Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 07:12

For linguistic ignoramii such as I, here is a very readeable commentary on the Rig veda, What fascinated me is that the Rig Veda apparently also contains what might be the oldest love story in existence
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_History ... /Chapter_5

The "love story" is explained on the following Wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pururavas

The Ṛg-veda, X.129 contains a conversational fragment, written in a highly wrought poetic style. The hymn suggests that Uṣas (also known as Urvaśi) is a Gandharvi or Apsara (an aquatic nymph). Having been united with a human king, Purūravas, and after living together for four autumns, suddenly left him on his unintentional violation of the stipulated conditions of the union. Later Purūravas made futile entreaties to her to return to him.[2]

The narrative displays multiple levels of symbolism by playing on the multiplicity of meanings in the Vedic Saṃskṛt terms. While it is a love poem, expressing the conflict of interest between a lover and his beloved, who spurns his love, it also expresses the immortal relationship between the Sun (Purūravas) and the Dawn (Uṣas). In addition to these two levels of meaning, it also offers mantric prescriptions for a ritual activity bent on taking rebirth as a Gandharva or Apsaras.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 07:52

The Rig Veda related language-archaeology story has many gaps in it and one such gap is the curious fact that the RiG Veda itself was in India while its translators have found evidence of Rig Vedic objects/animals in graves outside India, but the rivers are most probably in India. Unfortunately the language of the areas where graves of assumed "proto-vedic people" have been found was never Sanskrit. It was typically something similar to Sanskrit - requiring some linguistic callisthenics to explain that the owners of the graves bearing Rig-Veda like objects were the actual people whose memories existed in the Rig Veda, but somehow, for no reason, the local language had no memory and was not even Sanskrit.

If you need to connect the people who were buried with horses and chariots with the Rig Veda, you have to come up with words like "velar, palatal, palatization, retroflex, aspirate" (descriptions of positions of tongue in mouth during speech) to describe hypothetical differences in pronunciation. The differences are hypothetical at least in some cases because the language families have dead languages that no one speaks, but the "sounds" have been surmised via old texts translated into texts of existing languages. The fact that this can be faulty and inaccurate guesswork is an issue that I will not delve into for now. The point is that people in one part of the world are being connected to the Rig Veda by some nifty connections being made in this way.

But what proof is there? Graves of course. The graves in that part of the world have everything that the Rig Veda says if you ignore the mention of river names in the Rig Veda and if you ignore that fact that local language is not Sanskrit. For this reason I started searching for the subject of graves. Now let me quote fro a link that irritates me, but praise it for making a summary of finds of antiquity. There is something really odd in the list, which I will point out below

http://indigyan.blogspot.in/2011/03/aryan-trail.html

Pit Grave Culture or Kurgan Culture (3500 - 2800 BC)
Catacomb, Hut Grave Culture (2800 - 2000 BC)
Timber Grave Culture (2000 - 800 BC)
Andronovo Culture, Arkaim-Sintashta (1800 - 900 BC)
Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex, BMAC Culture (2200 - 1700 BC
Vakhsh - Biskent Culture: Contemporary to BMAC & Andronovo
Kalash Culture (1600 BC till date)
Gandhara Grave Culture (1700 - 1400 BC)

The last two are particularly interesting, especially "Kalash"

Kalash Culture (1600 BC till date): A very unique group of Indo-Aryans in Hindukush have preserved many of the Rig Vedic and early Indo-Aryan features including language and culture. Kalash is the last place in the Aryan trail before entering into the final destination of Punjab.

No why is it that there are hardly any grave related archaeological finds in India to the East and South of what is now Shitland?

One likely answer lies in the question "What did vedic people do with their dead?"

Here are some links:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_History ... /Chapter_5
(Go to the link above and read it all yourself)

From this group of hymns it appears that burial was practised as well as cremation by the Vedic Indians. The composer of a hymn addressed to Varuṇa in Book VII. also mentions "the house of clay" in connection with death. Cremation was, however, the usual manner of disposing of the dead, and the later Vedic ritual practically knew this method alone, sanctioning only the burial of ascetics and children under two years of age. With the rite of cremation, too, the mythological notions about the future life were specially connected. Thus Agni conducts the corpse to the other world, where the gods and Fathers dwell. A goat was sacrificed when the corpse was burned, and this goat, according to the Atharva-veda (ix. 5, 1 and 3), preceded and announced the deceased to the fathers, just as in the Rigveda the goat immolated with the sacrificial horse goes before to announce the offering to the gods (i. 162-163). In the later Vedic ritual a goat or cow was sacrificed as the body was cremated.

Another link:
Hindu Funerals, Cremation and Varanasi (web cache)

From the time of the Rig Veda, which contains passages possibly written as far aback as 2000 B.C., Hindus have cremated the dead although small children and ascetic were sometimes buried and low caste members sometimes buried their own. One passage from the Rig Veda addressed to Jataedas!, the fire that burns that corpse, goes. O Jataedas! When you thoroughly burn this [departed person], Then may you hand him over to the pitris [i.e. heavenly fathers]! When he [the deceased] follows thus [path] that leads to a new life, May he become on that carries out the wishes of the gods

Sometimes animals were sacrificed at the funerals. Another passage from the Rig Veda reads: O Jatavedas! May you burn by your heat the goat that is youre share! May your flame, may your bright light burn that goat; Carry this [departed soul] to the world if this who do good deeds By means of youre beneficent bodies [flames]!

It is not known why the custom of cremation was adopted, Some have suggested 1) it is a method of purification, of releasing the soul from a polluted body; 2) it symbolizes the transitory nature of life, of destruction and rebirth; or 3) it eliminated the body as a health risk and doesn’t take up valuable land.

If you are looking for ancient graves in India, You ain't gonna find too many of them.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 08 Jun 2012 08:06

Shiv garu, it all adds up, cow herders, herding cows on grass lands in india with guard dogs may be on horse back, 'bards' singing praise songs about kings, looking for graves in India, all languages leading to PIE located somewhere in Europe, a language which doesn't even have a script, never spoken, yet is the mother of IE, Vedic Indians constantly on the move like gypsies yet have found time to learn Rig veda by heart,all point to one and only one thing, this whole thing is modeled keeping in mind the western life style obviously. No wonder Rig veda has such an interesting intrepretation. I don't know why one has to go such lengths to try to bring to fruition the designs of Europeans and their constant quest for domination.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 08:22

I know a man from Pondicherry whose name would normally be written in English as "Bhuvanarakshagan" or perhaps "Bhuvanarakshakan". The name is Sanskrit in origin (I am guessing bhu-vana-rakshak-an - "earth-forest-protector") but Tamil does not have the sound "bh". Just "b". Again Tamil does not have "ksha" as in "rakshak". Tamil also sort of mixes up "ka" and "g".

So when you try to write this man's Tamil pronunciation of a Sanskrit name in English you get "Bhuvanarashagan". An English reader (non Indian/Brit/American) would read this as "Bheh-van-ar-asha-gan" which sounds nothing like the original

Fortunately. the Pondians speak French as well and French is a far more strict language than English when it comes to pronunciation. the name spelt by French speakers is "Bouvanaratchagane" (this was how the name was spelt originally). Any person who knows French would pronounce this name in a way that sounds far more like the original. Not exact, but better than English. "Boo-vunner-rutcha-gun" would be the closest spelling in English, to make an English reader get the pronunciation right

Bhu-vana-rakshak-an (for BRFites familar with Indic langauges)
Boo-vunner-rutcha-gun (for native English speakers)
Bouvanaratchagane (Tamil-French original)

When you take one language and transcribe words into another script and then take that transcription and write it into a third script the chances of errors in sounds and pronunciation are extremely high.

When you take a mystery language (called Tocharian) and transcribe it into Sanskrit and then to Turkish, and then surmise the actual sounds from Turkish, the likelihood of errors are very high.

When you take a mystery "indo-European" language spoken by the extinct Hurrian people and find a transcription of that language in the archaic, extinct cuneiform script and then translate that cuneiform script using rules that were found to translate then, you are very likely to have huge errors.

In every case the pronunciation can only be a guess. Pronunciation is all about voice and tongue positions in the mouth. When you guess the pronunciation, you are guessing the tongue position in the mouth.

disha · Post by **disha** » 08 Jun 2012 08:42

ManishH wrote:We can conclude - the people were familiar with chariotry and wheeled vehicle technology before wide dispersal.

ManishH'ji - was a whole chariot found? Can you tell us what exactly was found from the grave and what was inferred?

And in every language, the language comes first and then the song (and you agreed to that in one of the previous pages). Another question, do you know what A. R. Rehman (or insert your favourite musician/poet/lyricist) is composing now?

Since the SIVC (Saraswati-Indus Valley Civilization) was vast - how did the composers get together to compose the RgVeda? Did one person compose and made it into a ritual? Or was it collectively composed? If it was collective - how did they get together? Who commissioned them to compose? One king? Several kings? My point is that the lay people were travelling around and trading goods for horse (for example) since that was the most exotic thing not widely available within the SIVC complex and that led the composers to add hymns on auspicious occassions. The traders from the SIVC spread the language and the composers created the hymns and both of it was a parallel process and not serial as most of linguists lead us to believe.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 08 Jun 2012 08:51

I was told by my mother that, her grand mother wouldn't pronounce 'ta', she would say 'sha' this is the case I was told of people born around 1900 and earlier. If you watch a very old telugu movie 'Kanyasulkam' one can see the usage of 'sha' instead of 'ta' of these days. Now a days you will hardly find anyone who says 'sha' instead of 'ta'. Anyone who has observed this in telugu can corroborate or please correct me.
Now if an European takes a current telugu book and studies pronunciation of telugu words, he will not find the 'sha' anymore, it's lost. This is a change in say in just last 100 years. Now think about how sounds might have changed from verbal transition of vedas to the time it was written. And that has formed the basis for tying Sanskrit with PIE.

disha · Post by **disha** » 08 Jun 2012 08:53

shiv wrote: Bhu-vana-rakshak-an (for BRFites familar with Indic langauges)
Boo-vunner-rutcha-gun (for native English speakers)
Bouvanaratchagane (Tamil-French original)

Mulligatawny => English (As in http://www.soupsong.com/rchickn5.html)
Mozhgatanni => Tamizh (heck cannot even write it properly without writing it in Tamizh Script)

For others, the above is the heavenly Rasam.

B'ji.,

The word "kud"=>"to jump" is used in Hindi as part of "Khel-kud" lit. "play-jump".

Further, in Gujarati - the words "KudkO Maryo" meaning to "(Person) made a Jump or Jumped"., and is the only instance where the sound "dk" occurs. Something interesting.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 08:54

Wiki on Chariots - specifically "ratha"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratha

The chariot must not necessarily be regarded as a marker for Indo-European or Indo-Iranian presence.[3] According to Raulwing, it is an undeniable fact that only comparative Indo-European linguistics is able to furnish the methodological basics of the hypothesis of a "PIE chariot", in other words: "Ausserhalb der Sprachwissenschaft winkt keine Rettung![4]"[5][6]

There are a few depictions of chariots among the petroglyphs in the sandstone of the Vindhya range. Two depictions of chariots are found in Morhana Pahar, Mirzapur district. One shows a team of two horses, with the head of a single driver visible. The other one is drawn by four horses, has six-spoked wheels, and shows a driver standing up in a large chariot-box. This chariot is being attacked, with a figure wielding a shield and a mace standing at its path, and another figure armed with bow and arrow threatening its right flank. It has been suggested (Sparreboom 1985:87) that the drawings record a story, most probably dating to the early centuries BC, from some center in the area of the Ganges–Yamuna plain into the territory of still neolithic hunting tribes. The drawings would then be a representation of foreign technology, comparable to the Arnhem Land Aboriginal rock paintings depicting Westerners. The very realistic chariots carved into the Sanchi stupas are dated to roughly the 1st century.

The earliest chariot remains that have been found in India (at Atranjikhera) has been dated to between 350 and 50 BCE.[9] It is also highly unlikely that a perishable item like the chariot could have been preserved in the Indian climate since Harappan times.[10] There is evidence of wheeled vehicles (especially miniature models) in the Indus Valley Civilization, but not of chariots.[11]

Indus valley sites have offered several instances of evidence of spoked wheels. Prof. B.B.Lal[12] has irrevocably proved with convincing specimens the existence and use of spoked wheel chariots in Harappan Civilization. Bhirrana excavations 2005-06.[13] Bhagwan Singh[14] had made a similar assertion and S.R.Rao had had presented evidence of chariots in bronze models from Daimabad (Late Harappan). This aspect appears to have been overlooked.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 08 Jun 2012 09:26

shiv wrote: Would you be able to say why terminology for horse, wagon and chariotry are so important to "Indo-European" languages. What is so important about these things? Why is the presence of archaeoogical evidence of horse, wheel and chariotry so important to the study of these languages?

This is the importance ...
0. Horses were revered and connected with deities in almost all IE branches
1. Wagons/chariots leave dateable traces in the archaeological record which can be correlated to vocabulary.
2. Domesticated horses leave dateable traces in the archaeological record.
3. A domesticated horse allows people to move significant distances in one lifetime.
4. The domesticated horse in steppes was a precursor to greater warfare. The mobility brought more people into conflict. This is evidenced by co-incidence of greater weapon production (arrowheads) and standardized weapon production (arrows and shaft of same size - that can be reused; as against custom made arrows)

Without a well dated evidence, there is no use of blindfolded linguistic speculation. And without establishing a linguistic relation, one cannot claim common origins for these branches.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 08 Jun 2012 09:29

venug wrote:
The term used is 'well reconstructed'

Manish ji, but where? in PIE? in a conjecture ?

Even if one does not believe in PIE, one can see that they follow a definite pattern.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 08 Jun 2012 09:45

RajeshA wrote:
"What is the basis for considering that these Proto-IE people themselves were responsible for domesticating the horse, and even if they were, that they did it in their original homeland?"

As I've said in this post,
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1293202
domestication is not necessary, but a common name before dispersal is.

So I'm saying there are these possible sequences:
0. PIE originates in India, the horse is imported from steppes, the united PIE speaking people give it a name. And every IE branch that moves out of India, moves out only after the horse has been archaeologically attested in India (2100-1700BC). This requires a domesticated horse, since wild horses on their own cannot cross hindukush into india.
1. PIE speaking people see the horse in the steppes, have a name for it, but do not domesticate it, and just disperse.
2. PIE speaking people see the horse in the steppe, domesticate it, develop some form of chariotry, then disperse.

As you know, #0 contradicts with the well publicized OIT chronology (RgVeda in 5000BC, Mahabharata in 3000 BC).

Between #1, and #2, the importance of horse and chariotry in all IE branches favours #2.

disha · Post by **disha** » 08 Jun 2012 09:53

^^^ManishH'ji So you are using OIT chronology to support AIT/AMT !!

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 08 Jun 2012 09:55

venug wrote:Since Manish ji is so well versed with linguistics, it will be of great help if he can actually tell us if he agrees with so many people calling PIE a conjecture.

PIE is a hypothesis. It's common misconception that PIE has been fixed in colonial era and never changed. The hypothesis has changed as greater understanding of human phonetics, epigraphic and archaeological evidence emerged.

He will help us immensely if he could shed light on his view about why PIE is not a conjecture.

If PIE was based on pure triangulation of phonemes, it could be called conjecture. The conclusions of PIE have no value without corroboration from archaeology and epigraphy.

I also wonder about the script of this PIE. Does it have a script else is it passed verbally?

Human languages have existed even before scripts were invented. Eg. Vedic has existed at least for 1,500 years before the first epigraphs in Sanskrit emerged.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 08 Jun 2012 09:55

disha wrote:^^^ManishH'ji So you are using OIT chronology to support AIT/AMT !!

Nope evaluating various sequences that can fit the data we have. I'd like to see y our evaluation too.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 08 Jun 2012 10:30

ManishH wrote: 0. PIE originates in India, the horse is imported from steppes, the united PIE speaking people give it a name. And every IE branch that moves out of India, moves out only after the horse has been archaeologically attested in India (2100-1700BC). This requires a domesticated horse, since wild horses on their own cannot cross hindukush into india.

From
THE HORSE EVIDENCE

Meanwhile, in several Harappan sites remains of horses have been found. Even supporters of the AIT have admitted that the horse was known in Mohenjo Daro, near the coast of the Arabian Sea (let alone in more northerly areas), in 2500 BC at the latest.30 But the presence of horses and even domesticated horses has already been traced further back: horse teeth at Amri, on the Indus near Mohenjo Daro, and at Rana Ghundai on the Panjab-Baluchistan border have been dated to about 3,600 BC. The latter has been interpreted as indicating “horse-riding invaders”31, but that is merely an application of invasionist preconceptions. More bones of the true and domesticated horse have been found in Harappa, Surkotada (all layers including the earliest), Kalibangan, Malvan and Ropar.32 Recently, bones which were first taken to belong to onager specimens, have been identified as belonging to the, domesticated horse (Kuntasi, near the Gujarat coast, dated to 2300 BC). Superintending archaeologist Dr. A.M. Chitalwala comments: “We may have to ask whether the Aryans (…) could have been Harappans themselves. (…) We don’t have to believe in the imports theory anymore.”33

So the horse has been in India from atleast 3600 BC.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 08 Jun 2012 12:07

brihaspati wrote: Maybe it will be good for all of us here, if you state the texts you are using.

Had already given the references ...
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1283311

I found it surprising that you are using the specifically "follow" meaning for sacate, while it is known that sacate is used for many more and different senses - including accompany, "to go to", assist, to be with, etc. Then a little exploration provided the reason - it is the standard selective meaning used in PIE-outside-India lobby texts, while remaining absolutely silent about the other meanings and uses of sacate.

No one denies these usages. And these various meanings also exist in non-Sanskrit branches. eg. Latin has sequor (I follow) secus (after).

And in Lithuanian, 'sekti' (follow) and 'kelti' (transfer somewhere) are just as well related as Sanskrit 'saćati' (follow) and 'ćalati' (move).

Such widespread patterns of roots and their derivative verbs and nouns can only indicate a common origin for these languages. Not an "innate human tendency to come up with similar sounding words" theory that you have expounded earlier in the thread.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 08 Jun 2012 12:33

disha wrote: ManishH'ji - was a whole chariot found? Can you tell us what exactly was found from the grave and what was inferred?

From Anthony's book:

Today most authorities credit the invention of the chariot to Near East-
ern societies around 1900-1800 BCE . Until recently, scholars believed that
the chariots of the steppes post-dated those of the Near East.
...
The increasing amount of information about chariot graves in the steppes
since about 1992 has challenged this orthodox view. The archaeological
evidence of steppe chariots survives only in graves where the wheels were
placed in slots that had been dug into the grave floors. The lower parts of
the wheels left stains in the earth as they rotted (see figure 15.13). These
stains show an outer circle of bent wood 1-1.2 m in diameter with ten to
twelve square-sectioned spokes. There is disagreement as to the number of
clearly identified chariot graves because the spoke imprints are faint, but
even the conservative estimate yields sixteen chariot graves in nine ceme-
teries. All belonged to either the Sintashta culture in the Ural-Tobol steppes
or the Petrovka culture east of Sintashta in northern Kazakhstan

Figure 15.13 Chariot grave at Krivoe Ozero, kurgan 9, grave 1, dated about 2000 BCE: (1-3) three typical Sintashta pots; (5-6) two pairs of studded disk cheek-pieces made of antler; (4) a bone and a flint projectile point; (7-8) a waisted bronze dagger and a Rat bronze axe; (9-10) spoked wheel impressions from wheels set into slots in the floor of the grave;

Also visible are skulls of two horses and skeleton of one human. Individual chariot gear like cheek-pieces, whip handles have been found since 2700 BC on the eurasian steppe. But this is the first finding of a full chariot - with spoked wheels, weapons, horse steering apparatus.

Since the SIVC (Saraswati-Indus Valley Civilization) was vast - how did the composers get together to compose the RgVeda? Did one person compose and made it into a ritual? Or was it collectively composed?

There were individual family compilations which were combined (saṃhita) to form the whole RgVeda corpus. Then there are some pieces which do not belong to hereditary families, but are composed by individual seers. This did not require every one to learn all of the RgVeda before it was collected and indexed in saṃhita form.

ukumar · Post by **ukumar** » 08 Jun 2012 12:44

ManishH wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
"What is the basis for considering that these Proto-IE people themselves were responsible for domesticating the horse, and even if they were, that they did it in their original homeland?"
As I've said in this post,
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1293202
domestication is not necessary, but a common name before dispersal is.

So I'm saying there are these possible sequences:
0. PIE originates in India, the horse is imported from steppes, the united PIE speaking people give it a name. And every IE branch that moves out of India, moves out only after the horse has been archaeologically attested in India (2100-1700BC). This requires a domesticated horse, since wild horses on their own cannot cross hindukush into india.
1. PIE speaking people see the horse in the steppes, have a name for it, but do not domesticate it, and just disperse.
2. PIE speaking people see the horse in the steppe, domesticate it, develop some form of chariotry, then disperse.

As you know, #0 contradicts with the well publicized OIT chronology (RgVeda in 5000BC, Mahabharata in 3000 BC).

Between #1, and #2, the importance of horse and chariotry in all IE branches favours #2.

3. PIE originates in India and migrates to steppe before setteling in europe. After domestication IA import horse to India.
4. PIE is familiar with wild horses. Disperses from India and domesticates horse in Steppe.
5. PIE had a concept of speed and power. IE people independently gave name to horse based on common concept related to speed and power.
6. PIE were in central asia and familiar with wild horse. They came to India before domestication in early harappan time and later trade imported domesticatd horses in India.

It is not necessary for PIE to take the horses with them. So you can't use absense of horse as a proof of absense of IE people. In other words if Saraswati proves that IA were in Harappa you can't disprove it by absense of horse.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 08 Jun 2012 12:45

I notice ManishH ji, Spoked Wheel Chariots, (hereinafter refered to as ‘SWC’) are the bestest warfare tool to you.

But to me even that is so fraught with unfounded assumptions. Sirji massed troops as well as loosely grouped troops have already outlasted SWC, in case you have not noticed and this remained the case right upto the time of Machine Guns that preceeded Tanks.

Coincidently there are on the net, amateurish accounts of SWC being = = Tanks.

As you may well have guessed by now I am a novice even at warfare tactics exactly like Linguistics, Philosophy and many more things. And inspite of that to me these flimsy spindly spoked wheels using 2 horses at least to carry one shooter look like a stupid idea even in the Tank terrains of present day Pakistan.

Firstly you carry more horses and charioteer than fighters/bowmen. Now to make sure the mounted bowman is rendered useless, the opposing SDRE infantry man has the added benefit of shooting down either of the two horses and one charioteer and even aiming for the Spoked wheels which unlike the solid wheels allow a lot of unglibazi. Small bodies of bowmen can easily triangulate a few stupid chariots. Lets assume the opponent is ill trained and loosely throwing spears, these spears don’t even have to penetrate anything to cause damage. The kinetic energy of the oncoming chariot will be enough to enable even a loosely thrown spear to do its damage without any penetration. To avoid this the charioteer will have to avoid coming direct at these ill trained SDRE foot soldiers. But that takes away the very basic assumption of SWC being revolutionary fighting vehicle out to destroy foot soldiers. Chalo let us move ahead. Now you charioteer decides to make a run such that it allows your bowmen the full advantage of targeting his opponents while at the same time exposing himself the least. No direct charge, only sideways movement in the face of a Phalanx. Not an unknown tactic. That would be better for you. Right? Wrong. Now the whole opposing force will be able to shoot their arrows at the chariots all at once while the mounted warrior just shoots a few arrows since he is moving fast and will probably end his run faster than he can draw enough arrows. Also because he is moving exactly how accurate he can be remains to be seen. This much just in the plains. In the badlands of persent day Waziristan even air mobile cavalry has barely managed to take care of Taliban and Taliban has outlasted the world’s only Superpower. In mountain passes these SWC will be cut up like halal meet with absolutely zero chances of retaliation. Humri na mano sainya Rohitvats ji se poocho.

Following are just some of the requirements that I can figure out to carry out a successful SWC based attack:
1. A small easily dispersible infantry on the opposing side.
2. Opposing side must be stupidly trained so they do not present a Phalanx formation pointing their spears outwards.
3. Opposing infantry must be poor at archery.
4. No fighting on mountain passes.
5. No night time raids expected from guerrilla fighters.
6. A lot of grass available for the horses, a lot of food for the warriors in case a siege of some ‘Dravidian Puras’ is required and also a lot of water.
7. A lot of spare Spoked Wheels for the SWC else a lot of easily available workmen to take care of maintenance work.
Basically just raiding of settlements that have only women and children in them.

Sir all this when the benefit of bows and arrows is allowed to charioteers. If you bring in mounted warriors with just the skirmish weapons. I strongly doubt if you even want to go there. In such a scenario even a farmer trying to save himself using his Phawada at the horse is a big danger. Even here what you require is a raiding party scenario.

And all this assuming the Madrasis are not able to reproduce faster than the killings. I hope you realize India has been the most populace country in the world almost forever and it required carving out of Pakistan and Bangladesh to ensure its population falls behind a little. There have been raids by Ghazini and kins but the damn Madrasis outlasted them too.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Jun 2012 13:52

ManishH wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
"What is the basis for considering that these Proto-IE people themselves were responsible for domesticating the horse, and even if they were, that they did it in their original homeland?"
As I've said in this post,
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1293202
domestication is not necessary, but a common name before dispersal is.

So I'm saying there are these possible sequences:
0. PIE originates in India, the horse is imported from steppes, the united PIE speaking people give it a name. And every IE branch that moves out of India, moves out only after the horse has been archaeologically attested in India (2100-1700BC). This requires a domesticated horse, since wild horses on their own cannot cross hindukush into india.
1. PIE speaking people see the horse in the steppes, have a name for it, but do not domesticate it, and just disperse.
2. PIE speaking people see the horse in the steppe, domesticate it, develop some form of chariotry, then disperse.

As you know, #0 contradicts with the well publicized OIT chronology (RgVeda in 5000BC, Mahabharata in 3000 BC).

Between #1, and #2, the importance of horse and chariotry in all IE branches favours #2.

#0 Whatever archaeological evidence we have found on horse domestication and use in the Steppes give one single data point on chronology - the latest point in time from whence onward horse was domesticated by man in some part of the world. It says nothing on the earliest point. In order to determine the earliest time, all one can use really is

a) When did man evolve.
b) When did horse evolve.
c) When did horse and man start cohabiting in the same region.

There has been human presence in Siberia and Eurasian Northeast from 41,000 BP. By 30,000 BP there were humans around Lake Baikal. So basically humans and horses have been cohabiting the Steppes at least since the last 25 kya.

So just because the scientists find the latest domestication time, does not mean they have the earliest domestication time. There was plenty of time for domesticated horse to have found its way to the Indian Subcontinent before Rig Veda was composed.

Horse domestication may have been nothing more than as a source of milk. It does not need to be shown that people were riding chariots 10,000 years ago or had invented stirrups by then.

As for archaeological finds of horses in India, well archaeology in India is still in its infancy and has not really taken off as yet. We may still find it. Secondly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 15:48

ManishH wrote: 2. Domesticated horses leave dateable traces in the archaeological record.
3. A domesticated horse allows people to move significant distances in one lifetime.
4. The domesticated horse in steppes was a precursor to greater warfare. The mobility brought more people into conflict. This is evidenced by co-incidence of greater weapon production (arrowheads) and standardized weapon production (arrows and shaft of same size - that can be reused; as against custom made arrows)

Without a well dated evidence, there is no use of blindfolded linguistic speculation. And without establishing a linguistic relation, one cannot claim common origins for these branches.

Manishji all these points are 100% true, but there are several questions that stem from this:

1. On the question of dating and how much a man can travel on horseback The problem as I see it is that most of the "dating" that is done is often +/- 500 years. And for much of that "indo-European" history no dates are known at all with an accuracy of less than 500 years

Now when you take such huge upper end inaccuracies and look at the other end and say a horse or man can travel so far in a lifetime one comes across a simple fact.Unless one has a string of horses to change a man may at most travel 50 km a day. Assume he travels 15 days a month for 10 months a year. You find the man can travel 7500 km in a year and 300,000 km in a lifetime of 40 years.

Compare with a man who walks say 100 km per month (3 km a day) for 10 months a year . In a lifetime of 40 years this man will cover, 40,000 km. In other words whether it is a man walking or a horse you can travel around the world in a lifetime. So the point about travel in a lifetime is a meaningless data point when it comes to the spread of language.

Man or horseback a migration of 1000 km in a lifetime is big. And relatively easy. No need for a horse. Migration is not necessarily hastened by a horse. Invasion might be though.

2. If you are talking about warfare, yes the horse certainly offers great advantages. But when you talk about horses, chariots and bows and arrows and victors in war you are leaving aside the possibility of peaceful spread entirely. It is typical of "Invasion/domination" theories to talk of how war took over some place. But the possibility of spread without war gets no attention here. Since there is no direct proof it gets little attention.

Having said that I suppose a lot of arrow heads must have survived from Vedic times. You have a militant race moving fast on horses and chariots and winning wars and dominating surely there must be some archaeological evidence of those wars in India. Arrow heads at least? They don't rot away like bones and wood. In the absence of such evidence how can anyone say any wars took place in India in Vedic times? No horse. No arrow heads. No chariots. Only the words of poets? But those Rig Vedic poets are supposed to be singing about the steppes they came from with their horses and chariots, not about India.

So what is the connection between the Rig Veda in India and the steppes? Was there no invasion? if they came on horses where is the evidence? If they were singing about the steppes in Sanskrit, why does Sanskrit not occur in the steppes . After all poetry does retain language very well for millennia (according to you) . If the people of the steppes were singing about their lives as they rode on horseback to India why did their language change to Sanskrit in India?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Jun 2012 16:31

Don't we have pics depicting Krishna charioteering 5 horses in the Mahabharatha? If that is 3000 BC..what does it indicate?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Jun 2012 17:11

harbans ji,

For AIT proponents all it indicates is that some creative artist painted a nice scenery of a mythical hero, of whom there is no historical record, just popular mythology, sort of Harry Potter like. If at all another imposter called Krishna appeared in 228 AD, and he was riding descendants of horses that Alexander the GREAT forgot to take back with him to Macedonia.

Krishna actually could not drive a chariot because due to a mutation, his lineage just had three fingers on their right hand. Excavations near Mathura have recovered a skeleton with only three fingers.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 08 Jun 2012 17:18

I think we should go easy on the dates of Vedas.

If we believe other scriptures then there is nothing wrong in believing Matsya Avatar which is considered to be much earlier to Rama avatar. And we do have temples for Matysa Avatar, one near Tirupati, IIRC. Matsya Avatar saved Vedas as per scriptures.

In my belief 5000 BC or 3000 BC dating for Vedas just like throwing some date. Existence of Vedas could be much longer

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 08 Jun 2012 17:25

harbans ji, they dont agree with such dates. Further an evidence like depiction of Lord Krishna acting as Saarathi can admittedly be a work of fraud.

However, It seems that as on the day when the astronomical data was first made available to doubting thomases, the Brahmins of the time were incapable of effectively falsifying it. And inspite of that the observations work out to a date in that ballpark period. And even if you back calculate using the then existing Brahmin knowledge, there is just no way to arrive as such astronomical observations. Basically if the Old timers had lied then they would have been caught. Now since we all do agree that almost all the Ancient Indic works were being worked upon over a long period to time. So different observations cropping up in different sections of these works is not so unimaginable.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/arti ... onomy.html

Against this modernist opinion, Bailly and Playfair had already shown that the position of the moon (the fastest-moving "planet", hence the hardest to back-calculate with precision) at the beginning of Kali-Yuga, 18 February 3102, as given by Hindu tradition, was accurate to 37'.9 Either the Brahmins had made an incredibly lucky guess, or they had recorded an actual observation on Kali Yuga day itself.
.
.
.
Richard L. Thompson claims that in Indian literature and inscriptions, there are a number of datelines expressed in Kali-Yuga which are older than the Christian era (and a fortiori older than the 6th century AD).10 More importantly, Thompson argues that the Jyotisha-shâstras (treatises on astronomy and, increasingly, astrology, starting in the 14th century BC with the Vedanga Jyotisha as per its own astronomical data, but mostly from the first millennium AD) are correct in mentioning this remarkable conjunction on that exact day, for there was indeed a conjunction of sun, moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Ketu and Revati.
.
.
.
If the Hindu astronomers had simply been going over their astronomical tables looking for an exceptional conjunction, they could have found more spectacular ones than the one on 18 February 3102 BC.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 17:32

Data points as pushed on us so far by the Arya of history
1. India has no (very few) horse bones/chariot remains that can be dated back to the Rig Veda
2. The early Rig Veda has few place names suggesting a nomadic people
3. Poets and poetry are great at retaining memories of an old language
4. The poems early Rig Veda probably refers to people describing their place of origin in the Central Asian steppes, which have archaeological remains of domesticated horses and chariots as referred to in the early Rig Veda

Questions:
1. If poetry preserves language and the Rig Veda is about the steppes of Central Asia, then Sanskrit was the language of that region.
2. If Sanskrit did was not spoken in those steppes, why is the poetry of those people in Sanskrit?

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 08 Jun 2012 18:24

If one accepts that Rig Veda was composed in India at least around 3500BCE, as one can at least track the mention of Saravasti river or other rivers like Indus, Yamuna etc from following verses:

The late Rigvedic Nadistuti sukta enumerates all important rivers from the Ganges in the east up to the Indus in the west in a clear geographical order. Here (RV 10.75.5), the sequence "Ganges, Yamuna, Sarasvati, Shutudri" places the Sarasvati between the Yamuna and the Sutlej, which is consistent with the Ghaggar .

RV 3.23.4 mentions the Sarasvati River together with the Drsadvati River and the Āpayā River. RV 6.52.6 describes the Sarasvati as swollen (pinvamānā) by the rivers (sindhubhih).

One can place the composition of Rig veda in Vedic India. If that is accepted then consider the following verses regarding rathas:

The Rigvedic chariots are described as made of Salmali (RV 10.85.20), Khadira and Simsapa (RV 3.53.19).

In RV 6.61.13, the Sarasvati river is described as being big like a chariotof the Rigvedic chariot . Measurements for the chariot are found in the Shulba Sutras. The number of wheels varies. A similar term in the Rigveda is Anas (often translated as "cart").[1]

Points to note:
1. Salmali is a tree
2. Khadira is a tree too
3. Simsapa too is a tree

So firstly rathas if you want to call them chariots are mentioned in the Rig Veda, and are made from bio degradable materials like wood, which in all likelyhood wouldn't have withstood decomposition in Indian weather that too thousands of years. Now if one doesn't take into consideration this aspect and still question why there are very few archeological evidence of 'chariots' it is but intellectual dishonesty.

And also no one out of wild imagination describes with what materials the rathas were made from and give detailed design of wheel geometry in Sulbha Sutras. That means Vedic Indians had the technology to make rathas, obviously wheels too, even to this day, carts driven by ox or horses in India are made from wood predominantly.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 08 Jun 2012 18:29

Can we have this thread archived at some point? It will help people like me with little time to go through it sometime opportune.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 08 Jun 2012 20:42

brihaspati wrote: Why did Latin keep the hypothesized "labiovelar", and Greek lost the "velar" onlee? Why Sanskrit lost the labial?

Different development in different children of a parent language is nothing extra-ordinary. See:
Latin aqua > French eau, but Spanish agua
Latin pluvia > French pluie, but Spanish lluvia
Latin nubes > French nuage, but Spanish nube

so unpredictably and wildly differing in their sound changes?

Humans are conditioned by their a) whims and b) environment.

Why would Sanskrit with such strong tradition of strict intergenerational maintenance of oral rendition accuracy of pronunciation suddenly start this practice after coming to India to maintain this strangely altered corruption of its ancestral usage?

The techniques to retain sounds with low corruption were developed only after RgVeda. Actually, even in RgVeda, metrical evidence shows us that there were distortions - it's unequalled, but not a perfect system.

You need three extra rules : it happens in X ways for Greek, Y ways for Latin, and Z ways for Sanskrit.

As long as they have a semblance of regularity, this is nothing extra-ordinary. See development of words that Spanish and French loaned from Latin.

To explain the differences you need as many rules as the number of differences.

Nope, only as many rules as branches and known phonetic affect of vowels on adjacent consonants.

As for inscriptional "proof" of labiovelars - labiovelars are an assumed phonetic category, dependent crucially on how they are supposedly pronounced. Inscriptions on the other hand provide symbols that supposedly represent sounds. It takes some leap of imagination and faith to claim inscriptions as proofs of labiovelars.

There is wide agreement that the Mycenaean Greek symbol in question was a labiovelars. Some arguments for that are ...

- In the Mycenaean inscriptions, the symbol used to transcribe the disyllabic sound 'k-w' is often same as that used to transcribe unisyllabic labiovelar 'kʷ'.
- In Mycenaean inscriptions, the same symbol appears where later epic Greek uses a labial, palatalized dental, or a velar. Just as reconstructed by PIE.

Even if all specialists like Chadwick, Ventris and Sihler who have analyzed Minoan Inscriptions and Linear A, B syllabaries are incorrect, and you are right, they cannot be Sanskrit's palatal 'ć' because:

The cognates where Sanskrit always has 'ć', the Mycenaean inscriptions sometimes have the aforesaid labiovelar symbol (q) and sometimes a pure velar.

Myc. a-pi-qo-lo for Epic Greek amphipolos where as sanskrit has 'abhićara'
Myc. qo-u-ko-lo for Epic greek boukolos whereas sanskrit has 'goćara'

Again correctly predicted by PIE reconstruction laws of dissimilation.

If you check Sanskrit cognates, they are abhićara and goćara respectively. Now Sanskrit 'ć' cannot be represented by Linear-B script's 'q' as well as 'k'.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 08 Jun 2012 20:59

Skin Color

Another important and interesting point discussed on IF (India-forum) is SLC24A5 gene that is responsible for skin color, apparently this gene mutation brought about the white skin color in Europeans:
From wiki:

Sodium/potassium/calcium exchanger 5 (NCKX5) also known as solute carrier family 24 member 5 (SLC24A5) is a protein that in humans is encoded by the SLC24A5 gene that has a major influence on natural skin colour variation Sequence variation in the SLC24A5 gene, particularly a non-synomyous SNP changing the amino acid at position 111 in NCKX5 from alanine to threonine, has been associated with differences in skin pigmentation.

SLC24A5 appears to have played a key role in the evolution of light skin in humans of European ancestry.

The threonine allele was present in 98.7 to 100% among several European samples, while the alanine form was found in 93 to 100% of samples of Africans, East Asians and Indigenous Americans.

A111T mutation may be the subject of the single largest degree of selection in human populations of European ancestry. Selection for the derived allele is based on the need for sunlight to produce the essential nutrient, vitamin D. In northerly latitudes, there is less sun, greater requirement for body coverage due to colder climate, and frequently, diets poor in vitamin D, making lighter skin necessary for survival. Tests for this variation has obvious application to forensic science.[/quote]

It has been estimated that the threonine allele became predominant among Europeans 5,300 to 6,000 years ago

So from above what distinguishes white skin from the SDRE skin? presence of threonine. So this when present gives you white color of skin, lack of it makes your skin dark because of melanin pigmentation. So AIT/AMT now prove why European Aryans who displaced dark skinned Indians couldn't completely make Indians' skin white? but only the north Indians have comparatively lighter shades of brown color?

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 08 Jun 2012 21:01

Let us look at other possibilities ...

ukumar wrote: 3. PIE originates in India and migrates to steppe before setteling in europe. After domestication IA import horse to India.

Ok, the post-dispersal horse import theory. In that case, the phonetic relation between 'aśva' and 'ekwos' is unlikely to follow the same two patterns we see in other words that have pre-dispersal origin:

1. Palatalized 'ś' appearing instead of velar 'k'
2. Vowel simplification 'e/o/a' > 'k'

For example, see the examples of post-dispersal imports:
- English 'camera' - does not palatalize and vowel-simplify to hindi शमरा.

A post-dispersal import will show 'odd phonetics'. It won't follow the same phonetic patterns that happen pre-dispersal.

4. PIE is familiar with wild horses. Disperses from India and domesticates horse in Steppe.

Ok. But that would need the horse to be found in India @5000 BC (by conservative estimates). Since OIT says Mahabharata was ~3000 BC and Talageri's book says 2000 BC.

5. PIE had a concept of speed and power. IE people independently gave name to horse based on common concept related to speed and power.

Interesting. But please demonstrate by break it into sanskrit roots. And see if any sanskrit words for speed and power use these roots. Top of my head, speed = त्व , तुवि power = शक्ति. Not a very unique match I can come with because then even the dog (श्वान्) is power and speed.

6. PIE were in central asia and familiar with wild horse. They came to India before domestication in early harappan time and later trade imported domesticatd horses in India.

Very possible. I can't think of anything that would violate this sequence. But then you have left the question open - where does this common language actually originate ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 21:15

ManishH wrote:
6. PIE were in central asia and familiar with wild horse. They came to India before domestication in early harappan time and later trade imported domesticatd horses in India.
Very possible. I can't think of anything that would violate this sequence. But then you have left the question open - where does this common language actually originate ?

Does this mean that PIE came to India and became Sanskrit and after it became Sanskrit the people composed poems of what life was like in PIE lands? Which steppes full of horses and chariots were the Sanskrit speakers singing about? These people waited till Sanskrit was created to write poems about their ancestors' lands in Central Asia? Or did they migrate several thousand km into India on horses in one lifetime, then converted PIE to Sanskrit in that lifetime and then sang about the steppes? This sounds implausible to me. If it takes a few centuries to change PIE to Sanskrit and then develop robust linguistic rules, why did the Rig Veda poems not refer to local events rather than long forgotten Horse/Chariot events?

This business of "imported horses" must be backed up by archaeological evidence of domesticated horses, imported or not. That does not exist, does it? The horses that Sanskrit poets of the Rig Veda were singing about must have been central Asian. But the language was Sanskrit, not PIE. How does that fit in?

tyroneshoes · Post by **tyroneshoes** » 08 Jun 2012 21:22

^^^ Shiv,

Thanks for all the wonderful posts....
On data points - there is a trend on Indians always being on the defensive.
It is not that OIT has to be proved or AIT/AMT has to be disproved...
It is that the composers of the Rig Veda have to be established - you nailed it!

The problem is ManishH is skilled in Linguistics, the rest on this forum I dare say are non-experts in Linguistics (including myself). This means, we are going to produce thread upon thread of parallel conversations - neither conceding...

1. Where there Elephants, Rhinos, Tigers, Lions, Bees, Peacocks, etc (all mentioned in the Rig Veda) in Central Asia?
One TFTA Horse == many SDRE animals? If you've ridden horses you know they are dumber than a dog (thought I love both!)
2. Where are the rivers and fauna/flora (already asked by others) mentioned in the Rig Veda in Central Asia?
3. What was the context for reciting the Rig Veda (it seems to be a period piece - multiple stories over different time periods, not something written in a short span of time)?
These recitations formed part of the sacrifice (Homa), how does one maintain family fire and perform sacrifice (Homa) while riding horseback along Steppes?
4. Who first organized the consonants along the lines of - Velar, Palatal, Retroflex, Dental, Labial?
Every Indian irrespective of language recognizes below (kicks ass in Spelling Bees

):

Velar: k kh g gh ṅ
Palatal: c ch j jh ñ
Retroflex: ṭ ṭh ḍ/ḷ ḍh/ḷh ṇ
Dental: t th d dh n
Labial: p ph b bh m

Interesting that the crappy models built on works of Indian Linguist is being used to prove that they were not from India

5. This terminology for Horse - 'aśva' and 'ekwos' - people moved back and forth. Where is there evidence for dispersal being unidirectional? Neat lines that fit "ideal" models in the classroom? Humans are not static entities...

Descriptive Linguistics, I understand - This is how language works.
Even Prescriptive Linguistics, I understand - I can help fix someone's speech.
Indo-European Linguistics, models and PIE - BS in its pure form.
PIE is perfect NONSCIENCE!

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 08 Jun 2012 22:14

venug wrote:Anyone who has observed this in telugu can corroborate or please correct me.

Several old people in my village (including several of my aunts) still do.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 22:17

I have too many computers at home - more than one per person and not all have microphones so I apologise for doing this minus an illustrative waveform picture of the sound. Maybe later.

I have heard the name "Thiruvananthapuram" being said by native speakers and of course most people will recognise the older ye olde British name "Trivandrum"

Thi-ru-va-nan-tha-pu-ram is 7 syllables
Tri-van-drum is 3

But believe it or not, native speakers say the longer 7 syllable name in almost exactly the same length of time it takes to say Trivandrum. That is 160 milliseconds per syllable in Malayalam and 350 ms per syllable in English. I wanted to show this using a waveform of my own voice. I am not surprised that the Britsh mistook the name for "Trivandrum".

You see, if you say "Thiruvananthapuram" slowly you get to the last part "tha-pur-am"

For "tha" your lips are apart, your tongue is on the roof of your mouth. 160 milliseconds later your mouth must shut and lips purse to make the sound "pa" in puram. 150 ms later your tongue lifts to the roof of the mouth - voices the sound "ra" and then the lips must quickly come together again for "mm" the end sound.

In practice, in normal "fast" speech the tongue and lips simply cannot make these actions completely at that speed. So "thapuram" gets swallowed to produce a sound like "dbrm" You get Thir-vnun-dbrm which sounds pretty much like the 3 syllable "Trivandrum".

The second point is that when people use a foreign alphabet to transcribe their sounds, they often make their own phonetic rules. For example anyone on this forum can read and pronounce the name "Ramesh". But if if you want a native English speaker to get the pronunciation correct you will have to say "Rum-mesh" In fact "Rum-ay-sh" may be better, with Rum rhyming with bum.

So when you have a completely dead language whose script is found, and even if the script is decoded using some known phonetic alphabet there is no guarantee that it is anything like the original. it is necessarily conjecture. The muscles of the tongue and palate require training like any other muscles. A Tamil speaker who says "Kanimozhi" flawlessly will laugh at anyone whose tongue just cannot get itself into the right position to pronounce that unpronounceable "zh". The reason we all have "accents" in a new language is because our brain is making our tongue behave in ways that the original language, new to you, never intended.

So phonetic codification of dead and non existing languages is a serious problem because the way the sound is "seen" by the brain of different language speakers is different. Meanings are lost because languages set up unique brain connections that do not exist in other languages. A person who is fluent in 2-3 languages may have developed the brain connections for all of them. So the subject of phonetics in my opinion is still young. It is not well enough known or developed for people to have created elegant explanations of abstract concepts like "Schroedingers cat" in Physics. There is still a tendency to sink into arcane jargon because no method has been developed to translate the convoluted thinking process of linguists to what the lay person can understand. And that I believe has allowed some pretenders and blackguards to enter the arena and have a field day. Once you throw the jargon around, 99% of people are thrown off track.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 08 Jun 2012 22:21

matrimc garu, thanks, but not many used it these days is it? there is a more 'ta' usage than the utterance of 'sha'. My point being, once the last remnants of this word utterance is gone for ever in record form, how can one know the pronunciation of a word is actually was pronounced as 'sha' not 'ta'? word pronunciation is being linked to PIE, and for that one needs to know how the word is exactly pronounced, lacking the exact word pronunciation could leading to wrong inferences.

Added later:

Shiv garu, that is my point too, lacking records of any kind which exactly replicates the sound said in an alien land in time that is long gone, how exact can this pronunciation be? that by people who cannot pronounce Indian names let alone Vedic Sanskrit? I have a cousin who is a vedic scholar. He told me that some sounds have origin in the nabi (navel) area and how many European languages actually can produce that?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 08 Jun 2012 22:28

Shiv, FYI
http://horsinpersia.blogspot.com/

The breed {Akhal-Teke} became a modern legend in 1935 when several Turkamans completed an 84 day, 4128 km trip from Ashkhabad, Turkmenistan, to Moscow, Russia. This incredible journey, which included 966 km of desert with minimal rations of feed and water, has never been equaled.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 22:32

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv, FYI
http://horsinpersia.blogspot.com/

The breed {Akhal-Teke} became a modern legend in 1935 when several Turkamans completed an 84 day, 4128 km trip from Ashkhabad, Turkmenistan, to Moscow, Russia. This incredible journey, which included 966 km of desert with minimal rations of feed and water, has never been equaled.

50 km per day.

Same as my wild guess. Not wild actually - I had some information to guide me.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2012 22:33

venug wrote:He told me that some sounds have origin in the nabi (navel) area and how many European languages actually can produce that?

Problem is, even you and I do not have the brain connections to understand that.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 08 Jun 2012 22:46

ManishH wrote: This is the importance ...
0. Horses were revered and connected with deities in almost all IE branches
1. Wagons/chariots leave dateable traces in the archaeological record which can be correlated to vocabulary.
2. Domesticated horses leave dateable traces in the archaeological record.
3. A domesticated horse allows people to move significant distances in one lifetime.
4. The domesticated horse in steppes was a precursor to greater warfare. The mobility brought more people into conflict. This is evidenced by co-incidence of greater weapon production (arrowheads) and standardized weapon production (arrows and shaft of same size - that can be reused; as against custom made arrows)

Wiki points out:

There are few clear references to actual horse riding in the Rigveda, most clearly in RV 5.61.2-3, describing the Maruts as riders:

Where are your horses, where the reins? How came ye? how had ye the power? Rein was on nose and seat on back.
The whip is laid upon the flank. The heroes stretch their thighs apart, like women when the babe is born. (trans. Griffith)

According to RV 7.18.19, Dasyu tribes (the Ajas, Shigrus and Yakshus) also had horses. McDonnell and Keith point out that the Rigveda does not describe people riding horses in battle (see Bryant 2001: 117). This is in accord with the usual dating of the Rigveda to the late Bronze Age, when horses played a role as means of transport primarily as draught animals (while the introduction of cavalry dates to the early Iron Age, possibly an Iranian (specifically Parthian) innovation of around the 9th century BC).

RV 1.163.2 mythologically alludes to the introduction of the horse and horseriding:

This Steed which Yama gave hath Trita harnessed, and him, the first of all, hath Indra mounted.
His bridle the Gandharva grasped. O Vasus, from out the Sun ye fashioned forth the Courser. (trans. Griffith)

1. As a traction animal, I would expect oxen to be able to take people significant distances in one lifetime too.

2. If Rg Veda was composed around/before horses were ridden into battle, and post-PIE-dispersal, then the military advantage granted by horses has nothing to do with PIE dispersal, right?

As to point 2., please read through
http://www.igloo.lv/horses/horse_behaviour.pdf