cave engraving/drawing has been dated. Surface finds like these are very hard to date with accuracy. So these articles typically mention the oldest date in that cave (based on digging) and associate exposed cave art with that oldest date.

[Agnimitra]

Then I would like to ask how a BBC reporter in 2012 gets away with coolly palming off the same old 'myth' of the Vedas describing the migration/invasion?

What sells in pop-science magazines is sensational stories. No one wants to watch a documentary with scholarly input that anyway ends up sounding like full of self-doubt. That BBC documentary is exactly catering to that kind of audience.

Given the level of controversy and the implications of this subject, one would hope someone comes out with a more scientific documentary, self-doubt and all. It is what it is. Then different narratives can be presented and compared in an entertaining manner.

This BBC rascal knows how hugely controversial the subject is, but simply rehashes the same worn out "evidence". Then at the end he pretends to feature some stunning new discovery that proves this shaky theory - and we get to hear some pure drivel from some Russki idiot pawing around in the Turkmen desert. Stunning indeed.

[brihaspati]

I had anticipated most of the methods of debunking the horse-in-cave claims. Timing is always doubtful when indications go against dogma. Timing is always accurate, or made more "accurate" by adjusting towards the point needed by the dogma - when indications are not against the dogma.

[ManishH]

Are you referring to the reports about the sunken cities in Gulf Of Cambay?

I think we are a long way to establish sunken "cities" in Gulf of Cambay. One should read archaeological reports eg. the one in 2004 Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology that says:

"Recent Marine Archaeological Finds in Khambhat, Gujarat"
— S. Kathiroli, S. Badrinarayanan, D.V. Rao, B. Sasisekaran and S. Ramesh*

WATTLE-AND-DAUB FRAGMENTS, PIECES
OF REED AND FRESH-WATER SHELLS
The various archaeological materials
collected include wattle and daub structures
used in the construction, microlithic tools
(Plate VII), pottery pieces (Plate VIII), hearth
material (fig) etc., the construction material
is mainly made up of wattle and locally
available clay mixed with husk. It is seen
that wood structures have been fossilised
wherein the later material are seen to have
replaced the original wooden material so
that this preserve the original structure of the
reed but not the organic material by which
these are made. However, some of the burnt
pieces have been subjected to TL and OSL
analysis and these have given very reasonable
and favourable dates (5600BP and 5800 BP
calibrated). It is seen that all the areas fall on
either side of the Palaeochannel and mostly
concentrated on the eastern side. Even the
probable extension of the Palaeochannel on
the eastern side showed the wattle-and-daub
structures. There are in our collection several
large and small chunks of wattle-and-daub
structures. They contain clay, reed, pottery
pieces, shell pieces , and may be husk too.
The shell is of fresh water origin which is very
significant. It appears that it was burnt at
some point of time since burnt patches are
present of them (Plate VII).

POTTERY: RED WARES (Plate VIII)
Several pieces of potsherds, mostly rolled,
have been collected in the area. These are
mainly confined to the western and eastern
side of the Palaeochannel. The ceramic
tradition includes hand-made as well as
wheel-turned potteries. The pottery pieces
indicate that they are generally ill fired
leaving behind red Ochre type powdery touch
even though a few pieces bear traces of black
slip. I may be due to water action on them.
The majority of the potsherds are found worn
out. It may be noted that the pot-sherds
found so far belong to miniature and very
small pots. Some of the pot-sherds show
simple rims and a few parallel incised lines
on the shoulder.

CONCLUSIONS
The presence of various artefacts clearly
establishes a continuous culture in this area
spanning over 10,000 years. The upper
Palaeolithic implement like bifacial scraper
is seen to evolve to higher microlithic tools
indicating advancement in technology and
culture. The experiment potteries dated
around c.13000 indicated their use of fire in
a controlled manner and that their advancing
towards sedentary form of living. Many
potteries, wattle and daub etc collected have
given an age of 10,000 to 3500 years showing
an advanced and settled form of life

You'll notice in the whole journal paper (which is peer reviewed), the authors do not mention "cities"; which is how it should be. The evidence to back that claim has not yet been produced. Yet, one of the authors later went ahead his own way and wrote an internet article which claimed "cities"; with no extra evidence added. If anyone is aware of latest developments which show actual evidence that can substantiate the "cities" claim, please do share.

Now it's a separate matter that the government doesn't allocate appropriate funds to the archaeologist. But no reason to make sensational claims.

[brihaspati]

Here goes a repeat of my early post on horse-in-the-cave:

is there any linguistic proof in the picture that it is really a horse? If not then we have to consider the possibility that
(1) there is wide variability in radio-carbon and other dating methods, so 40 kya could actually be much less, and in the period after Aryans invaded in 1500 BCE.
(2) it could be a now extinct animal that vaguely resembles a horse but is not a horse
(3) the human could be killing a horse as hunted game and not sitting on it - since we cannot clearly distinguish the humans legs in the foreground, or signs of saddle, and other horse paraphernalia [added : was there any archeological proof of horse paraphernalia as developed in the steppes onlee in the cave floor infront of the picture? if not then the picture is not reliable]
(4) the humans or the shamans could have smoked opium or other prehistoric hallucinogenics and were imagining an animal that resembles a horse but is still not a horse. [added : even if archeological proof of such use of hallucinogenics is unavailable, it is a reasonable hypothesis because it helps in the debunking]


Is there any other possibility of debunking the horse-in-cave claims? Let me know.

[shiv]

The point I was trying to make is that linguistics can only handle simple scenarios. The only linguistically relevant literature from the Vedic era is the Rig Veda, the Avesta, maybe, a few tablets of the Mitanni, and that is mostly it.

So, e.g., such theories cannot deal with a lot of back-and-forth movements of people's, and cultures, only very simplistic ideas. So e.g. If (proto) speakers entered India many times over 6000BC to 2000BC, there is no way linguistic theories can deal with this possibility ( let alone in and out of India). Ultimately, archaeology and genetics are the disciplines with a better chance of approximating reality.

Sanskrit is particularly strict about pronunciation and grammar. We hear from the linguistic community that sounds that involve (in my words) "more work" in the mouth and often corrupted to something simpler. Dharma become dhamma, "swapn.." becomes "sapn.." becomes "som". Fine. But then which insane community of language speakers take an easy-to-pronounce word and screw it up to make it difficult to pronounce? By what stretch of imagination does one assert that there "used to be" a PIE word "mer" that went on to be the progenitor of words like "mort" and "mortality". But when it came to the mad-hatter soma-drunk Sanskrit speakers the PIE story is that they took this simple word "mer" and made it "mru" as in "mrityu". What on earth for? I would have thought that pronunciation moves from the more complex to the less complex. How do you cook up a less complex proto-word which stays that way in all languages, but suddenly becomes more difficult to pronounce in one language?

The case of the word for tongue seems to be a classic case where the PIE origin word makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The words used for tongue appear to have three different origins - starting with t/d or j/z or l. I can't for the life of me understand why people are so desperate to link the origin back to one PIE word. Words like mouth, tongue, eye etc were probably invented very early in every language and were likely invented separately and mixed thoroughly as human populations merged. Similarities can be due to several reasons with "a common ancestor" being only one of them. Mixing of multiple languages and similar sounding but independently invented onomatopoeias can result in similar sounding words. The desperate urge to find a common word in the face of inconvenient difficulties itself can have multiple motivations like "single root cause search", "there is only one God and we are all descended from one ancestor", "I cannot accept that my language might have originated in that part of the world inhabited by inferior people" . These are all games that have been played in the past by biased "experts" and continuing the same game seems like a perfectly rational decision to me. If you are cooking up things, it's best to keep the cook-pot boiling.

Look at the word for "heart". I find that a fascinating case. The Sanskrit word is "hrd". In Greek it is kardio, Latin is cor. Many similar sounding words exist in other langauges.

It is conceivable that "h" and "kh" get mixed up by the simple act of the back of one's tongue touching the top of the mouth to make a "kh" out of "h". But how do you date this and say that "k" came before "h" to get the PiE word "krd" for heart? One curious fact is that in the Dravidest language of them all, the grandfather Dravidese, Tamil, "kh" and "h" are mixed up. Even now you can hear Tamil speakers substitute "h" with "kh". You will often hear the expression "kharagarapriya" for the raag "haraharapriya" I can point out where MS Subbulakshmi (or her singing partner) has said kh for h in her singing.

So how do you date and fix these changes and say who influenced whom?

[ManishH]

I personally do not doubt the art is that of a mounted horse. But I do want to see a peer-reviewed archaeological report that shows the method used to date the cave art. These Yahoo articles are pop-science.

There is a free google book called "Indian Rock Art And Its Global Context"
By Kalyan Kumar Chakravarty, Robert G. Bednari

Pages 13-14 summarize some problems with cave art dating and methods developed to reliably date them ...

Rock art dating is more difficult than archaeological dating, and for a long time, only unreliable methods have been available in the field. In recent years however, a series of new methods have been introduced.

Summarizes various methods of dating rock art:

- Excavation: if charcoal fragments have fallen on ground that is in a stratified context and can be dated
Direct dating methods:
- Organic paint components - via std. carbon - dating
- Correlating paint recipes with other, reliably dated rock art nearby.
- Microerosion dating
- Optical luminescence dating
- Paleomagnetism
- Laser assisted combustion
- Geomorphology
- Pigment sources

At least one of these methods should be used to date these artefacts.

[Kanson]

As the thread title is named as Theory to Truth let move from discussing theories to ascertain facts...

What do you people think about these claims...

Common Ceremonial
Most of you in India are familiar with the Charak Puja ceremonial observed in Bengal and several States in South India. This Hindu Ceremonial also observed in Mexico historian call it the mexicon and peru. The Spanish Valador ritual. A relief of Bayon central temple of Angkor Thom in Cambodia represents a rite similar to the Mexico Valador. The use of parasol (Chhatra) is an age-old sign of royalty and rank in India, Burma, China and Japan. The Maya Astec and the Incas also used it as a sign of royalty. Frescoes of Chak Multum in Yucatan show two types of parasols both of which correspond to types still in use in South-East Asia.

In reading descriptions of the palace and court of the Astec emperors of Mexico, any one familiar with South-East Asia cannot fail to be reminded of the courts of Burma, Siam and Cambodia. The same applied to the form of government. Thus the institution of four chief officials in Mexico and Peru corresponds to the four ministers of state and Governors of the four quarters of the Kingdom in Hindu Buddist empires of South-East Asia. In both cases this institution is based on cosmological principles. This indicates similar pictorial story of the Hindu Buddist origins in the field of art, religious architecture, government, kingship, cosmology and mythology proves close cultural contacts between ancient India and countries of South-East Asia with the countries of Central and South America. Dr. Robert Gelern and Dr. Ekholm have come to the following conclusion:

“The large number of highly specific correspondences in so many fields precludes any reponsibility of mere accidental coincidence nor would it help us to take refuge in any kind of explanation based on some alleged psychological laws. There is no psychologial law which could have caused the peoples on both sides of the Pacific to stylize the lotus plant in the same manner and to make it surge from the mouth of a jawless demon’s head, to invent the parasol and use it as a sign of rank and to invent the same complicated game (Pachisi). There is no explanation other than the assumption of cultural relationship. We must bow to the evidence of facts even tough this may mean a completely new start in our appraisal of the origin and development of the American Indian higher civilizations.”"

The Ayar Rulers
The use of throne, the litre and of fans mounted standard like on long poles as insignia of rank and royalty in the countries of Central and South America bears the strong imprint of India. It may be observed here that the last Ayar ruler of Peru was carried in his palanquin on the day the Spaniards invaded Peru. His turban with the plume and his Mudra of the hand are unmistakable proofs of his Hindu origin. His four Ranis performed Sati after he was murdered by the Spaniards. A hundred Ayar rulers ruled Peru.

The Mexican national throne preserved in the National Museum of Mexico bears the typical Hindu Buddist disc of the Sun. The Mexicans also had the Hindu Simhasan (Lion throne). A scene of Buddha-Sangh as preserved in a relief temple in Java has its parallel in the famous pyramid temple in Piedras Negras, Guatemala. This is the finest piece of Maya sculpture in America. Is has no real incidence in Maya Arts history but it does have a remarkable similarity to a number of “”Life of Buddha reliefs”" of the Boro Budur in Java. There is no way of knowing what the subject matter of the American relief might be but the composition with the placing of the figures on several levels is very similar to the one in Java.

Images of Gods
India has the reputation to be the land of gods but Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia and Honduras had more gods and richer temples than we had in India at any time. Shiva, Ganesha, Indra, the Sun, Hanuman, Vishnu and his tortoise incarnation (Kurma Avatar) were some of the Hindu gods worshipped in central and South America. I present to you the galaxy of our Gods preserved in the museums of America. Here you can see Shiva, Ganesha and even his rat from the Inca mythology in Peru, Ganesha from the temple of Diego Riviera in Mexico City, various images of Hanuman and Shiva from the Guatemala Museum, Shiva Linga from Vera Cruz in Mexico City. The Mexican Vishnu in spite of his Mexican features can be easily recognised from the mace (Gada) and Chakra that he holds in his two hands. The image of Vishnu’s tortoise incarnation preserved by the United Fruit Line in the museum at Quiragua, Guatemala, is the greatest puzzle for anthropologists. They have named this image as the Turtle Stone although any one familiar with Hindu mythology can see that it is Vishnu’s Kurma Avatar (Tortoise incarnation). Indra is preserved in the Mexican National Museum as well as Vaman Avatar called the Diving God. There are two images of this Hindu God, one from Bali and the other from Mexico.

Hindu Rituals
The largest temple in Mexico City was the temple of Lord Shiva, the War God of the Mexican whom the Spanish invaders found entwined by golden snakes. This temple was built in the 15th century and had 3000 Deva-Dasis to perform religious ceremonials. The Mexican temple had the Gopuram style. Here you see a reconstruction of the same after it was destroyed by the Spaniards. The temples at Tikal in Mexico also bore the imprint of our famous temple at Madura. No wonder E. G. Squire in his American archaeological researches in 1851 wrote:

“It is believed a proper examination of these monuments would disclose the fact that in their interior structure as well as in their exterior form and obvious purposes these buildings correspond with great exactness to those of Hindustan and the Indian Archipelago.

Sir Stamford Raflles wrote, “The great temple of Borobudur might readily be mistaken for a Central American Temple.”

“”From child-birth to cremation and Sati the Astecs observed almost all Hindu rituals including the Gurukula system of education followed in India. The Incas of Peru with Ayar Brahman ancestry observed the sacred thread ceremony, the ear-piercing ceremony all other Hindu rituals and rigidly observed the caste systems of India. It is not without reason that the Spanish author Lopez says in his book Le Races Aryans de Peru : “”Every page of peruvian poetry bears the imprint of Ramayana and Mahabharata.”"

Sanskrit was the sacred language of the rulers and quichua the language of Peruvians. The Aryo-Quichua vocabulary prepared by Lopez proves it

One of the Tikal temple in Mexico

[brihaspati]

shiv ji,
this was one of my earliest questions on this thread : why would the "harder" word be invented before instead of the simpler one - since people readily accept that "hard" Sanskrit words have been simplified and rounded or softened in Indian regional dialects. Linguists brush it away by saying that hardness is a relative term. Implying thereby that the so-called PIE speakers constructed words which were found "hard" by all their own descendants who migrated together with their languages.

The tendency to pharyngeal/glottal version of the sound heard from others produced more to the front of the mouth - is denied in the PIE dogma. I think that this route h/ch->k/kh/ should be seriously explored - since I feel that a pre-existing local language in which pharyngeal/glottal stresses are predominant, would make a chakra -> k-k-r ->k-k-l [tendency to pull r from front to rear slightly in l].

[Prem]

In the cave painting the Horse is excited and the fully extended tool is visible , it is definitely not a hunt for this animal. The spear seems to be waived as victory sign. Thee is a big guy holding the hanuman style Mace in the background . IMHO, Its definitely Sanskrit speaking Aryan, leading the charge against SDRE Dravidians.

[member_20317]

Brihaspati ji, my attempts

(1) The horse and the mounted warrior is proof of Steppe people attacking the SDRE foot soldiers.
(2) If the foot soldiers and mounted warrior is one army then it proves that Steppe people brought in the technique of 'Infantry squares'. That one line of soldiers being one line of the square.
(3) The picture is of Steppe people laying siege to a Dravidian castle. The mounted warrior is the proof of Indra who uptill now was only standing accused but now is proven guilty. It would have been better if the picture was notarized too.
(4) The picture is of Steppe warriors preventing the Dravidians from escaping from the sea after the dravidian 'cities' got submerged.
(5) Its a game of Buskashi about to start. Buskashi also came from Kurgan/Whatever. Buskashi is actually a misspelt 'Kashi'. So the city of Kashi also came from Kurgan/Whatever.

[tyroneshoes]

Bhimbetka (look out for non-horses in these videos):









The challenge is who funds dating these horses? Some seem older than others.
The secular Indian government does not care, the right wing nuts are out to prove whatever they fancy!

Same as genetics (most research is NIH or some such funding...)
Who has done research on gotras, who has looked at matriarchal lines in India.
Are there no Indian scientists interested to find these things for themselves?
Even if they are, who and how do they get funds?

[tyroneshoes]

Regarding Linguists - it would be wrong to club them all into irrelevance.
There is much agreement that perhaps they deserve it...

However, the special group called Indo-European Linguists are the real culprits.

One cannot come to Jatapata, Ghanapata etc. of Rig Veda without Linguistic insights.
The Ancient Indians must have been master Linguists.

[disha]

...The tendency to pharyngeal/glottal version of the sound heard from others produced more to the front of the mouth - is denied in the PIE dogma. I think that this route h/ch->k/kh/ should be seriously explored - since I feel that a pre-existing local language in which pharyngeal/glottal stresses are predominant, would make a chakra -> k-k-r ->k-k-l [tendency to pull r from front to rear slightly in l]....

Bji, you are going too far to Europe to find your "Chakra -> Chakla".

Here is your Chakla. Also search for google images for chakla and you will find a circular wooden kitchen utensil common to all of India and in western part of India it is called Chakla.

Kids play discus throw with old worn out chaklas.
Some use old chaklas to create a small kind of utility cart., you just need four of them and two spindles and a box and a rope.

But then you need Aryans to bring in the chariots! Duly notarized.

[tyroneshoes]

^^^ puli is more a tiger or a leopard, in Telugu simhamu is lion, something analogous could be in tamil, try google translate

Yes, I do speak or understand several Indian languages.

My simple point being - if Tamil has 'Kudurai' for horse and we know its roots and they are older and uninfluenced by Sanskrit, then horses existed in India prior to any so called PIEAryan invasion.

Also, notice there is no non-Sanskrit root word for Lion in Tamil. Does not mean, there was'nt one that is now extinct, but the Asiatic Lion afaik was more northern and north-western in historic range. Which then makes me wonder if the so called Dravidians could have been in Sapta-Sindhu without knowing about Lions or having a native word for it.

[ManishH]

But when it came to the mad-hatter soma-drunk Sanskrit speakers the PIE story is that they took this simple word "mer" and made it "mru" as in "mrityu". What on earth for?

Not a fair comparison. मृत्यु looks complicated because it is an inflection of the root मृ. A fairer comparison is Latin 'mortem' with मृत्युम्

The case of the word for tongue seems to be a classic case where the PIE origin word makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The words used for tongue appear to have three different origins - starting with t/d or j/z or l.

For the specific case of tongue, PIE *dnĝhuh₂ > Sanskrit 'jihva', Mallory's book accepts that "the remodeling in Indo-Iranian is more difficult. In any case a very strong candidate for PIE status."

Languages as wide spaced as Tocharian in Urumqi ('kantwo' from tankwo) and Old Latin 'dingua' are strong cognates here. In Sanskrit, I think the initial syllable just got elided. We see such elisions even in Old Persian 'hizu' to Persian 'zuban'.

Also worth comparing to Dravidian 'nāl', which is so phonetically unlike.

Look at the word for "heart". I find that a fascinating case. The Sanskrit word is "hrd". In Greek it is kardio, Latin is cor. Many similar sounding words exist in other langauges.
It is conceivable that "h" and "kh" get mixed up by the simple act of the back of one's tongue touching the top of the mouth to make a "kh" out of "h". But how do you date this and say that "k" came before "h" to get the PiE word "krd" for heart?

The dating is possible because of palatalization of PIE *kerd-dheh₁ (literally "put the heart" to Sanskrit 'śraddha' (faith). Palatalization is also seen in Lithuanian širdis (heart).

The association of belief/faith with heart is pan-Indo-European. Eg Latin credo 'I believe', and Old Irish cretim 'I believe'.

Later Indian grammatical works are not aware that this word comes from the the same root as 'hṛd' (heart).

Words like mouth, tongue, eye etc were probably invented very early in every language and were likely invented separately and mixed thoroughly as human populations merged.

I agree. Compare 'mouth'
IE: Middle Irish 'ā' - even closer to 'natural sound of mouth' as you defined it than Skt 'ās', Latin 'os'; but Dravidian 'bāyi'.

Compare 'eye'
IE: Sanskrit akṣi, Goth 'augo', Old Prussian 'ackis' Slavonic 'oko', Tocharian 'ak', Greek 'omma' (labial) - all from PIE *h₃okʷ. But dravidian 'kaṇṇu'

I think if you take almost any part of human external anatomy, there will be amazing similiarity across IE languages. But Dravidian shows altogether different sounding words. If indeed, these similarities are due to humans mixing; one would think there has been higher chance of mixing if all of IE languages originated in Indian subcontinent.

So how do you date and fix these changes and say who influenced whom?

On it's own, phonetics only gives us relative dating (which sound could be the original). Couple with archaeology, it gives a range of absolute dates (ante quem/post quem).

Based on phonetics, one can't claim any of the IE daughter languages have a quantifiably greater or larger set of original vocabulary. But they were from a common parent.

Re: what is harder to pronounce - it is a cultural thing. Take a look at the ease with which Slavs utter consonant clusters but fumble with simple aspirated sounds which Indians articulate with ease.

[ManishH]

My simple point being - if Tamil has 'Kudurai' for horse and we know its roots and they are older and uninfluenced by Sanskrit, then horses existed in India prior to any so called PIEAryan invasion.

Dravidian words for horse [∗kut-ir-ay] descend from the verb root *kut-i ‘to jump’. Dravidian has another set of words is from Old Telugu gurramu, Modern Telugu gurram, Naiki kurmam, Konda 'guram' probably also related to Hindi 'ghoda'. Not sure what's the root here.

Even Native American tribes have their own words for horse eg. Cherokee 'so-qui-li', Sioux 'shiko-waka'. Just having an independent word for something doesn't mean that is a native animal.

[member_20317]

Kanson ji, this cannot be fact as it is not ‘peer-reviewed’ or ‘pear-reviewed’ whatever.

Anyhow it is really strange how a coincidence in linguistics is accepted as fact but the fact in architecture or story telling or rituals or astronomy or ‘the man’s relationship with his environment’ (I wonder what they call this in English, I personally call it yog) is treated as coincidence. It is coincidence that artifacts that are required for running a good sized settlement 5600-5800 years before present are all deposited at one place by the moving currents in high seas or some such reason. But it is fact that the PIE word “K'o K'ou K'o Lê” signified beverages and soma rasa, this being ‘peer-reviewed’ or ‘pear-reviewed’ whatever.

[tyroneshoes]

ManishH,

For all you know the native American's remember the now extinct native American horse
Anyway, seriously, from what I know - the native American terms meant 'Big Dog' for Horse and it was a sacred animal. However, we are not talking about native Americans who met even worse a fate than the ones we are talking about their misnamed cousins - the East Indians.

Anyways (since in non-Indians we trust), here is what Robert Cadwell says:

Kudir ei a horse Can kudure The Sanskrit ghuta a horse may possibly have an ulterior connection with the Dravidian word but I cannot suppose the Dravidian word to have been borrowed from the Sanskrit one, for the Tamil occasionally borrows and uses ghota in Tam ghoram also godagam Tel gurram u in addition to its own kudir ei besides which Tamil provides us with a probable derivation of hidirei viz kudi to leap

http://books.google.com/books?id=nxwYAA ... ot&f=false
Since Tamil borrows Godagam later, one can presume Kudurei pre-dates Tamil meeting with Sanskrit (according to your theory of Aryan and Dravidian of course). Therefore, Tamil knew horse prior to meeting PIEAryans, it seems to have its own root based on a verb - it is not a 'big dog' - Nice try!

Kudirei stands on its own and leaps on its own - Kudipidal Kudurei

[svenkat]

^^
Saar,super.Engayayo Poyiteenga.Reminds me of Janakaraaj in Apoorva Sahodararkal.

[member_20317]

^^^Apoorva Sahodararkal is Kamala Haasan starrer Appu Raja in Hindi right and Janakaraaj would the eccentric sub inspector. Great movie.

[member_20317]

Manish ji – “Even Native American tribes have their own words for horse eg. Cherokee 'so-qui-li', Sioux 'shiko-waka'. Just having an independent word for something doesn't mean that is a native animal.”

So Native Red Indians did not have ‘Ghoda’. Ghoda as in Horse not Ghoda as in a Bandook.

But then somebody earlier did, point out that Native Red Indians had hunted to extinction the native horses only to take up breeding of imported horses after a gap of only a few centuries. I am willing to be corrected here as I don’t know anything about Native Red Indians.

Also how about Vimana. Vimana as in Pushpak Vimana and in Biman Bahini or Viman vahak yudh pota. The word was there but was the actual thing present. Strange case no ji.


In any case point tyroneshoes ji was trying to make is not that - An independent word for something doesn't mean that is a native animal.

Instead AFAIU he was asking if an important animal like Lion that was there in large numbers in north India and that probably ate more Dravids than were allegedly killed by the Aryans, would not have a word of its own in the most Dravid of all languages.


Tyroneshoes -

Also, notice there is no non-Sanskrit root word for Lion in Tamil. Does not mean, there was'nt one that is now extinct, but the Asiatic Lion afaik was more northern and north-western in historic range. Which then makes me wonder if the so called Dravidians could have been in Sapta-Sindhu without knowing about Lions or having a native word for it.

And also the following exchange.

tyroneshoes wrote:
My simple point being - if Tamil has 'Kudurai' for horse and we know its roots and they are older and uninfluenced by Sanskrit, then horses existed in India prior to any so called PIEAryan invasion.

To which ManishH ji said:
Dravidian words for horse [∗kut-ir-ay] descend from the verb root *kut-i ‘to jump’. Dravidian has another set of words is from Old Telugu gurramu, Modern Telugu gurram, Naiki kurmam, Konda 'guram' probably also related to Hindi 'ghoda'. Not sure what's the root here.


So it is probable that Telugu people rode horses while they were in and about the areas of present day Indo-Pak border where the horses first came into India.

Also what are the chances that Hindi ‘Kood’ as in ‘Koodna’ is related to Dravid verb root *kut-i. Since verb roots we are told are very important.

Because if it is related then it opens up the possibility that the people who uttered verb root *kut-i probably also taught the other people what the gurramu is good for when they were having soma rasa with old timer Telugus in IVC. God only knows what unspeakable things the old Uropains were upto with the horse.

I am willing to be corrected in linguistics. I don’t know any of it. Could be that *kut-i has nothing to do with Kood but has something to do with the Dog ji of female variety which is how ancient Tamils felt like calling the ancient Euro-Aryans.

[shiv]

For the specific case of tongue, PIE *dnĝhuh₂ > Sanskrit 'jihva', Mallory's book accepts that "the remodeling in Indo-Iranian is more difficult. In any case a very strong candidate for PIE status."

Languages as wide spaced as Tocharian in Urumqi ('kantwo' from tankwo) and Old Latin 'dingua' are strong cognates here. In Sanskrit, I think the initial syllable just got elided. We see such elisions even in Old Persian 'hizu' to Persian 'zuban'.

Also worth comparing to Dravidian 'nāl', which is so phonetically unlike.

In fact it seems to me that the proto words for tongue would likely have included sounds associated with a protruded tongue, moving or non moving. Sounds like "wa" or "ua" are what one gets if the tongue is protruded but no vocalization associated with contact of the tongue to anything. Vocalization with the tongue behind the teeth causes "la" and possibly "na" - both sounds requiring an open mouth with tongue visible. Waggling the tongue in and out at the upper lip produces a "nanana" sound. Waggling the tongue up-down just further behind with open mouth is "lalala". In each case the mouth is open to draw attention to a moving tongue. It is not surprising to see the sounds "la" "na" and "ua" associated with a word for tongue. Less easily explained are sounds like "za" and "ja". Za is conceivable as the sound produced with the tongue just behind the the teeth. "Ta" and "dh" are similar. Tongue at the tip of the mouth. Sanskrit "jihua" is a really weird/oddball/misfit word in my view. More weird than lingua and zaban or nal. The PIE word sounds worse than the Sanskrit word and seems like a desperate attempt to get Sanskrit into the family. The "ua/wa" sound could be common to many different independent languages because the classic action of throwing up (wack!) or child expressing disgust of food is tongue out, lips in "o" form and the sound "wack". Vomit and Wanthi are likely onomatopoeias of the same.

The dating is possible because of palatalization of PIE *kerd-dheh₁ (literally "put the heart" to Sanskrit 'śraddha' (faith). Palatalization is also seen in Lithuanian širdis (heart).

The association of belief/faith with heart is pan-Indo-European. Eg Latin credo 'I believe', and Old Irish cretim 'I believe'.

Later Indian grammatical works are not aware that this word comes from the the same root as 'hṛd' (heart).

Well Sanskrit "hru" means "the center" or "the essence" or "heart". Are you saying that shraddha somehow relates to hru? It seems that shraddha is being related to kardia in the same was as kleon is being related to sravan. But shraddha is not heart. Shraddha is faith in Sanshrit, which has a different word for heart, which is "hru". This could be a circular thing where a hru became kar/cor and then kardia and then came back as shraddha? Otherwise the link is a wild leap of imagination and the "PIE proto-word" totally unconvincing to me. I can't see how palatization is being related to chronology.

After all, for 99% of the world's population "heart" does not mean "a muscular organ responsible for pumping blood". It means something inside oneself, ranging from the life/core/essence to belief/what's in me. Hru is that. kardia could have been derived from that.

Shraddha, Credo, Cretim etc may just be parallel words (or cognates if that is the right expression)

[ManishH]

Tamil knew horse prior to meeting PIEAryans, it seems to have its own root based on a verb - it is not a 'big dog' - Nice try!

No one denies these words come from verb roots of dravidian language - I myself mentioned the root of kudure which I knew about.

But this has no meaning without corroboration from archaeology - findings of domesticated horse in the form of bit-wear or occlusion on horse's molars and findings of horse-furniture.

Earliest findings of horse bones in the general area of Dravidian languages is 1500-1300 BCE in Hallur, Karnataka according to K.R. Alur. The earliest clear signs of horse domestication starts only in the Iron age Megalithic graves which comes later.

See chronology of Neolithic (with mention of horse) in south india ...
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/%7Etcrnd ... %20AMS.pdf

Compare with Pirak, near Bolan pass where evidence for horse domestication (not just bones) is found in 1800 BC.

[ManishH]

Well Sanskrit "hru" means "the center" or "the essence" or "heart". Are you saying that shraddha somehow relates to hru?

Yep, Sanskrit śraddha (faith) is related to hṛd (heart); but this fact is recoverable only from the palatalization law of phonetic change; not from traditional Sanskrit grammar. The relation is faith = put (dhā) our heart (hṛd).

RgVeda poetry still preserves the Indo-European relation between 'heart' and 'faith'. One very apt example is the RgVeda sūkta 10.151 which is entirely devoted to śraddhā (faith). I'll quote just the one relevant mantra ...

RV_10.151.04.1{09} śraddhāṃ devā yajamānā vāyugopā upāsate
RV_10.151.04.2{09} śraddhāṃhṛdayyayākūtyā śraddhayā vindate vasu

with the sandhi breakup to aid translation ...
śraddhām | devāḥ | yajamānāḥ | vāyu-gopāḥ | upa | āsate |
śraddhām | hṛdayyayā | ākūtyā | śraddhayā | vindate | vasu

"With faith do Gods and yajña-performers come together,
By the heart's wishes is faith obtained; and by faith are possessions obtained."

So a language may undergo phonetic changes, but poetry will still reveal old concepts.

[shiv]

with the sandhi breakup to aid translation ...
śraddhām | devāḥ | yajamānāḥ | vāyu-gopāḥ | upa | āsate |
śraddhām | hṛdayyayā | ākūtyā | śraddhayā | vindate | vasu

"With faith do Gods and yajña-performers come together,
By the heart's wishes is faith obtained; and by faith are possessions obtained."

So a language may undergo phonetic changes, but poetry will still reveal old concepts.

I have no problem with the concept of heart being equated with faith. Like I said the concept of "heart" as muscular organ is not an intuitive one and heart as "life" and "self" and "being" or "state of mind" are more intuitively understandable given that fear or excitement cause heartbeat to be felt and death is the absence of heartbeat in a manner that cannot have escaped the attention of any human. So calling it a unique "Indo-European" connection would be a white lie unless the heart-emotion connection was absent in non Indo-European languages. I am certain every single language group in the world has made a connection between the heart and the mind/self/emotion.

Sure enough, a cursory internet search shows up this Japanese poem that links the heart to one's mood/being/emotion
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/jc86460.htm

Kokoro naki
Mi ni mo aware wa
Shirarekeri
Shigi tatsu sawa no

A heart subdued,
Yet poignant sadness
Is so deeply felt:
A snipe flies over the marsh

Interestingly "kokoro" is the word for heart in Japanese - which is pretty similar to cor in Latin and "kher". But no one seems to want to include this in the incestuous relationship between India and Europe. The word for heart may have an even earlier origin than is being made out by this Indo-European love affair.

shraddha and hrudaya are different words . They are not synonyms.

cretim and credo too may mean belief/faith as you say, but they are different words from kardia/cor/heart. I am totally unable to see how faith=heart. Faith may be equated with heart (for reasons I have stated above) but in in the passage from the Rig Veda you have quoted the words used for each are different. If the word heart is used for faith in Latin, Latvian etc - that is their problem. It cannot be called a similarity with Sanskrit, which has two separate words for faith and heart even if they are sometimes used synonymously or to mean similar things. As for the phenomenon of heart being equated with faith - clearly the heart is associated with states of mind in non IE languages as well so the connection is not a big deal.

[shiv]

Emotion/states of mind and heart will have links in every language, not just Indo-European
http://goodcharacters.com/chinese.symbol.for.love.html

Often, we hear people say, "Honey, I love you with all my heart!" Sir Phillip Sidney wrote "My true love hath my heart." Also, have heard that Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul?" It is the most important commandment of all.

It is no doubt how closely love and heart are related. Guess what? When you pay close attention to the Chinese character, or hanzi, for Love you will notice a heart right in the middle of it!

[tyroneshoes]

But this has no meaning without corroboration from archaeology - findings of domesticated horse in the form of bit-wear or occlusion on horse's molars and findings of horse-furniture.

So answer is: it is not my day job. I don't need to wake up every morning and say:
"Do I fit data to theory or do I fit theory to data?"

There are liars, cheats and then there are Indo-European Linguists

So, the "Archeologist ate my homework for breakfast!" is unacceptable.

A verb root exists and no evidence has yet been found in Archeology as to why.
So where is the intellectual curiosity? Rather whose incentive funds research?
Is this science? or non-science?

[member_22872]

But this has no meaning without corroboration from archaeology - findings of domesticated horse in the form of bit-wear or occlusion on horse's molars and findings of horse-furniture.

Manish ji, do you mean there is no archaeological proof of domestication in India itself before 1500 years? already Rajesh ji had posted links and had written a write up on horse evidence, but here:

Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the prehistoric settlement of Surkotada, Kutch, excavated under the direction of Dr. J. P. Joshi, I can state the following: The occurrence of true horse (Equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones). Since no wild horses lived in India in post-Pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoubtful. This is also supported by an inter- maxilla fragment whose incisor tooth shows clear signs of crib biting, a bad habit only existing among domestic horses which are not extensively used for war.8


Quite in tune with the findings at Surkotada and Lothal, P. K. Thomas, P. P. Joglekar et al., experts from the Deccan College on faunal remains, reported horse bones from the nearby Harappan site of Shikarpur “in the Mature Harappan period,”9 and from Kuntasi (at the boundary between Kutch and Saurashtra).10

To the Neolithic sites mentioned by A. Ghosh, we must add Koldihwa (in the Belan valley of Allahabad district), where G. R. Sharma et al. identified horse fossils.11 Contemporary with the Harappan period, the culture of the Chambal valley (in Madhya Pradesh) was explored by the respected archaeologist M. K. Dhavalikar, with layers dated between 2450 and 2000 BCE. His observations are remarkable:
"The most interesting is the discovery of bones of horse from the Kayatha levels and a terracotta figurine of a mare. It is the domesticate species (Equus caballus), which takes back the antiquity of the steed in India to the latter half of the third millennium BC. The presence of horse at Kayatha in all the chalcolithic levels assumes great significance in the light of the controversy about the horse." 12

Let us stress that just as at Surkotada, the horse at Kayatha was domesticated.

8 Sándor Bökönyi, 13 December 1993, in his report to the Director General of the
Archaeological Survey of India, quoted by B. B. Lal in The Earliest Civilization of South Asia,
op. cit., p. 162.
9. P. K. Thomas, P. P. Joglekar, et al, “Harappan Subsistence Patterns with Special Reference to
Shikarpur, a Harappan Site in Gujarat,” Man and Environment XX (2) – 1995, p. 39.
10 P. K. Thomas, P. P. Joglekar, et al, “Subsistence Based on Animals in the Harappan Culture
of Gujarat,” Anthropozoologica, 1997, N°25-26, p. 769.
11 G. R. Sharma, History to Prehistory: Archaeology of the Vindhyas and the Ganga Valley
(University of Allahabad, 1980), quoted by K. D. Sethna, The Problem of Aryan Origins, p. 220-221.
12 M. K. Dhavalikar, Indian Protohistory (New Delhi: Books & Books, 1997), p. 115.

[member_20317]

Shiv ji the logic build up in your post for shraddha and hrudaya is convincing for me.

Can you or some other better equiped veteran do the same for 'Prana'? That would be some good education.

[brihaspati]

If one applies the "shraddham"=="put faith == heart" in the Rg Vedic quote - look at the sense that results : "putting faith == heart" binds "heart" with "faith". Heart binds heart with heart.

There would be no reason to expect binding between one object with self. You bind only two different things - whose distinction you are aware of and feel the need to externally enforce bringing them together.

[ramana]

ravi_g, How did Telugus begin in Indus valley? Were they horse traders?

About Tamil word for horse what is the origin of the mountain Khudremukh in Karnataka?

[svinayak]

But this has no meaning without corroboration from archaeology - findings of domesticated horse in the form of bit-wear or occlusion on horse's molars and findings of horse-furniture.

So answer is: it is not my day job. I don't need to wake up every morning and say:
"Do I fit data to theory or do I fit theory to data?"

There are liars, cheats and then there are Indo-European Linguists

So, the "Archeologist ate my homework for breakfast!" is unacceptable.

A verb root exists and no evidence has yet been found in Archeology as to why.
So where is the intellectual curiosity? Rather whose incentive funds research?
Is this science? or non-science?

It is like this.
They put some theory 100 years ago and everybody has to now prove that it is wrong. Until then the theory is correct for all purpose.

If there is no other evidence to prove that this theory is wrong then the theory is proven true.

[Theo_Fidel]

Its fallen out of favor but some of the folks in the S. TN Szen Tamil areas still use Arraiman for lion BTW, very very old. Not sure of the origin.
------------------------------------------------------------

I'm curious how Horse remains show up in 1800 BC @ Peshawar and 1300 BC @ Karnatak, yet IEP apparently did not make it that far till later. If IEP had exclusive access to horse technology which allowed them to 'overrun' Meluha yet the natives have horse so quickly what manner of 'invasion' is this.

[ManishH]

I am certain every single language group in the world has made a connection between the heart and the mind/self/emotion.

Heart and emotion is indeed a generic connection, nothing unique to IE world. What I was trying to emphasize is the connection between the phrase "put your heart" and "faith", which I find to be very unique to this language family.

So we have a wide swathe of languages from Sanskrit (śraddhā), Latin (credo), Irish (creitid), Avestan (zrazdā), Hittite (kratan dai) - where the phrase 'put your heart' is associated with faith / belief.

cretim and credo too may mean belief/faith as you say, but they are different words from kardia/cor/heart. I am totally unable to see how faith=heart.

All the above examples come from combining two IE words : one for 'heart' (*kred) and one for 'put' (*dheh₁). Not all languages have preserved the etymology though.

Compare other language families - Dravidian 'nambike', Finno-Ugric 'usko', Turkic 'niyet/iman/inanç' - all unrelated to the word for 'heart' or 'put' in their own lexicon. Even in Japanese, faith (shinzo) seems related to heart (shinko) but no semantics of 'put' are present.

[Prem]

But this has no meaning without corroboration from archaeology - findings of domesticated horse in the form of bit-wear or occlusion on horse's molars and findings of horse-furniture./
Let us stress that just as at Surkotada, the horse at Kayatha was domesticated. [/i]

Cave paintings /Video posted above can be the proof of this deomestication.

[member_22872]

Jhujar ji, true, but then Manish ji could contend that those cave paintings were undated and also could say that they were from much later period. So thought of giving examples from published records.

[ramana]

Is origin of cretin also from heart?